Page 294 of 320 FirstFirst ... 194244284292293294295296304 ... LastLast
Results 2,931 to 2,940 of 3196

Thread: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

  1. #2931
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You're trying too hard to avoid your slip up, doctor. You asked a hypothetical, and you got an answer consistent with various liberal governments, laws passed in liberal states, and views expressed by liberals. You decided to deny the answer based on an issue which had nothing to do with with sexual orientation. You even threw out the "fact" (and I used that term lightly in your case) that your "practice" to back up your rebuttal. What you didn't seem to know is that this issue has been settled in California as well as 14 other liberal states so asking how lefties would handle it makes you seem uneducated about laws in California AS WELL AS laws in other states. It's no sweat. Happens to everyone once in a while to forget information relevant to their field of work.
    Hatuey, there was no slip up, you butted into a conversation in progress and made assumptions.
    Im well familiar with the laws in my state, that was never even part of the discussion-you inferred that.
    In fact, its apparent that you still dont understand this. Keep trying.

  2. #2932
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    01-24-17 @ 10:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    579

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    The fox news anchor is only slightly more informed and rational than his peers. Contributors to Fox (left and right) have badly mangled this issue (as has most everyone else) and made assumptions, claims, and sometimes fell all over themselves to demonstrate their 'inclusiveness' and 'love of diversity'. And I suppose this is understandable, given the level of idiocy and hysteria that has exploded.

    BAIER: Well, Indiana's law is written a little differently. It is more broad. It is different than the federal law that it's close to, but different than, and also different than 19 other states and how the law is written.
    Unfortunately, FOX has handled this issue as poorly as just about every other major news outlet. I've been astounded at the degree of pervasive ignorance and hysterical nonsense that has bloomed among the news reporting class. On one hand there has been the insightful legal analysis provided by law specialists and experts of stature, and on the other hand there has been idiot bloviation and fear mongering by just about everyone else.

    Baier is correct but is incomplete and misleading, it is "written a little differently" than some, and not differently than others. NO RFRA is a duplicate of another, and all have their nuances. BUT those differences, when it comes to issues of gay discrimination, are nearly inconsequential. They are, in contrast, a tad more important when it comes to other issues, such as a Hobby Lobby like case at state level.

    Jonathan Adler, an active attorney on behalf of the Constitutional right to gay marriage, provides a balanced and rational review of Indiana's law. He finds that:

    - Contrary to Tim Cook's hyperbolic and ignorant statements, the claims he (and many others) have made against the new Indiana law are not accurate. Like other RFRAs, this law just requires that state laws meet the test of "a compelling state interest" in the least burdensome way. THAT IS the core of ALL RFRA law. See: Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation. For background on how these laws work:Some Background on Religious Exemption Law - The Volokh Conspiracy

    - Courts have routinely upheld the application of nondiscrimination laws against RFRA-based challenges on the grounds that preventing discrimination is a compelling state interest. Of course it’s possible that a court in the future would reach a different conclusion, but there’s no reason to think such a result is likely, and there is nothing about the Indiana law that makes it a particular threat in this regard (not any more or less than in the 19 other states or through the the federal government).

    - The Indiana RFRA is not identical to every other RFRA, but the textual differences are not particularly material to laws on on-discrimination. See this handy comparison: Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog

    - Some RFRA supporters do hope that such laws will allow individuals or companies to discriminate against homosexuals. But that is not what the text of the Indiana RFRA actually does. That’s important because courts don't apply hopes of a subset of supporters, they apply the text of the law as written. And this debate is somewhat moot in Indiana because it doesn’t have a state law barring sexual orientation discrimination on the books.

    - Although it has yet to happen, could there be a scenario where a state level RFR might result in an individual business owner denying service to a same-sex couple? Perhaps. The most likely scenario would be something like a religious wedding planner refusing to help plan a wedding that violates his or her religious beliefs. But even if so, it nothing like that of the fears of Cook.

    The differences are not especially material to the concerns of the gay lobby, but I will summarize them in a followup post.
    Last edited by maxparrish; 04-01-15 at 01:49 PM.

  3. #2933
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,316

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Hatuey, there was no slip up, you butted into a conversation in progress and made assumptions.
    I made no assumptions. You are welcome to show where I did, right after you're able to say whether the question was about Indiana or a state other California and the part of your question which suggests that.

    Im well familiar with the laws in my state, that was never even part of the discussion-you inferred that.
    No, what I actually said was that the question didn't say anything about any state. It asked what "lefties" would do in such a hypothetical. I and roguenuke responded in accordance with 15 states with liberal majorities. You rebutted with... you... practice?

    In fact, its apparent that you still dont understand this. Keep trying.
    You're dancing, doctor.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #2934
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Even many of the "voters" admit that they were taken in by the rhetoric of ads funded by outside parties that made wild claims about what would happen if same sex couples were able to get married.
    Many voters admit to being taken in by the rhetoric of ads for Obama.
    Those are the rules, you can't play by them until it doesn't suit you.
    Hence the lolz about the butthurt.

    When the left uses the govt to coerce everyone, its "progress".
    When the left isn't happy with the result of govt actions, its time to shriek.

    You have to see how silly that looks.

  5. #2935
    Guru
    HenryChinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chitown
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,811

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    And 30 miles is nothing, right next door in these days of awesome individual transportation and mobility.
    Do you know any elderly or older black folks? If so, ask them about the humiliation, degradation and second class citizenship that was common with the "White's only" "Negro entrance" 'We don't serve coloreds" days. You would be OK going back to that? You find overt discrimination to be a "good thing" for a modern and civilized society? It wasn't that long ago when Sammy Davis Jr could play a hotel but wasn't allowed to stay there. That's the America that you want to live in?
    Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.

  6. #2936
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,420

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    And 30 miles is nothing, right next door in these days of awesome individual transportation and mobility.
    60 miles of carbon emissions for a cake?

    I guess global warming isn't a threat after all
    "Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt

  7. #2937
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,316

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by HenryChinaski View Post
    Do you know any elderly or older black folks? If so, ask them about the humiliation, degradation and second class citizenship that was common with the "White's only" "Negro entrance" 'We don't serve coloreds" days. You would be OK going back to that? You find overt discrimination to be a "good thing" for a modern and civilized society? It wasn't that long ago when Sammy Davis Jr could play a hotel but wasn't allowed to stay there. That's the America that you want to live in?


    Separate but equal was "freedom" too.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #2938
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,420

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Even many of the "voters" admit that they were taken in by the rhetoric of ads funded by outside parties that made wild claims about what would happen if same sex couples were able to get married.
    You mean like fifteen to 20 million voters who found out they couldn't keep they're plan?

    Admitting being fooled and blaming the fooler is kind of like being stupid and blaming the teacher
    "Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt

  9. #2939
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    The fox news anchor is only slightly more informed and rational than his peers. Contributors to Fox (left and right) have badly mangled this issue (as has most everyone else) and made assumptions, claims, and sometimes fell all over themselves to demonstrate their 'inclusiveness' and 'love of diversity'. And I suppose this is understandable, given the level of idiocy and hysteria that has exploded.



    Unfortunately, FOX has handled this issue as poorly as just about every other major news outlet. I've been astounded at the degree of pervasive ignorance and hysterical nonsense that has bloomed among the news reporting class. On one hand there has been the insightful legal analysis provided by law specialists and experts of stature, and on the other hand there has been idiot bloviation and fear mongering by just about everyone else.

    Baier is correct but is incomplete and misleading, it is "written a little differently" than some, and not differently than others. NO RFRA is a duplicate of another, and all have their nuances. BUT those differences, when it comes to issues of gay discrimination, are nearly inconsequential. They are, in contrast, a tad more important when it comes to other issues, such as a Hobby Lobby like case at state level.

    Jonathan Adler, an active attorney on behalf of the Constitutional right to gay marriage, provides a balanced and rational review of Indiana's law. He finds that:

    - Contrary to Tim Cook's hyperbolic and ignorant statements, the claims he (and many others) have made against the new Indiana law are not accurate. Like other RFRAs, this law just requires that state laws meet the test of "a compelling state interest" in the least burdensome way. THAT IS the core of ALL RFRA law. See: Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation. For background on how these laws work:Some Background on Religious Exemption Law - The Volokh Conspiracy

    - Courts have routinely upheld the application of nondiscrimination laws against RFRA-based challenges on the grounds that preventing discrimination is a compelling state interest. Of course it’s possible that a court in the future would reach a different conclusion, but there’s no reason to think such a result is likely, and there is nothing about the Indiana law that makes it a particular threat in this regard (not any more or less than in the 19 other states or through the the federal government).

    - The Indiana RFRA is not identical to every other RFRA, but the textual differences are not particularly material to laws on on-discrimination. See this handy comparison: Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog

    - Some RFRA supporters do hope that such laws will allow individuals or companies to discriminate against homosexuals. But that is not what the text of the Indiana RFRA actually does. That’s important because courts don't apply hopes of a subset of supporters, they apply the text of the law as written. And this debate is somewhat moot in Indiana because it doesn’t have a state law barring sexual orientation discrimination on the books.

    - Although it has yet to happen, could there be a scenario where a state level RFR might result in an individual business owner denying service to a same-sex couple? Perhaps. The most likely scenario would be something like a religious wedding planner refusing to help plan a wedding that violates his or her religious beliefs. But even if so, it nothing like that of the fears of Cook.

    The differences are not especially material to the concerns of the gay lobby, but I will summarize them in a followup post.
    Im going to post some links in response to this-so people can gain some insight into this law, and the history of RFRA.

    Indiana SB 101 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  10. #2940
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    You mean like fifteen to 20 million voters who found out they couldn't keep they're plan?

    Admitting being fooled and blaming the fooler is kind of like being stupid and blaming the teacher
    In the context of this law, its particularly ironic.
    The left introduced RFRA, and this bill was an unintended consequence of that.

    They dont like the results, so now they are up in arms.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •