Page 37 of 50 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 494

Thread: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

  1. #361
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post

    There is no mistaking, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They are being rejected by Christians, for being who they are, no matter the nuanced language.
    IMO it is a conscious and hypocritical choice for 99% of those claiming they are doing any type of discrimination based on religious belief.

    Because how many bakers or photographers refuse to bake cakes or take pics of the weddings of adulterers? Or fornicators? Because almost everyone sleeps with their fiances before the wedding, even lives with them these days. And I'm sure there are many cases, esp. in small towns, where these service providers are aware of cheaters.

    Very very few who believe that these are very serious sins, on par (according to the Bible) with homosexuality are refusing service to the other sinners. But they are CHOOSING to refuse service only to the gay "sinners."
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  2. #362
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,208

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    I wasn't saying that society has to order itself so that no one feels rejected. I was explaining in the least and most human terms what, "We in good conscience cannot provide service" means to an LGBT person, to refute the innocence of that statement
    A hearer's emotional reaction to a statement =/= the intent of the speaker. That sentence can indeed be spoken in all innocence, regardless of how it is taken.

    My first point in all of this was that some Christian business owners want the right to discriminate against people for being who they are
    For example, if I were to be offended by this statement, and argue that you are demonizing Christians, that you are expressing rejection and degradation towards people of my faith.

    That wouldn't actually mean that you are guilty of trying to demonize and degrade Christians.

    Christian Business owners are not seeking "the right to discriminate against people who are gay". They are seeking not to be punished for not taking part in their wedding celebrations.

    You minimized it by saying you didn't understand why they just couldn't move on to the next google result.
    Actually, if you'll read that first sentence for Par 3 again, you'll note that I agreed with you that it could be upsetting and hurt. But having to call the next person on the list is the impact, that is the burden that they are actually put under. That burden does not justify trampling people's religious beliefs.

    Cakes and photography are only examples. I don't see how either violates one's religious conscience.
    Perhaps because it's not violating yours. I myself don't really see what the Muslim thing about pork is. But that doesn't mean that because I don't "get" it, I have the right to force them to handle it because I want a sandwich.

    When any business is permitted to discriminate against an individual for their religious beliefs, then any service or product can be denied on that basis. And for small town people, there may not be alternatives.
    then that would be part of the Strict Scrutiny test being applied. You would have to demonstrate that A) yes, the requested good or service really does violate your religious faith (and "because I say so" has not, to my knowledge, ever held up in a US court, which tends to actually inspect the religion being claimed) and B) denial of this particular service/good provider does not deny the individual the ability to access that good or service. Which is, after all, all this law did.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  3. #363
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,208

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    I stand by my assertion. If you wish to take offense though I have been clear I was making a general statement, that's not on me.
    Then you are acting the bigot, smearing entire groups of people, and are no better than those you oppose. I don't personally take offense, but it is sad - I've seen you think and write enough to know that you are smarter than to take those kind of intellectual shortcuts.

    Despite the wordplay, this only supports my point.

    A) You won't permit LGBT persons in church because of who they are.
    That is not true. Homosexuals who refuse to repent and prove hardened to correction are denied membership. Anyone is welcome in Church. My little sister goes to church with me and visa versa whenever we can get together, though we naturally prefer different congregations .

    But that is true of any belief-based organization. If you are a board member of NARAL and you come out in public to declare that Abortion is murder, abortionists need to go to prison, and abortion supporters are the new Holocaust supporters, well, NARAL will probably be revoking your ability to speak on their behalf fairly quickly.

    B) You won't permit them to actively practice their faith, because of who they are.
    They cannot be a member of a belief-based organization if they refuse the beliefs around which the organization is based.

    C) You think they have something to repent for.
    Yes and that makes them just like me. If I refused to repent of (for example) feeding an addiction to pornography, or being verbally abusive to others, or sleeping with my mother, then the result (either repentance and acceptance, or, after multiple intercessions, loss of membership) would equally apply to me.

    Any or all three of these are representations of what I said earlier and this is why I stand by it. Especially C). I won't derail the thread with a religious discussion. If a Christian refuses service in the most flowery terms, A-C are behind it.
    C is. But participation in, and indeed, enablement of, homosexual weddings would be sinful for the Christian - they would be something requiring repentance. Jesus was pretty hard on those who took the easy way out and let others suffer for it.

    They are being denied service for who they are
    No they are not. No one is saying "gays can't eat here" or "gays can't get their automobile serviced here". Christians are simply refusing to take part in their weddings.

    It's who they are and that is unkind/rude/cruel.
    Again, you are ascribing opposition to your motives to those who oppose your means. It's no more supportable than the claim that the only reason you take the position you do is because you are bigoted against Christians and want to stamp Christianity out of the public space.

    There is no mistaking, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They are being rejected by Christians, for being who they are, no matter the nuanced language.
    On the contrary, this is precisely the enactment of the Love The Sinner Hate The Sin rule. You don't hate a sin by celebrating it, and you don't love a sinner by enabling them.

    I used Phelps as an example that there are those who shout ugly things about LGBT persons. Remove them from the discussion, there are still plenty on this board and in out in the world who say awful things about the LGBT community
    Sure, and there are plenty of low-wattage folks on the other side who say awful things about the Christian community.

    Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson partially blaming 9/11 on "gays and lesbians".
    I know you are not going to be able to understand this, but, while I agree that was a completely bonkers argument, it does not actually require hatred to make that statement. They were attempting to apply a Deuteronomistic structure to a calamity.

    I'll post them if you would like, but I don't want to take up the space.
    you could, but you haven't demonstrated an ability/willingness to differentiate between "disagreement" and "hate" on this issue. On the contrary - you have (see first item) rather declared that you do not intend to differentiate.

    The American Family Associate, a lobbying group, said this:

    The Mark of the Beast is Here
    I had no idea they had said this. That is going into a project I am working on - what a beautiful example of hyperbolic stupidity. thank you for that

    They have a page of links to their views on homosexuality, including the belief that homosexuals are broken people.
    Well, that part is true. But, again, understand that, to a Christian, to say that someone is "broken" is merely to say that they are a sinner, which is to say, they are human.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  4. #364
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    29,117

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    This is why having "protected classes" flies in the face of "equal protect under the law".
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #365
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,208

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina
    I wasn't saying that society has to order itself so that no one feels rejected.
    On reflection, if you don't mind, then what does present - in your mind - justification for overriding people's Rights of Conscience. The "hurt and rejected" standard seemed to be pretty blatantly the one you were raising.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  6. #366
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    On reflection, if you don't mind, then what does present - in your mind - justification for overriding people's Rights of Conscience. The "hurt and rejected" standard seemed to be pretty blatantly the one you were raising.
    Racists could also make this claim. They can claim a sincere belief that blacks are lesser and they should not be forced to associate with them. This was also supported by some religious leaders thru misinterpretations (IMO) of the Bible. In your opinion, should racists be allowed to refuse service to a race(s) of their choosing? And btw, I could definitely imagine a black business owner choosing to (or wanting to) refuse service to white people as well.

    If someone chooses to open a public business, they should be aware of the laws they must comply with. If they disagree with them, then they should find another line of work that will not involve a conflict of conscience.

    I understand that SSM is something new that some business owners may not have taken into consideration, but going forward, there should be no question that if you have a business license from the state, you must comply with it. If that includes sexual orientation, as it does in some states, then the business owner must comply.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #367
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    This is why having "protected classes" flies in the face of "equal protect under the law".
    I proposed this earlier, as an interesting experiment. What do you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    As I just wrote, the people...and larger organizations...spoke out and indicated they would remove their business and other activities perhaps, from the state.

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if people were indeed given license to discriminate against serving the people they felt they should not have to do business with.

    They would apply for a different type of business license and then be required to post the group(s) they do not want to serve in a publicly visible place, just like 'no shoes, no shirt, no service.' Like, "we dont serve women here.' Or 'we dont serve Jews here." Or 'we dont serve gays here.' Or 'we dont serve blacks here.'

    That would be perfectly legal with that type of business license. Then we could see if society in general would support these businesses or not. The fewer businesses with similar services/products in competition in an area would affect this as well but I'd be willing to bet people would go out of their way to avoid such businesses if they disagreed with what was posted. I know I would. I do it now regarding 'no guns allowed' signs even when not carrying.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  8. #368
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    05-03-17 @ 07:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,564

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    This is why having "protected classes" flies in the face of "equal protect under the law".
    Religion is a protected class.

    Indiana's RFRA protects a class.


  9. #369
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    If a business owner did not want to perform some service for a homosexual, I doubt a state RFRA would be the strongest basis for denying the service. The Free Exercise Clause is probably not the most applicable part of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court decisions on government-compelled speech--Barnette, Tornillo, Wooley, Hurley--suggest the freedom of speech is a better fit, especially if the service involves expressive speech.

    The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. Speech, for First Amendment purposes, includes all sorts of symbolic expression--for example, flag-burning, cross-burning, or wearing a T-shirt in court that says "F*** the Draft." A law or other government action violates that freedom when it compels a person to propound points of view he does not agree with. The private persons who cater a same-sex wedding, or rent rooms to its guests, or transport them in a limo, are not really expressing any celebration of that wedding by what they do. But where active, creative expression is involved, it may be a different story.

    A public accommodations law that required a person to make an artistic presentation of photographs of a same-sex wedding could easily be seen as unconstitutional compulsion of speech. And although a bakery could probably not refuse to sell an undecorated cake for that wedding, it is far less clear that the bakers could be forced to inscribe the cake with words or symbols that propounded or celebrated views they did not agree with.

    For the same reason, I think a law that required the owners of a wedding chapel to let it be used for a same-sex ceremony--an expression of celebration of same-sex marriage--would probably be unconstitutional. These quotations are from Justice Powell's concurring opinion in Pruneyard Shopping Center:

    "A person who has merely invited the public onto his property for commercial purposes cannot fairly be said to have relinquished his right to decline to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable."

    "A property owner also may be faced with speakers who wish to use his premises as a platform for views that he finds morally repugnant. Numerous examples come to mind. A minority-owned business confronted with leaflet distributors from the American Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan, a church-operated enterprise asked to host demonstrations in favor of abortion, or a union compelled to supply a forum to right-to-work advocates could be placed in an intolerable position if state law requires it to make its private property available to anyone who wishes to speak." (all italics mine)

  10. #370
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,208

    Re: Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Racists could also make this claim. They can claim a sincere belief that blacks are lesser and they should not be forced to associate with them. This was also supported by some religious leaders thru misinterpretations (IMO) of the Bible. In your opinion, should racists be allowed to refuse service to a race(s) of their choosing? And btw, I could definitely imagine a black business owner choosing to (or wanting to) refuse service to white people as well.
    As I pointed out to you (and to which you did not directly respond) in Post 354, the reason we allowed public accommodation laws to override Rights of Conscience objections in the Civil Rights Era was because the impact was to deny blacks access to entire industries. That is not the impact with homosexual marriages due to the breadth of options available to them and the lack of state enforcement of banning codes, which I pointed out to you, and which you then used to accuse me of "minimizing" by shifting that language to an entirely different portion of my post.

    If someone chooses to open a public business, they should be aware of the laws they must comply with. If they disagree with them, then they should find another line of work that will not involve a conflict of conscience.
    True. And if the laws are wrong, then they should practice civil disobedience. There were white business owners in South Africa, for example, who bravely ignored Apartheid, just as there were businesses in the South who ignored Jim Crow. And if the laws violate the First Amendments and our Rights of Conscience, then we should stand and defend them.

    But your effect here is the exact same one that we used to justify overriding First Amendment rights during the Civil Rights Era - you are effectively banning Christians from entire industries.


    But I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question. What does present - in your mind - justification for overriding people's Rights of Conscience? The "hurt and rejected" standard seemed to be pretty blatantly the one you were raising.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

Page 37 of 50 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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