• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arkansas Governor Asks Lawmakers to Recall Contentious Religious Freedom Bill

What you are saying is that you do not go with free expression of opinions or free religious practice. That is really quite sad.


No one is doing anything to opposes their free exercise of opinion or religious practice. You guys keep trying to phrase it that way, but the reality remains. They are free to have their beliefs and worship practices all they want. What they are not free to do, however, is write their own rules and use their religion as a shield to manipulate the laws so that they can practice bigotry and discrimination that is not allowed in this great country.
 
No one is doing anything to opposes their free exercise of opinion or religious practice. You guys keep trying to phrase it that way, but the reality remains. They are free to have their beliefs and worship practices all they want. What they are not free to do, however, is write their own rules and use their religion as a shield to manipulate the laws so that they can practice bigotry and discrimination that is not allowed in this great country.

You see? That is what a bigot from Mississippi would have said about the way Blacks were treated in the 1950's. It is worse than the Goldwater crowd wrote about the conscientious objectors of the time. No one was discriminating against them. They were getting what they deserved for trying to "write their own rules and use their religion as a shield to manipulate the laws so that they can practice ..... that is not allowed in this great country". But probably you don't see and think that it is not bigotry the way religious freedom of practice is being trodden under foot. And I am saying this as a non religious person. What you people are doing there is a horrendous break with American culture and the Constitution by not respecting people's fundamental rights.
 
You see? That is what a bigot from Mississippi would have said about the way Blacks were treated in the 1950's. It is worse than the Goldwater crowd wrote about the conscientious objectors of the time. No one was discriminating against them. They were getting what they deserved for trying to "write their own rules and use their religion as a shield to manipulate the laws so that they can practice ..... that is not allowed in this great country".

don't really see the point there.

But probably you don't see and think that it is not bigotry the way religious freedom of practice is being trodden under foot. And I am saying this as a non religious person. What you people are doing there is a horrendous break with American culture and the Constitution by not respecting people's fundamental rights.

It's certainly not a break with American culture since the civil rights era - 50 years or so. And our culture is as a great melting pot where we welcome people from all over the world and from all religions and no religion and somehow make it work pretty well. Anti-discrimination laws are entirely consistent with that culture.

As far as the Constitution, anti-discrimination laws have been challenged and upheld, consistent with our Constitution.
 
I think we can thank the SCOTUS for all these discrimination bills and many more to come. This is exactly what legal experts predicted in the wake of the SC's 'Hobby Lobby' decision.
 
I think we can thank the SCOTUS for all these discrimination bills and many more to come.
At least you admit that these bills discriminate.

This is exactly what legal experts predicted in the wake of the SC's 'Hobby Lobby' decision.
Are you referring to the right-wing Republican USSC ?
 
don't really see the point there.



It's certainly not a break with American culture since the civil rights era - 50 years or so. And our culture is as a great melting pot where we welcome people from all over the world and from all religions and no religion and somehow make it work pretty well. Anti-discrimination laws are entirely consistent with that culture.

As far as the Constitution, anti-discrimination laws have been challenged and upheld, consistent with our Constitution.

1. Then reread it.

2. Anti-discrimination is fine and good, where it does not cause discrimination.
 
Why is this fossil asking the legislature to do anything? Does he not know he has veto power?

Fully expect everything that proceeds to be political face saving
 
1. Then reread it.

2. Anti-discrimination is fine and good, where it does not cause discrimination.

I did, several times, no luck understanding it.

And I'm not sure how anti-discrimination laws can have any actual effect unless they cause "discrimination" under your definition. The laws by definition compel activity or prevent activity.
 
I did, several times, no luck understanding it.

And I'm not sure how anti-discrimination laws can have any actual effect unless they cause "discrimination" under your definition. The laws by definition compel activity or prevent activity.

1. Then it will remain so, I guess.
2. You say it. A law regulates activities. And the activities that law invokes should not be discrimination in the sense of suppressing citizens conscientiously objecting to something for reasons of religious belief.
 
1. Then reread it.

2. Anti-discrimination is fine and good, where it does not cause discrimination.

We already have a federal RFTA law which protects religious liberty.

The Indiana law has some key differences.
Is Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act the same as the federal version that became law two decades ago? Not quite.

Indiana's RFRA is similar, but not identical. And there's debate about how much those differences matter.


Proponents say Senate Bill 101, which was signed into law by Gov. Mike Pence last week, is virtually the same as the federal statute. It prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person's ability to practice his or her religion — unless the government can show it has a compelling interest to do so. And the government must choose the least restrictive way to achieve its goal.

Others, however, have emphasized the differences in the laws, saying the Indiana law is written more broadly than its federal counterpart.


One of them is U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer who, along with Sen. Ted Kennedy, introduced the federal RFRA when he was a congressman in 1993. The Democrat from New York said on his Facebook page that saying the two laws mirror each other is "completely false" and "disingenuous" and called on Pence to stop making such comparison.

Schumer cited what he called "significant, legal differences" and said the Indiana law "in no way resembles the intent or application of the federal RFRA which protects religious liberty.


Here are ways the laws differ and what opponents and proponents say the differences mean:

1) Unlike the federal law, the Indiana bill explicitly protects the exercise of religion of entities, which includes for profit corporations.

...
Opponents of the bill say it would grant religious liberty rights to any corporation, any group of people and any business, regardless of whether or not members of that corporation or business share a religious belief. The federal law grants such rights only to people, nonprofit organizations and, in the case of the often-cited Hobby Lobby ruling, to closely-held corporations where owners share the same religious beliefs.

That difference is a concern, said Katherine Franke, a Columbia University law professor, because the law would grant religious rights to broad entities.

"It completely expands the idea that anything can have a right to religious liberty even if they're incorporated for secular or commercial purposes,"
said Franke, who's one of 30 legal scholars who raised concerns about RFRA in a letter to Rep. Ed Delaney last February. "We haven't seen this broad definition."

Read more:

How Indiana's RFRA differs from federal version
 
Last edited:
Quite obviously not enough.

So you think public business should be able to discriminate against Jews, Evangelists, blacks, Catholics, gays, Jehovah's Witness, disabled persons , Mormons , etc.

Would it make you happy if Jewish people had to wear stars again ?
 
So you think public business should be able to discriminate against Jews, Evangelists, blacks, Catholics, gays, Jehovah's Witness, disabled persons , Mormons , etc.

Would it make you happy if Jewish people had to wear stars again ?

I do not think that is the alternative and I believe it harms the civil right movement to argue thus. It makes the movement look ridiculously stupid and even dangerous to the citizens. Individuals with no skin in the SSM issue and even those without any interest in following it have to feel threatened, where some idiots begin punishing private individuals for acting on their conscience. A society that lets that happen in one case and does not protect the hated minority might do so in a totally different case against the enemy du jour. And any citizen can find herself the victim.
 
I do not think that is the alternative and I believe it harms the civil right movement to argue thus. It makes the movement look ridiculously stupid and even dangerous to the citizens. Individuals with no skin in the SSM issue and even those without any interest in following it have to feel threatened, where some idiots begin punishing private individuals for acting on their conscience. A society that lets that happen in one case and does not protect the hated minority might do so in a totally different case against the enemy du jour. And any citizen can find herself the victim.

An individual does not have go against their conscience .
The federal RFTA act protects them.
Public businesses however , are not allowed to discrimate based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

As I posted on another thread Religious liberty is for all.



A few sentences taken from The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice also applies to pubic business not discriminating as well as to reproductive choice.

Religious Liberty
...

The freedom of religion is indeed our first freedom and a universally treasured American value dating back to the founding of our nation.
As a diverse coalition of religious denominations and religiously-affiliated organizations, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has an intimate understanding of the important role faith plays in one’s personal and public life. ...
However, the First Amendment makes clear that public policy is not to be based on faith alone – in a religiously diverse, pluralistic society, favoring any one religious worldview is wrong and inherently biased. Good policy is policy that allows for all people – regardless of their religious identity – to follow their own faith and conscience when directing the course of their life. ...Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual.
 
Last edited:
An individual does not have go against their conscience .
The federal RFTA act protects them.
Public businesses however , are not allowed to discrimate based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

As I posted on another thread Religious liberty is for all.



A few sentences taken from The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice also applies to pubic business not discriminating as well as to reproductive choice.

Sorry. That is crap.
 
Sorry. That is crap.

I disagree.

justabubba recently posted a link on another thread to a short 5 minute radio interview with a Rev. of the Disciples of Christ Church about why they put their principles into practice regarding the Ind. RFTA law.


there are some who indicate a belief that the Disciples of Christ were engaging in political activism
this may change your mind, such that you recognize this congregation is following is religious principles and putting those principles into practice
were there more Christians like these
Indiana Church Opposed State's Earlier Religious Liberty Law : NPR

Post # 82

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-convention-over-religious-freedom-law-9.html
 
Back
Top Bottom