(03-31-2015 01:13 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Nothing brings out the butthurt like anything that has to do with homosexuals.

(03-31-2015 01:37 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT.

Except they cant..

Language in the law prohibits the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest".

I'm pretty sure that medical care counts as "compelling government interest" as would most public necessary services.

Most of this will be clarified in the follow up legislation and before you ***** about the need for follow up legislation consider how many times we've had to fix crap from the AFA.

Really, how about a fertility doctor refusing to work with a lesbian couple?

Yeah how about it? That should be her right as long as she's not working for the government.

OB/GYN's don't have to perform abortions if they don't want to.

(03-31-2015 01:15 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Plenty of establishments discriminate against various behaviors. Some places don't allow smokers.

This law doesn't give businesses carte blanche to discriminate. This law protects the GOVERNMENT from infringing on their religious beliefs.

Sigh. It's really incredible how many people aren't seeing (or refuse to see) the difference from groups that aren't protected classes versus those that are protected.

Smokers aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

People not wearing shoes or shirts aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

If you want to kick people out of your business for wearing UNC T-shirts, then you are free to do so.

If you want to kick someone out of your business because he's carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign, then you are also free to do so.

However, you CANNOT kick people out on the basis of being a member of a protected class. This includes race, sex, gender, age and religion. Most states have added sexual orientation to that list, including many that have "religious freedom" laws. Indiana hasn't done so, which is why there is a firestorm in this particular "religious freedom" case.

Now, if a gay black man comes into your business carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign while smoking, then you are free to kick that person out because you object to that sign or smokers. You just can't kick that person out *because* he is gay and/or black.

It's the same thing in the workplace. You don't have to hire every gay black man that applies for a job. You can take into account qualifications, whether he was professional, his educational level, etc. There are perfectly legal reasons to not hire that person. However, you cannot refuse to hire that person *because* he is gay and/or black.

Is this distinction really that difficult for social conservatives to understand?

Quote:yet the business wing of the Republican Party HATES these religious freedom laws

Considering how quickly the Indy mayor was forced to sign an executive order in favor of LGBT protective rights (oh the irony) once this law was passed, how anyone can deny Franks statement is beyond me.

Nobody would be protesting if a Jewish deli was being forced to cater a Muslim wedding. Or if a gay lawyer said "no" to defending a Westboro Baptist Church member. It's ONLY because this gives the left and the gay rights enterprise another avenue to attack Christianity.

(03-31-2015 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Is this distinction really that difficult for social conservatives to understand?

No offense but to be in favor of discrimination in the first place signals a lack rational thought on the topic. There is absolutely no logical argument whatsoever to defend discrimination. So don't expect them to be rational when it comes to a logical discussion on the topic.

(03-31-2015 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:15 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Plenty of establishments discriminate against various behaviors. Some places don't allow smokers.

This law doesn't give businesses carte blanche to discriminate. This law protects the GOVERNMENT from infringing on their religious beliefs.

Sigh. It's really incredible how many people aren't seeing (or refuse to see) the difference from groups that aren't protected classes versus those that are protected.

Smokers aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

People not wearing shoes or shirts aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

If you want to kick people out of your business for wearing UNC T-shirts, then you are free to do so.

If you want to kick someone out of your business because he's carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign, then you are also free to do so.

However, you CANNOT kick people out on the basis of being a member of a protected class. This includes race, sex, gender, age and religion. Most states have added sexual orientation to that list, including many that have "religious freedom" laws. Indiana hasn't done so, which is why there is a firestorm in this particular "religious freedom" case.

Now, if a gay black man comes into your business carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign while smoking, then you are free to kick that person out because you object to that sign or smokers. You just can't kick that person out *because* he is gay and/or black.

It's the same thing in the workplace. You don't have to hire every gay black man that applies for a job. You can take into account qualifications, whether he was professional, his educational level, etc. There are perfectly legal reasons to not hire that person. However, you cannot refuse to hire that person *because* he is gay and/or black.

Is this distinction really that difficult for social conservatives to understand?

None of that is difficult to understand. In fact, I think, most of us agree with the bolded portion. This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve homosexuals in a marriage ceremony.

I'd expect more of a so-called lawyer. Have you read the entire bill?

(03-31-2015 02:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Is this distinction really that difficult for social conservatives to understand?

No offense but to be in favor of discrimination in the first place signals a lack rational thought on the topic. There is absolutely no logical argument whatsoever to defend discrimination. So don't expect them to be rational when it comes to a logical discussion on the topic.

There's no logical reason for the gov't to force a business to participate in a ceremony which violates their religious belief either.

Again.... Have YOU read the bill?

Yeah, so here's the actual bill if anybody is interested in reading it.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bill...t-f6915f8f

Quote:4 Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
5 Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "burden" means an action
6 that directly or indirectly:
7 (1) constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of
8 religion by a person; or
9 (2) compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the
10 person's exercise of religion.
11 (b) The term includes:
12 (1) withholding a benefit from a person;
13 (2) assessing a criminal, a civil, or an administrative penalty
14 against a person; or
15 (3) excluding a person from a governmental program or
16 denying a person access to a governmental facility.

Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based
23 on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to
24 the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or
25 policy of general applicability, unless the state or political
26 subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to
27 the person's exercise of religion is:
28 (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
29 and
30 (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling
31 governmental interest.
32 Sec. 7. (a) A person whose exercise of religion:
33 (1) has been substantially burdened; or
34 (2) is likely to be substantially burdened;
35 by a violation of section 6 of this chapter may assert the violation,
36 or impending violation, as a claim or defense in a judicial
37 proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political
38 subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.
39 (b) A person who asserts a claim or defense under subsection (a)
40 may obtain appropriate relief from a violation, or an impending
41 violation, of section 6 of this chapter, including relief against the
42 state or a political subdivision of the state. Appropriate relief
1 under this subsection includes any of the following:
2 (1) Injunctive relief.
3 (2) Declaratory relief.
4 (3) Compensatory damages.
5 (4) Recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Not once is homosexuality mentioned, however if they can prove that such an act "compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the
person's exercise of religion" they essentially have an "out" nothing more, nothing less.

(03-31-2015 02:45 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Yeah, so here's the actual bill if anybody is interested in reading it.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bill...t-f6915f8f

nobody has read it yet, but they are so upset, lol

(03-31-2015 02:50 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:45 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Yeah, so here's the actual bill if anybody is interested in reading it.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bill...t-f6915f8f

nobody has read it yet, but they are so upset, lol

Pretty typical. They've all been taught what to think and not how to think.

(03-31-2015 02:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Is this distinction really that difficult for social conservatives to understand?

No offense but to be in favor of discrimination in the first place signals a lack rational thought on the topic. There is absolutely no logical argument whatsoever to defend discrimination. So don't expect them to be rational when it comes to a logical discussion on the topic.

There's no logical reason for the gov't to force a business to participate in a ceremony which violates their religious belief either.

Again.... Have YOU read the bill?

Except for the whole "discrimination thing"

There's no logical reason for the gov't to force a business to participate in serving people they don't want to.

See how similar that is to your talking point?

I have read the bill multiple times FYI including an hour and a half class only a couple of hours ago where it was discussed extensively.

(03-31-2015 02:39 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Nobody would be protesting if a Jewish deli was being forced to cater a Muslim wedding. Or if a gay lawyer said "no" to defending a Westboro Baptist Church member. It's ONLY because this gives the left and the gay rights enterprise another avenue to attack Christianity.

Why would there be a protest. Under existing laws, the Muslim would sue, citing existing non-discrimination laws. Same as if a Gay deli owner refused to cater a Baptist wedding. The Baptist in this case is covered. A LGBT person, denied service in Indiana (or NC for that matter) has no protection under the law in that case.

(03-31-2015 02:45 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Not once is homosexuality mentioned,

Executive order 9066 made no reference to people of Japanese heritage either.

(03-31-2015 02:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:39 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Nobody would be protesting if a Jewish deli was being forced to cater a Muslim wedding. Or if a gay lawyer said "no" to defending a Westboro Baptist Church member. It's ONLY because this gives the left and the gay rights enterprise another avenue to attack Christianity.

Why would there be a protest. Under existing laws, the Muslim would sue, citing existing non-discrimination laws. Same as if a Gay deli owner refused to cater a Baptist wedding. The Baptist in this case is covered. A LGBT person, denied service in Indiana (or NC for that matter) has no protection under the law in that case.

Are you saying there are no gay baptists?

(03-31-2015 02:53 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:50 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:45 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Yeah, so here's the actual bill if anybody is interested in reading it.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bill...t-f6915f8f

nobody has read it yet, but they are so upset, lol

Pretty typical. They've all been taught what to think and not how to think.

Make sure to give a nudge when capitalist retailers and services, for profit, decide to
discriminate on a wholesale basis in Indiana.

Maybe you should read the bill's text...

In summary for the idiots who struggle at English.

This bill is not designed to allow "Joe Bob's Corn Dog Shack" to refuse service "just because he doesn't like the gays."

This bill is designed to allow a Christian flower shop to decline service based on their religious belief on homosexuality. It's really no different than a Muslim or Buddhist being allowed to decline selective service on religious practice. You and I might think the latter is a scumbag but he's still protected.

That's why the bill says nothing about gays, lesbians, trannies, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc, etc.... any color you'd like. None of that is the point. This is about protecting a businesses right to NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CEREMONY they're religiously opposed to, end of story.

(03-31-2015 11:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  What befuddles me is how the liberal inclusion police have no problem with our national cozying up to Iran - a country where you can be put to death for gay sex - but somehow not wanting to create a cake for a gay wedding is inexcusable. And they choose to voice their displeasure by calling for boycotts and other economic actions that will hurt everyday working people in Indiana much more than it will the people in the state legislature and the "1-percenters".

How about some middle ground here... If you don't want to serve gays and lesbians you must upfront about it so that people can choose to not support your business if they don't like it. I really don't think you will see gays going foodless or shoeless or hotel-less because they can't find a place that will accept them as customers. In general, it isn't smart business practice to refuse customers because you don't approve of some aspect of their private life.

How about simply adding LGBT persons to existing non-discrimination laws that already cover evangelicals?

Regarding Iran. Iran sucks. So does Saudi Arabia. And every Iraqi leader after Saddam was worse on LGBT issues than he was. So is the situation in Syria after Assad. The sad reality is that there are no good actors in the region. Nor is there much of a path out (except via immigration) for the future for the LGBT population in many of those states.

The question is...what can we do about it. Supporting a rapproachment with Iran is neutral on the current situation. It might actually help (but I'm not holding my breath). Remember that if the US is disengaging from Saudi Arabia, that perhaps gives the US more leverage with a Saudi government seeking to not rupture our relationship. And for Iran, brutal attacks on a key Obama constituency is probably not a good way to keep him in the game. I doubt it does much. But simply following an equally bad Saudi Arabia (in many respects - worse) isn't going to do much either.

In Indiana, the bill represents a HUGE step back for LGBT persons as the bill will undermine municipal protections for LGBT persons. The bill in Indiana is supported by American fundamentalist groups ("Christian") that support the legality of the Iranian and Saudi criminalization statutes.

We can multitask. Iran v Saudi Arabia, that isn't a LGBT issue, but rather the opinion of one Gay man. Indiana IS a LGBT issue.

Religion is a protected class also folks.

(03-31-2015 03:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 11:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  What befuddles me is how the liberal inclusion police have no problem with our national cozying up to Iran - a country where you can be put to death for gay sex - but somehow not wanting to create a cake for a gay wedding is inexcusable. And they choose to voice their displeasure by calling for boycotts and other economic actions that will hurt everyday working people in Indiana much more than it will the people in the state legislature and the "1-percenters".

How about some middle ground here... If you don't want to serve gays and lesbians you must upfront about it so that people can choose to not support your business if they don't like it. I really don't think you will see gays going foodless or shoeless or hotel-less because they can't find a place that will accept them as customers. In general, it isn't smart business practice to refuse customers because you don't approve of some aspect of their private life.

How about simply adding LGBT persons to existing non-discrimination laws that already cover evangelicals?

Regarding Iran. Iran sucks. So does Saudi Arabia. And every Iraqi leader after Saddam was worse on LGBT issues than he was. So is the situation in Syria after Assad. The sad reality is that there are no good actors in the region. Nor is there much of a path out (except via immigration) for the future for the LGBT population in many of those states.

The question is...what can we do about it. Supporting a rapproachment with Iran is neutral on the current situation. It might actually help (but I'm not holding my breath).

In Indiana, the bill represents a HUGE step back for LGBT persons as the bill will undermine municipal protections for LGBT persons. The bill in Indiana is supported by American fundamentalist groups ("Christian") that support the legality of the Iranian and Saudi criminalization statutes.

We can multitask. Iran v Saudi Arabia, that isn't a LGBT issue, but rather the opinion of one Gay man. Indiana IS a LGBT issue.

No it isn't. It only appears to be an issue because y'all are FORCING it to be an issue.

Answer me this... What's the worst thing that can come of these kinds of Bill? You don't get flowers, cake, food, etc at your wedding from a Christian business. There is stopping you from going to another business, boycotting that business, voting with your wallet, voting at the voting booth, etc.

An even better question might be, why would you want a Christian involved in your wedding at all?

Once again, is there ANYONE who cares to respond to the actual text of the bill?