(04-02-2015 12:04 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Both of those professors are vested in the original law. They're desparately trying to defend their original support.

and you aren't vested in yours?

(04-02-2015 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

I'd disagree with that first sentence. I know that it's what many social conservatives want you to believe, but we have seen from history that it's incorrect. No-fault divorce (something that Jesus directly speaks about exponentially more about as being pernicious in the Bible compared to homosexuality) hasn't forced Catholics to start marrying people that have divorced previously. Heck, there are still churches that don't allow interracial marriage that continue to receive non-profit status from the federal government. If the government isn't even removing non-profit status for those that refuse interracial marriage, then the bogeyman fears of gay marriages being thrust into churches against their will is unwarranted.

The Indiana RFRA is about the public accommodations sphere (which is an entirely separate sphere than a house of worship or private home), and in that particular sphere, the rights of the discriminated customer take precedent over the beliefs of the business owner. States like Utah (home to the financial backers of California's Proposition 8 back in 2008) have found ways to pass their own RFRAs while still ensuring that it's not used for discriminatory purposes. So, you can have an RFRA that isn't a vehicle for discrimination. Indiana chose not to cover that scenario, so that's why they're rightly getting hammered by the national media.

Looks like Indiana is adjusting this law today, putting in more language.

(04-02-2015 12:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Looks like Indiana is adjusting this law today, putting in more language.

They're not changing the intent of the law. Just trying to pacify the George Soros crowd.

(04-02-2015 12:28 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Looks like Indiana is adjusting this law today, putting in more language.

They're not changing the intent of the law. Just trying to pacify the George Soros crowd.

Salem comes to mind.

(04-02-2015 12:33 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:28 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Looks like Indiana is adjusting this law today, putting in more language.

They're not changing the intent of the law. Just trying to pacify the George Soros crowd.

Salem comes to mind.

It's not Salem. The change will actually make the RFRA in Indiana consistent with the other RFRAs across the country in its practical application.

(04-02-2015 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:33 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:28 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Looks like Indiana is adjusting this law today, putting in more language.

They're not changing the intent of the law. Just trying to pacify the George Soros crowd.

Salem comes to mind.

It's not Salem. The change will actually make the RFRA in Indiana consistent with the other RFRAs across the country in its practical application.

Tell that to the owners of that pizza parlor mentioned in the other thread. That's nothing more than a modern day witch hunt.

Should a Muslim artist be required to paint a picture of Mohammad if he lives in Indiana?

(04-02-2015 02:05 PM)DFWMINER Wrote:  Should a Muslim artist be required to paint a picture of Mohammad if he lives in Indiana?

He absolutely should. But only if a gay person requests it. Otherwise, who gives a F?

(04-02-2015 02:05 PM)DFWMINER Wrote:  Should a Muslim artist be required to paint a picture of Mohammad if he lives in Indiana?

Funny thing is, I guarantee you the gays won't mess with the Muslim business owners on this.

(04-02-2015 01:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:33 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:28 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Looks like Indiana is adjusting this law today, putting in more language.

They're not changing the intent of the law. Just trying to pacify the George Soros crowd.

Salem comes to mind.

It's not Salem. The change will actually make the RFRA in Indiana consistent with the other RFRAs across the country in its practical application.

Tell that to the owners of that pizza parlor mentioned in the other thread. That's nothing more than a modern day witch hunt.

Well, that's not the government. In fact, it's simply the free market in action, which is what many defenders of the Indiana RFRA have used to justify the law over the past week (i.e. those that choose to discriminate will simply lose business when gays and their supporters decide to order their wedding cakes elsewhere).

Now, there shouldn't ever be physical threats against anyone, but the Indiana RFRA defenders can't sit here and say that the free market is available as a way for individuals to economically punish anti-gay business establishments... and then act shocked when people do exactly that. Social conservatives can't have it both ways - if they want to argue that the free market should be the mechanism to "market correct" any discriminatory practices under the RFRA, then they have to actually let the free market work (which is what is occurring in the pizza parlor instance, albeit in a very harsh manner).

(04-02-2015 02:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 01:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:33 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:28 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  They're not changing the intent of the law. Just trying to pacify the George Soros crowd.

Salem comes to mind.

It's not Salem. The change will actually make the RFRA in Indiana consistent with the other RFRAs across the country in its practical application.

Tell that to the owners of that pizza parlor mentioned in the other thread. That's nothing more than a modern day witch hunt.

Well, that's not the government. In fact, it's simply the free market in action, which is what many defenders of the Indiana RFRA have used to justify the law over the past week (i.e. those that choose to discriminate will simply lose business when gays and their supporters decide to order their wedding cakes elsewhere).

Now, there shouldn't ever be physical threats against anyone, but the Indiana RFRA defenders can't sit here and say that the free market is available as a way for individuals to economically punish anti-gay business establishments... and then act shocked when people do exactly that. Social conservatives can't have it both ways - if they want to argue that the free market should be the mechanism to "market correct" any discriminatory practices under the RFRA, then they have to actually let the free market work (which is what is occurring in the pizza parlor instance, albeit in a very harsh manner).

People threatening to burn down a place of buisness isn't the free market. That's a witch hunt and probably breaks a few laws as well.

(04-02-2015 02:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 01:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:33 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:28 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  They're not changing the intent of the law. Just trying to pacify the George Soros crowd.

Salem comes to mind.

It's not Salem. The change will actually make the RFRA in Indiana consistent with the other RFRAs across the country in its practical application.

Tell that to the owners of that pizza parlor mentioned in the other thread. That's nothing more than a modern day witch hunt.

Well, that's not the government. In fact, it's simply the free market in action, which is what many defenders of the Indiana RFRA have used to justify the law over the past week (i.e. those that choose to discriminate will simply lose business when gays and their supporters decide to order their wedding cakes elsewhere).

Now, there shouldn't ever be physical threats against anyone, but the Indiana RFRA defenders can't sit here and say that the free market is available as a way for individuals to economically punish anti-gay business establishments... and then act shocked when people do exactly that. Social conservatives can't have it both ways - if they want to argue that the free market should be the mechanism to "market correct" any discriminatory practices under the RFRA, then they have to actually let the free market work (which is what is occurring in the pizza parlor instance, albeit in a very harsh manner).

Agreed, though I'm not a social conservative... I don't think that's really what is being done. I think it's more of a reaction to the threats of violence or responses to the claims that it is illegal.... so it's a mixed response that sounds contradictory but most often isn't. Sure, extremists (on both sides) think they are SO correct that dissents should be allowed to be disallowed, but that is true of BOTH sides.

It's the harsh manner that makes it wrong.

(04-02-2015 02:34 PM)VA49er Wrote:  People threatening to burn down a place of buisness isn't the free market. That's a witch hunt and probably breaks a few laws as well.

I agree that it's not proper behavior. Alas, if we prosecuted every threat of murder, assault, arson, and other crimes that has been posted online regardless of which side of the aisle that you sit on, we'd basically have half of the US population in jail. So, as much as it pains me since I believe in civil discourse, we have to parse legitimate threats from the standard issue chest-beating that we see all the time online (including on this board from time-to-time).

MSNBC Airhead Mika Brzezinski: Pence Has To Be A Bigot Because He “Looks Like” And “Sounds Like” One…



You know who “looks like” and “sounds like” an idiot?

Quote:Host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Mika Brzezinski said it was fair to call Indiana Gov. Mike Pence a bigot, because he “looks like” and “sounds like” one after his support for the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“These are firmly held beliefs that people have had for thousands years,” argued her co-host Joe Scarborough. “And you can call it bigotry if you want to. ..”

(“Yes, I would,” Brzezinski mouthed at the camera.)

“…But just because the attitude in the United States of America has changed over the past decade doesn’t mean that we on this set in Manhattan should judge, I’m sorry, a florist in Little Rock, Arkansas or in Indianapolis.”

Brzezinski disagreed, naturally. ”Do not go there, Governor Pence,” she warned. “This is ridiculous. He totally stepped in it. Politically terrible. People are calling him a bigot because [he] sounds like one and looks like one. I’m sorry.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/02/mika-g...one-video/

(04-02-2015 12:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

I'd disagree with that first sentence. I know that it's what many social conservatives want you to believe, but we have seen from history that it's incorrect. No-fault divorce (something that Jesus directly speaks about exponentially more about as being pernicious in the Bible compared to homosexuality) hasn't forced Catholics to start marrying people that have divorced previously. Heck, there are still churches that don't allow interracial marriage that continue to receive non-profit status from the federal government. If the government isn't even removing non-profit status for those that refuse interracial marriage, then the bogeyman fears of gay marriages being thrust into churches against their will is unwarranted.

The Indiana RFRA is about the public accommodations sphere (which is an entirely separate sphere than a house of worship or private home), and in that particular sphere, the rights of the discriminated customer take precedent over the beliefs of the business owner. States like Utah (home to the financial backers of California's Proposition 8 back in 2008) have found ways to pass their own RFRAs while still ensuring that it's not used for discriminatory purposes. So, you can have an RFRA that isn't a vehicle for discrimination. Indiana chose not to cover that scenario, so that's why they're rightly getting hammered by the national media.

I'm seeing a lot of words, but what I don't see is the fact that this law (pre-"fix") is the federal RFRA law with an Indiana name attached to it. A law, I might add, that's been adjudiated in court. So if it's passed muster in a court of law, what is your objection to it?

(04-02-2015 01:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:33 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:28 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Looks like Indiana is adjusting this law today, putting in more language.

They're not changing the intent of the law. Just trying to pacify the George Soros crowd.

Salem comes to mind.

It's not Salem. The change will actually make the RFRA in Indiana consistent with the other RFRAs across the country in its practical application.

Tell that to the owners of that pizza parlor mentioned in the other thread. That's nothing more than a modern day witch hunt.

That's exactly what this is. Not guys like Lazy Tom, but the fringe nuts like the teacher in Indiana ... they've got their torches & pitchforks ready like its Salem, Mass. in 1680.

Whether it's radical environmentalists, angry black racists, or anti-globalism nuts, the left is always violent. In this current case, we have the radical gay element, foaming at the mouth and ready to attack.

I don't see what the problem is. A business can refuse service to a ceremony, BUT it does not protect said business from backlash through other use of the 1st amendment.

If a group feels salty enough about being refused service, they can go to ALL of media and attempt to utterly ruin that company. There's always a chance that supporters of the company will push back harder, but that'll make good tv and radio.

Isn't strife why laws like this pass anyway?

(04-02-2015 06:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

It is pretty obvious that ones belief system is irrelevant and in fact poses a danger to these people. I still want to know why would you want to force anyone to give you services under the threat of violence. One would think that would involve way too much drama and risk of receiving poor services.

This is an aspect that seems very strange to me. I wouldn't want to patronize any business that openly professed opposition to, say, Rice graduates.

It is a crusade. These people can easily find businesses more than willing to service their needs. I submit they intentionally target those that don't. Honestly...It's just rude.

(04-02-2015 12:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

I'd disagree with that first sentence. I know that it's what many social conservatives want you to believe, but we have seen from history that it's incorrect.

No, we haven't seen that. And the example you cite doesn't support your assertion, for many reasons.