- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,375
- Reaction score
- 82,756
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
March 31, 2015
The Arkansas Legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to a bill that critics charge could allow discrimination against gays and lesbians in the name of religious beliefs. The passage came hours after Indiana’s governor promised a legislative fix for that state’s version of the bill, which has led to a national uproar and some boycotts.
Arkansas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act now heads to the desk of Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a moderate Republican, who has said he will sign it into law. Opponents, including retail giant Wal-Mart, called on him to veto the bill. Supporters argue the law protects religious freedom and is not designed to discriminate against any group. But opponents contend the class of laws allow businesses to deny service to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.
On Tuesday, Wal-Mart called on the governor to veto the bill. In a statement, Chief Executive Doug McMillon said the legislation "threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold. For these reasons, we are asking Governor Hutchinson to veto this legislation.” Mark Stodola, the Democratic mayor of Little Rock, the state's biggest city, announced this week he was opposing the law. “Any piece of legislation that is so divisive cannot possibly be good for the state of Arkansas and its people. With these kind of 'wedge issues,' no one is a winner on either side,” Stodola wrote.
Republicans control both chambers of the state Legislature. Arkansas lawmakers said they weren't seeking to modify their version. “There's not really any place to make any changes now,” Republican Rep. Bob Ballinger of Hindsville told the Associated Press and other reporters. “If there are questions in two years, we can fix it.”
LOL - “If there are questions in two years, we can fix it.”
yeah who cares who suffers and gets screwed over in the meantime and how unconstitutional it is right. Why even have a ****ing government? This kind of madness makes me want to have all state governments removed and just have the fed courts take over
this is the same state with a senator who quipped "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate."
LOL - “If there are questions in two years, we can fix it.”
yeah who cares who suffers and gets screwed over in the meantime and how unconstitutional it is right. Why even have a ****ing government? This kind of madness makes me want to have all state governments removed and just have the fed courts take over
this is the same state with a senator who quipped "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate."
That's interesting, because I feel the same way about Obamacare. The difference is I think the federal government needs to go back to what the foundrs intndd and lt th stats handl most issud.
The Indiana and Arkansas new laws are far broader the the Federal RFRA law.Since the FEDS have the same law... how can that be an improvement??
Simpleχity;1064483305 said:The Indiana and Arkansas new laws are far broader the the Federal RFRA law.
I highly doubt it is an unplanned coincidence that this bill was sent to the governor just a day before the Arkansas legislative session goes into recess.
They well know that the next legislative session that can reconsider this legislation is two years away.
They are different. Read them. Stupidity is Arkansas passing an even broader law as the Indiana legislature scrambles to fix their defective version.Not really, and in the history of RFRA's, not a single one has been successfully used to defend against discrimination, and if one DID the SCOTUS would shoot it down. So this is all inane tempest in a teapot stupidity.
That's interesting, because unlike the Arkansas politicians the Fed CONs have had all the time (and votes) in the world to 'defeat' the ACA. What the Federal Government 'needs to do' is quite subjective because it seems every CON believes their opinion is EXACTLY what the Founders had in mind...
Oh yes, what a wonderful world it would be if the States had been left to decide what is equal rights and what time frame to implement... afterall no need for speed, it had only been a century since the Civil War before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and Sammy Davis could perform in a Casino but not stay there...
Regardless of what anybody thinks is "fair", our system was set up to give the states any powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution. And keep in mind it was the liberals in the north that wanted slaves counted as property and not as people, and that the Democrat party does a wonderful job of destroying lower income families with welfare dependency to buy their votes. In this issue, RFRA laws are designed to prevent 3% of the population from running over the rights of the rest. Color it any way you want, these laws are designed to protect the majority.
Simpleχity;1064483337 said:They are different. Read them. Stupidity is Arkansas passing an even broader law as the Indiana legislature scrambles to fix their defective version.
Selective outrage assigned by the media, tempest in a teapot.
Not really, and in the history of RFRA's, not a single one has been successfully used to defend against discrimination, and if one DID the SCOTUS would shoot it down. So this is all inane tempest in a teapot stupidity.
Since the FEDS have the same law... how can that be an improvement??
The fed "RFRA" was back in the early 90's and was a response to some indian tribe's religion being trampled upon. In other words, it actually was an attempt to protect a religious minority (ie not christianity, which is all the indiana bigots care about). It isn't nearly as broad either.
I referred to federal courts in any case, not the equally useless federal legislature.
The recent slew of these by the states is no more than a last pathetic desperate attempt to oppress LGBT. Of course, it will fail just like every other attempt
That's interesting, because unlike the Arkansas politicians the Fed CONs have had all the time (and votes) in the world to 'defeat' the ACA. What the Federal Government 'needs to do' is quite subjective because it seems every CON believes their opinion is EXACTLY what the Founders had in mind...
Oh yes, what a wonderful world it would be if the States had been left to decide what is equal rights and what time frame to implement... afterall no need for speed, it had only been a century since the Civil War before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and Sammy Davis could perform in a Casino but not stay there...
No, it was about barring someone from employment because they were a drug user. Native Americans use Peyote as part of their religion, and you have a religious viewpoint being burdened by anti-drug laws. The Federal law has be leveraged for various reasons that all come down to a religious practice conflicting with a non-religous law. And that's the whole point of each RFRA.
The Indiana law added the word "significant" to the already established "burden", which actually makes it harder to apply. And they added that the law would apply to civil suits as well.
With this in mind, its impossible to conclude that the RFRA laws, in any state, can be used for ad-hoc "no gays allowed" applications, because it would NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS AN ACTUAL DEFENSE.
Since the FEDS have the same law... how can that be an improvement??
No, it was about barring someone from employment because they were a drug user. Native Americans use Peyote as part of their religion, and you have a religious viewpoint being burdened by anti-drug laws. The Federal law has be leveraged for various reasons that all come down to a religious practice conflicting with a non-religous law. And that's the whole point of each RFRA.
The Indiana law added the word "significant" to the already established "burden", which actually makes it harder to apply. And they added that the law would apply to civil suits as well.
With this in mind, its impossible to conclude that the RFRA laws, in any state, can be used for ad-hoc "no gays allowed" applications, because it would NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS AN ACTUAL DEFENSE.
Looks like plenty of States are determined to make a mess of this issue, Arkansas joins the list.
The federal "RFRA" doesn't apply to business service the way indiana does and what constitutes a "significant burden" is obviously open to interpretation and an attempt to get away with what they can without the courts striking the whole thing down, as much as "sincerely held religious belief" relies on mind reading. It's asinine thru and thru, the worst kind of ad hoc law making, where the courts will very possibly come to contradictory rulings on identical cases
You clearly missed my point as well which is that indiana bigots are targeting LGBT with this law, unlike the early 90s RFRAs. The fact it will fail doesn't make it any less heinous
The federal "RFRA" doesn't apply to business service the way indiana does and what constitutes a "significant burden" is obviously open to interpretation and an attempt to get away with what they can without the courts striking the whole thing down, as much as "sincerely held religious belief" relies on mind reading. It's asinine thru and thru, the worst kind of ad hoc law making, where the courts will very possibly come to contradictory rulings on identical cases
You clearly missed my point as well which is that indiana bigots are targeting LGBT with this law, unlike the early 90s RFRAs. The fact it will fail doesn't make it any less heinous
Mornin OS. :2wave: Well they did mention that the left now is out and cheering on business and corporations for speaking out.
Before, as you know they were running around saying businesses and corporations aren't people. For some reason they have evolved. :lol:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?