Conscientious Objectors were allowed to not carry a weapon and not fight. My BIL was one such in Vietnam. He went in when drafted as a C.O. and served as an unarmed medic for a front line infantry unit.
We do have a history of trying to take into consideration the honest objections-of-conscience held by citizens, whether religious or otherwise. Some reasonable compromise is not unjust.
If a doctor declines to perform an abortion, he can refer the patient to another physician. If a wedding photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding (or a Klan wedding, or a skinhead wedding, or a biker wedding, or a Black Panther wedding), let him refer the prospective customer to another service provider and no harm is done.
There's no force. If you dont like the laws pertaining to that state's business licenses, no one forces you to get one. You can find another state, jurisdiction, area in which to open your business.
Conscientious objection refers to service in the military. It's not cover for discrimination in the course of doing business.
And is there something in liberal ideology that says a quaker can consciously object to laws requiring participation in a war, but cannot object to what kind of cupcakes he/she provides gays?
:doh
"In ma day, you could tell on which side a man's bread was buttered."
A short while ago Gov. Mike Pence held a press conference to say that he asking for legislation by the end of the week to clarify the RFRA law he signed last week. Key in his statement:
Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed
Ok then. If that is the "fix" he signs, we're good to go and all arguments to the contrary, that the law was intended to permit the denial of service to anyone under the color of religious freedom, were in error.
I've got a question about all this.
Let's say that there are 10 bakeries in the local area. Nine of the bakeries are pretty generic but one specializes in Christian themed goods. They primarily make cakes, cookies and cupcakes decorated with angels, crosses and other Christian themed adornment. They don't have a sign on their door or anything that says "Christians Only" but it's pretty obvious what their business model is. Now a gay couple decides to get married. They have been very active in the "gay rights" movement and want to make a statement so they intentionally choose this particular baker to provide a cake for their wedding because they are sure that there will be resistance. Sure enough, the Christian baker turns the job down based on their religious convictions.
Now here's the question, in this scenario who is discriminating against whom?
Bingo....and that is how it was different and the cause behind the outrage. Pence and the bigots were hoping to expand their version and were caught in their lies. Oops....now they are doing damage control.
That is an off the wall statement.
No it's not.
con·sci·en·tious ob·jec·tor
noun
noun: conscientious objector; plural noun: conscientious objectors
a person who for reasons of conscience objects to serving in the armed forces.
============
That person is still forced by the govt. to perform service when conscripted.
I know what the normal usage was. I was using it as a descriptive phrase and not as a fixed term.
I am also sure you dislike that the phrase fits so well in connotation as well as with the component words.
Dude.
It's a fixed term.
https://www.google.com/search?q=conscientious+objector&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Words mean things.
I knew it would upset you. But don't worry. It give the thing the right spin.
Which means you are incorrect that it allows people to discriminate for any reason. You need to keep your story straight.
Pence has asked for clarification to appease those with pitchforks that don't understand basic reading comprehension.
LOL...too funny. Pence asked for "clarification" because he got caught. It he was telling the truth and the law didn't allow people to discriminate, why did he refuse to answer the question 6 times? SIX TIMES? Doh!. You guys are fools if you believe the rhetoric that they are selling you. You need look no further than the fact that if Pence and the bigots were telling the truth....there would be no need to change the law. They are trying to figure out how to save face now that they got they encurred the wrath of the American people which they were not expecting. Talk about poor judgement.
Ha, no. He is trying to make it perfectly clear how laws work, down to the least common denominator: the asshats that don't understand how laws work. Its a sign of the times, and the coming reality of Idiocracy.
Wow....take off your blinders man. If that were true....why did Pence refuse to answer the question 6 times? Seriously dude....SIX TIMES. Don't be fooled.
It wasn't, that's completely dishonest of you. It was intended, to mirror the National RFRA that was barred from being applied to state courts. The only ones that screamed discrimination were those with a political agenda. This is to clarify that those people are idiots.
First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
And is there something in liberal ideology that says a quaker can consciously object to laws requiring participation in a war, but cannot object to what kind of cupcakes he/she provides gays?
great come to Indiana we'll pay you less:roll:
You might want to address users on this board who thought it was a license to discriminate. There is a thread based on that topic.
The law might have been intended to mirror the RFRA, but it didn't. There was broad language in the Indiana bill that was not in the federal law. The fix is to clarify that language.
Here's the difference between the federal RFRA and 19 states as compared to Indiana law as it is now (before the fix):
Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation
The entire episode can summarized with a picture:
Keep playing the game.
A: that's an opinion.
B: it would have been rightly shot down
C: was not the objective
This is manufactured bs.
They could associate all they want. Who cares? What are you even talking about? You have successfully made absolutely no case for the government to get involved. As usually, off on an irrelevant tangent. Yep, LOL is right.
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?