- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 28,852
- Reaction score
- 18,983
- Location
- SW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Asking about the intention of the bill (which most here know damn well what is was about -- WHO were the people who wrote it) -- What they said about -- Why they did it now -- and what was said during legislative session -- is not an invalid question --
You consider it loaded, fine. Everyone knows what the intention was - even though you (like Pence did on Sunday) get all afiggedy when asked about it.
The discrimination against blacks was codified in the law. Discrimination against blacks by a private party or business should be perfectly legal just as discrimination against any person should beYet they are bigoted in who they deny their services to.
You do realize that this "religious freedom" was tried before against black folks because they had the "mark of Cain"? That's why we have public accomodation laws.
But that's not true. There is no objection to the people involved but to the ACTIVITY those people are engaged in. In this case, marriage. The idea that the state should force me to provide my services to an activity that I deem immoral or objectionable is a violation of my individual liberty. That should be obvious yet it isn't to the totalitarian left. If I am a democrat, should I be compelled by the state to bake a cake for a republican convention? If I oppose legalization of drugs, should I be forced to provide my services to a legalization rally? If I believe abortion is murder, is it right for the state to force me to provide my services to a planned parenthood party? The answer is obvious. Yet liberals value equality over liberty so there is disagreement where there should be none.Objectionable due to the people involved, their sexuality, their relative sexes. That is illegal discrimination based on the people involved in the event, their classification, protected, at least in those states where this issue has seen lawsuits/court cases/claims. The law is clear on this and the courts agree.
The discrimination against blacks was codified in the law. Discrimination against blacks by a private party or business should be perfectly legal just as discrimination against any person should be
I'm certainly not all afiggedy. And no, not everyone knows what the intention was - there are only those who presume to know - with the exception of those who signed it. They know. Ask them rather than presume. I'm rather a disinterested outside party. I noted what I consider an over the top reaction to this legislation. Perhaps changes are in order, but the reaction by some to the legislation suggests that some gross evil has been incorporated into law, and I simply don't see that at all. I think this reaction betrays problems some have with the first amendment.
We don't need to ask them because they told us already. I'm sorry you're not aware of it.
The intended use of a wedding cake is to eat it in celebration of a marriage, an objectionable marriage in this case in the eyes of the baker
What did they say?
When Pence signed SB 101 in a private ceremony, three people who work for groups that supported the same-sex marriage ban and want to limit civil rights for gays and lesbians were in attendance. One of the lobbyists, Eric Miller of Advance America, heralded the state’s law as protecting Christian bakers, florists and photographers from penalty "for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage, among other examples." This is a direct reference to high-profile cases of Christian wedding vendors refusing to provide services for gay couples in other states.
The discrimination against blacks was codified in the law. Discrimination against blacks by a private party or business should be perfectly legal just as discrimination against any person should be
Advance America » Blog Archive » VICTORY AT THE STATE HOUSE!
Also, before the bill passed an amendment was offered to clarify this very issue. That amendment was rejected.
Yes. Objectionable because they're gay and the baker doesn't like gay people. It's not about his religion. The baker will sell cakes to women with shaved heads, he will sell cakes to fat people, there's one that happily sold cakes for a pagan solstice celebration, a dog wedding, and a divorce party. These people aren't following their ****ing holy books, they've just found a convenient justification for their hate.
Then you know how the ACLU shops for cases, so stop pretending otherwise. They look for cases that will get through appeals making the strongest case, in order to have the biggest impact. DC vs Heller happened in DC for a reason. The Fluck case (at a Catholic university) was picked for a reason.
This is nothing new, goes back to at least the civil rights era, and the Rosa Parks case.
No need to pretend otherwise.
I know people like yourself hate the spin that conscientious objection lends the argument. That does not make it wrong. Just unconventional and an aggravation to gay activists.
No, it would be more like selling a hunting knife to a black person one week but refusing to sell him one another week if he said he was going to use it to kill someone
And this bill doesn't do anything like that. But it does help to protect already given freedoms in the First Amendment. Folks can still sue them if they think they are being discriminated against but it will level the field so one's rights doesn't trump another. At least that is the way I read it.
How do you propose that a merchant could affect segregation?
The Indiana law goes beyond that. This is the reason why the outrage. Pence is a liar. He thought he could sign this into law and expand the ability of people to use religion to discriminate. He got caught...plain and simple.
Why don't you show me all the civil rights violations committed in Indiana instead of complaining about something that hasn't happened.
No it can't. You keep trying to say it can, but it can't. I would love to see you show an example of how it can be used.
But that's not true. There is no objection to the people involved but to the ACTIVITY those people are engaged in. In this case, marriage. The idea that the state should force me to provide my services to an activity that I deem immoral or objectionable is a violation of my individual liberty. That should be obvious yet it isn't to the totalitarian left. If I am a democrat, should I be compelled by the state to bake a cake for a republican convention? If I oppose legalization of drugs, should I be forced to provide my services to a legalization rally? If I believe abortion is murder, is it right for the state to force me to provide my services to a planned parenthood party? The answer is obvious. Yet liberals value equality over liberty so there is disagreement where there should be none.
Why does the law need to be changed then? If your side is telling the truth....there is no need for changes or any other kind of "clarification". Sorry...but use your head.
My side? You mean basic logic and application of laws?
Like stated before, anti-discrimination laws will always trump RFRA accommodations. The clarification, like I told you in the other thread, is to calm down the morons.
Acceptance is support. [and it's exactly what they 'claim' to want] But you're right, most are too emotionally involved with the subject to ever change their minds.
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?