- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,923
- Reaction score
- 22,245
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
And if you convince enough people, you can get a constitutional amendment passed enabling such laws. That's how it works in a constitutional democracy
Good luck.
Glad to be of serviceSo.... The exact opposite of Liberty. Got it.
And? If alcohol stops people from working, shouldn't you just ban it so no-one misses work due to alcoholism?
It's not a matter of stopping people from working.
Alcohol has physiological effects that minors are not able to consent to.
And you see nothing wrong with it so long as it's legal?
So keep it illegal for them to drink, just make it legal for them to purchase it so that commerce isn't hindered.
Conventions in Indiana? :shock: I've been to conventions all over the world, and never one there. I'm not sure how the threats to Pence are going to work...they said Arizona was dead after Brewer signed her bill into law, and tourism hasn't suffered there.
I'll bet SCOTUS will overturn this easily.
Whether or not I see something wrong with it is immaterial.
I think it's wrong when it rains when I planned on doing something outdoors that required nice weather, but it rains anyway. That's how the weather works.
And in a constitutional democracy, you can get the govt to do anything, but only if you get enough people to agree with you. That's how our govt works.
And if you think that people should not be able to have the govt they want to have, but only be allowed to have the govt you think they should be allowed to have, then you are just as coercive and dismissive of "liberty" as anyone else.
How? If someone doesn't provide you a service they have not altered your condition. How were you harmed?
People who provide essential goods and services don't have the same rights to religious beliefs?
You're assuming they haven't altered your condition, but there is a harm in every case - some choices are eliminated only because of some characteristic like color, religion, sexual orientation. The harm could be great although in 2015 likely small in most cases. We've discussed hospitals, but the harm there is obvious and immense - refusing service might result in your death.
The harm could be smaller - my largest client is in town and wants to dine at the famous steak house. I make a reservation, we show up on time, dressed appropriately, courteous, etc. and find out they only serve whites and he's black or I'm black. Sure, I can find A restaurant, but my client is unhappy and that might affect my business, all because of arbitrary discrimination. Etc. We could come up with examples of how discrimination harms individuals all day long.
I don't give a rat's ass about religious beliefs. I am saying people should be able to discriminate for ANYTHING, be it religion, race, or politics.
But essential services have to be held to a different standard because they are, well, essential. What would be an essential private service? The first thing that pops to mind is a pharmacy. Or a doctor but that can probably be handled by licensing.
I am fine with one's bigotry preventing someone from getting a banana smoothie. I am not ok with it preventing them from getting their insulin.
The US is not a constitutional democracy. Democracy is a terrible political system. It's tyranny of the majority.Whether or not I see something wrong with it is immaterial.
I think it's wrong when it rains when I planned on doing something outdoors that required nice weather, but it rains anyway. That's how the weather works.
And in a constitutional democracy, you can get the govt to do anything, but only if you get enough people to agree with you. That's how our govt works.
And if you think that people should not be able to have the govt they want to have, but only be allowed to have the govt you think they should be allowed to have, then you are just as coercive and dismissive of "liberty" as anyone else.
Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com
Wow. WTF Indiana????
You trying to out-religious the bible-belt states?
Is Indiana becoming Mississippi2.0 or something?
This is going to be interesting to watch.
No, SCOTUS will likely not. The Indiana RFRA largely mirrors the 1993 federal RFRA, which has already been tested at SCOTUS and passed muster. In fact, it is the SCOTUS application of the federal RFRA that has led many who supported it to now oppose the Indiana version.
That's one possibility.
But the people have rejected that choice.
I will lay a Canuck dollar you are in error.
Basic human rights.In what respect?
Washington (CNN)Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's decision to sign into law a measure that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of "religious freedom" has left the NCAA fretting ahead of next week's men's basketball Final Four in Indianapolis.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb
through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4
(also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[1] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government - for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal - because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.
Basic human rights.
Pence signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com
Perhaps a substantial burden to be proven? Perhaps they are not legally related?
Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even in the case of hospitals if you are refused care they did not alter your condition. Sure, you might die without care, but that consequence was already in motion before you showed up, so they could not possibly be responsible for it.
Ah..I see, well, I'm not sure it is reasonable to hold someone accountable for your clients feelings.
Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com
Wow. WTF Indiana????
You trying to out-religious the bible-belt states?
Is Indiana becoming Mississippi2.0 or something?
This is going to be interesting to watch.
I'm not sure what point you are making since you just made mine. In determining that the federal RFRA could not be extended to the states, SCOTUS encouraged the states to pass their own, as Indiana has now done.
Are you sure that's the case? Generally speaking, a single corporation holding a monopoly on hospital services in such a large area would not be legal under the Clayton Antitrust Act.The three hospitals in my general area are all private and operated by the same corporation. I would have to travel almost an hour to the nearest not-for-profit hospital. To permit discrimination in healthcare related services is unconscionable.
Food is not essential?
How do the people who provide those essential goods and services come to have less of a right to discriminate?
How does the govt come to have the power to forbid those people from exercising that right?
Give me time and I will educate myself.
I will get back to you on this.
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?