Therein lies the deception and BS that the Mormon church engaged in. There are documents and recordings that demonstrate the actions of the Mormon church and the efforts that they underwent to hide their illegal activities.
Neither the federal RFRA nor any SCOTUS decision extends to considering anyone of any belief to be "the devil." That's already out of bounds.
I'm not so sure about that. The Supreme Court has largely left intact the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law was deemed an unconstitutional use of Congress' enforcement powers as it applied to the states, but that's about it. It still applies to the federal government. So now some states are using this law (which, incidentally, was introduced by one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress, Chuck Schumer, passed unanimously in in the House, and signed into law by Bill Clinton) as a model to answer the adoption of same-sex marriage within their borders by court decree. Since SCOTUS said the federal law doesn't apply to the states, some states felt they needed to close that argument. More recently SCOTUS has shown a tendency to uphold religious freedom, as in the Hobby Lobby case.
Please define public accomodation. Is a grocery store a public accomodation? How about a clothing store? A hardware store? A hair dresser?
So you can't define it? I want to know your definition of public accomodation.I'm not here to educate you. There are various laws concerning public accommodations. If you want to learn about them, "Google is your friend"
So you can't define it? I want to know your definition of public accomodation.
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.
You really think that there's no harm done in forcing a black person out of a restaurant because he is black?
One was tyranny aimed at the consumer, the new one is tyranny aimed at the merchant. Tyranny is tyranny
Therein lies the deception and BS that the Mormon church engaged in. There are documents and recordings that demonstrate the actions of the Mormon church and the efforts that they underwent to hide their illegal activities.
It depends. You're I assume deliberately missing the point.
You mention the baker. You have no idea what his conscience says about baking a cake versus baking a cake AND putting two grooms on top, but conclude that the law cannot require him to act contrary to his conscience AND that "he'd have to bake the cake." Both can't be true. Again, pick a side, any side.
The law prohibits discrimination against Jews. A skinhead's conscience (presumably) tells him to discriminate against Jews. If he's in business open to the public, the law requires him to act contrary to his conscience.
I don't know why you're insisting I embrace cognitive dissonance to have this discussion with you.
Also, too, let's try again on this:
And on the broader question, you've also quoted legal experts who say there isn't any instance of the RFRA allowing discrimination against LGBT. But clearly some people's consciences demand they DO discriminate - they've sued for the right to discriminate against same sex couples and deny service to them.
This law either does or does not give Christians the right to act consistent with their conscience and deny services to gays. Which is it?
BTW, you're hilariously saying that if liberals believe one of your statements (law allows people to act consistent with their consciences), they're purposely ginning up a faux controversy, and to prove it you contradict yourself and point out nothing in RFRA or state equivalents allow for discrimination....
That's fine. I just won't patronize that store. People discriminate all the time when they decide what stores to patronize. So, it's okay for me not to patronize a store because the owner is gay but it's not okay for the owner to refuse to serve me because I'm gay? That's rank hypocrisy. I think there should be a law that requires mandatory patronage of businesses. It's not fair that people discriminate between businesses.10 bucks says this law will backfire when enterprising liberals decide that serving Republicans I'd against their religion.
How is it perverted?Indeed a perverted interpenetration of the First Amendment.
How is it perverted?
Illegal activities? The mormons may have violated their own internal rules by creatively accounting for monies spent, but they did nothing illegal. They retain the same right to advocate for or against legislation as anyone else. They just have to show a religous basis for doing so.
I don't care even a little bit. Seems like free political speech to me. Regardless, I note the absence of a link to substantiate your claim.
I don't care even a little bit. Seems like free political speech to me. Regardless, I note the absence of a link to substantiate your claim.
OK, so you're smart enough to know better than to equate those two, as it would be absurd. I guess that's a good thing.
In the meantime, the rest of the world who hasn't accepted the Orwellian redefinition of the word will continue to refer to the CEO who fired his worker because he's gay as a bigot or perhaps anti-gay bigot, and pretty much no one will have any doubt about the meaning we're trying to get across. Exactly no one not trying to miss the point will label the CFO who resigned in protest as a "bigot." We'd all recognize he's standing against bigotry and discrimination in the workplace.
Churches are not allowed to engage in political speech if they want to retain their tax exempt status. I'll get you a link.
Here are your links:
Mormons Found Guilty on 13 Counts of Prop 8 Malfeasance, Fined by FPPC | California Progress Report
Mormongate -- The Church's Cover-up of its Prop 8 Funding*|*Fred Karger
And if you are willing to spend 7 minutes....this is the best one which documents clearly the illegal Mormon activities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWCum9yQhTg
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?