Well, no. The aim would be to strengthen the language to make it more difficult for people to mischaracterize it, as you are doing here with the "bring it into compliance with federal law" nonsense.Simpleχity;1064472605 said:
Well, no. The aim would be to strengthen the language to make it more difficult for people to mischaracterize it, as you are doing here with the "bring it into compliance with federal law" nonsense.Simpleχity;1064472605 said:It differs from the federal law and the RFRA laws passed in most states. Governor Mike Pence says the Indiana legislature will convene this week to "clarify" the law (bring it into compliance with federal law).
If I remember correctly(?) the "state interest" justification given for trampling on the rights of this organization was that women would benefit from leadership and networking opportunties, and that would in turn benefit the state. This pretty much indicates that no private organizations are safe from government intrusion.The state law at issue in a third Supreme Court decision on this subject defined the Jaycees, an organization with several hundred thousand members, as a public accommodation.
You are talking about those essential places, but many state public accommodations laws are talking about much more.
Pence did not answer directly when asked six times on This Week with George Stephanopoulos whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers.I don't hear him backtracking on George SteXXXXXopolis, this morning.
Whether you think those things were public accommodations doesn't matter. What matters--and what mattered to the people who were forced to defend themselves at great expense--is that the state laws involved considered them that. The state law at issue in a third Supreme Court decision on this subject defined the Jaycees, an organization with several hundred thousand members, as a public accommodation.
You are talking about those essential places, but many state public accommodations laws are talking about much more. Almost any difficult question can be made to seem simple if you ignore enough of the troublesome details.
Please see #1090.
Angie's List canceling Eastside expansion over RFRA
The continuing blowback over Indiana's new "religious freedom" law hit home Saturday, with Indianapolis-based Angie's List announcing it is canceling a $40 million headquarters expansion.
The decision is a direct result of passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, co-founder and chief executive officer Bill Oesterle said Saturday.
The proposed expansion of the online consumer ratings service was touted to add 1,000 good-paying jobs over five years and help revitalize a struggling Eastside neighborhood.
"Angie's List is open to all and discriminates against none," Oesterle said, "and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents."
One Restaurant Already Celebrated ‘Religious Liberty’ By Turning Away Gays
'The business owner, who would not give his name or the name of his business, said he had told some LGBT “people” that equipment was broken in his restaurant and he couldn’t serve them even though it wasn’t and other people were already eating at the tables. “So, yes, I have discriminated,” he told RadioNOW 100.9 hosts. The hosts were surprised the owner said he was okay with discriminating.
“Well, I feel okay with it because it’s my place of business, I pay the rent, I’ve built it with all my money and my doing. It’s my place; I can do whatever I want with it,” he said. “They can have their lifestyle and do their own thing in their own place or with people that want to be with them.”
Which says "it depends."
In the "hard" cases, the law appears to care very little (appropriately) about the person's conscience. The Indiana law itself is clear enough. The court looks to see if the action required:
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest
And, if republicans want to tell their supporters the law will allow businesses and individuals opposed to SSM to discriminate against homosexuals, then I'm not going to cry a single tear if they're called out for their bigotry. The business community told them the message they were sending to the rest of the country, the legislature rejected efforts to write in protections against LGBT, they raised funds on the premise that the bill allowed discrimination and now they're in the bed they made, even if as you're claiming the bill in fact provides no protection from "those who support homosexual marriage." Pander to anti-gay bigots, that comes with a cost. Sorry.
And the law acts as I said it does - since you're wanting to quote facts.None of your diatribe changes the facts. If a business opens itself to the public they have to comply with the laws. Sure....excluding one person would be hard to show a violation...but if there is a pattern it becomes pretty easy.
'We Serve Everyone' campaign takes off in wake of Ind. 'religious freedom' law
A website originally meant as a way to help Indianapolis businesses market their openness to all customers has spread like wildfire to 23 states and several major cities, including New York and Los Angeles.
But the site's creator, Josh Driver, said it wasn't until he saw businesses from Valparaiso, his hometown, get involved that the impact of his new creation, OpenForService.org, really hit him.
"When there were some (Valparaiso) businesses that kind of stepped up that way - that's just kind of awesome," Driver said.
Driver created stickers and online badges saying "We Serve Everyone" that businesses, churches and other groups can buy and use from the website to promote the fact that they're willing serve anyone, no matter their sexual orientation.
Driver originally dreamed up the idea just for Indianapolis businesses. His friends helped spread the word, however, and businesses across Indiana and in other states started buying them.
If I remember correctly(?) the "state interest" justification given for trampling on the rights of this organization was that women would benefit from leadership and networking opportunties, and that would in turn benefit the state. This pretty much indicates that no private organizations are safe from government intrusion.
What?I mean.. what? How is what I wrote a dodge? If you mean by dodge I pointed out where you were going wrong, then I'm not sure if you have a grasp?
Tim-
The law does not yet identify bigotry and racism as a criminal offense.
Dude, you said this and I quote in your widget scenario:
Now I know you have trouble with language and all, but let me try and explain this to you. You are asking me to show you a law that says you must do something, in this case, force you to sell widgets to a gay man. With me so far? Now, I showed you that laws don't do that, and as such, I could not possibly show you a law that says you must sell me widgets because laws don't do this. Still with me? So, what you're doing is setting the opposing viewpoint (mine in this case and all others that have followed along with you) up for a challenge they cannot win, but not because you have some superior insight into the law or even this issue, but because you're asking me and others to solve a problem that DOES NOT EXIST. See how that works? I pointed out to you and with this post you acknowledge that laws don't force people to do things, they inform you of what you're not allowed to do, so by setting up your scenario the way you did, you asked me to support your strawman, and of course when I could not, you claim victory. This is what you ALWAYS do.
So, now that we've established the error in your premise (Again that laws inform of what not to do, rather than what you can do) shall we (Really meaning you and you alone) debate the topic with a little more integrity and honesty?
Tim-
Yes...
Then what do you cal it if Christians are assessed fines and find themselves locked in legal battles over being allowed to decline certain clients?
I do not lie, so you can be sure that everything that I post is the truth or something that I believe. In this case, I am being factual by telling you that you didn't tell me what rights anti-discrimination laws protect.
Anyway, at the same time, two gay application developers (a couple) also fanned Eich outrage in their blog: "Today we were shocked to read that Brendan Eich has been appointed Mozilla CEO. As a gay couple who were unable to get married in California until recently, we morally cannot support a Foundation that would not only leave someone with hateful views in power, but will give them a promotion and put them in charge of the entire organization.
As they (and OkCupid) made clear: he had to be persecuted and driven from employment because he held "hateful views" contrary to their views.
Poppycock. I have worked the majority of my life for people who support the denial of my liberties. I (I'm white) have worked for bigoted and sexist black city managers, feminist bosses, and affirmative action (hire by your race) mongers. It has been one of the 'privileges' of working for 17 years in a deep blue California City near Berkeley, controlled by and run by a black majority city civil service and City Council, that has bathed me in the views of every anti-liberty (and anti-white) nostrum imaginable.
None the less, we don't persecute bosses for their private views nor for their private life - regardless of what 'executive' position they hold (at least, not since McCarthy). We don't make them sign gay-marriage loyalty oaths, try to humiliate them publicly, or politic to get them fired for a donation to a state ballot initiative.
Be reminded, everyone at Mozilla agrees that Eich was completely supportive of employees of every race, sex, and sexual orientation. Nothing in his work conduct evenly remotely suggested the vicious demonization of him as a human being...unless, of course, more than 1/2 of California voters are also "demons". (Continued)
Sorry, but cost of defense is irrelevant IMHO. That is an issue of that particular state and as said, I disagree with some things being called a public accommodation.
Where in the bible does it say whites can lynch blacks or that being black is somehow a sin?
Forcing someone to provide goods and services to people they don't want to is not liberty either.
Neither is denying a citizen the basic religious rights afforded them in the Constitution.
Forcing someone to act against their conscience is indeed tyranny
The claims you cite have not been made.
Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!
Simpleχity;1064472851 said:Pence did not answer directly when asked six times on This Week with George Stephanopoulos whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers.
It looks like there are some business owners who see the various Religious Freedom bills as expanding business opportunities
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?