- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The better response is the one we saw earlier, the one where businesses advertise that they serve everyone. A freedom solution
1.)They have been threatened with financial penalty and hardship through legal channels if they do not comply... You can call that what you want, but it doesn't change what it is.
2.)Where did you come up with that? That does not apply in any way to what I said.
3.) If a gay person orders a wedding cake and does not specify it's for a gay wedding, then if the baker refuses, that in my view is discrimination, not a religious objection.
4.)I just don't see that as the same.
5.) Denying people an apartment because you disagree with their lifestyle or because you object to how they might conduct themselves behind closed doors, isn't a justification to refuse to rent to them.
6.) I realize that there are some grey areas with this, but I just try and judge this situation considering both sides and doing what is right.
7.)Your question brings to mind a similar debate I've seen discussed in the past, that is far tougher than this one... It's whether the manager of a family oriented apartment complex, where children of all ages live and are given a resonably secure environment to engage in outdoor activities, is within his rights to refuse to rent to a preditor who was convicted of multiple counts of child molestation several years ago and served his time.
8.)Geez... lighten up... My point was, that if someone is so arrogant that they get in peoples faces with their lifestyle, which they know will be seen as objectionable and offensive to a significant percentage of our society, and basically challenge them to look sideways, then they deserve to be tossed to the curb.
9.)What I'm saying here is, tolerance is a 2 way street. if you show respect for people and treat them the way you would want to be treated, you'll find that tolerance will win the day, and quite often even over valid religious objections.
Do you like that phrase? I thought it was so descriptive that I borrowed it from Justice Scalia.
Refusing to rent an apartment to someone who is gay, is wrong for the same reasons as I stated in the example above. Providing shelter to a gay person isn't an endorsement of their lifestyle or participating in something that is sacrilegious. Now if a gay person said I would like to rent this apartment to host gay sex parties, they deserve to be refused for being such a total moron.
Say a devout Muslim who believes homosexuality is wrong owns a quadriplex and occupies one of the units himself. Does a state law that requires him to rent to homosexuals violate anything in the Constitution? If so, what, exactly, and why? And if it is not unconstitutional in that application, what if it required him to rent the other unit in a duplex he occupied to homosexuals? What if he is renting a room in the house he and his family live in? Can the implied constitutional right of privacy include the right to abortion, as the Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade, and yet not include a person's right to privacy at home with his family?
If discrimination against homosexuals is sheer bigotry, why tolerate it at all? Why not require people to include homosexuals in the people they invite to parties in their homes? Why not prohibit the local poker group or book club that meets in a member's house from excluding homosexuals? Why allow a person to discriminate against someone of the same sex in their choice of marriage partners? Would laws that did these things violate anything in the Constitution? If so, what, exactly, and why?
You also borrowed it from the Family Rights Council, a group of proven liars and bigots.
Grim said it was "wrong" not illegal and never said anyone should be forced to interact with anyone based on the Constitution. Your entire post is hyperbole and does not really address what he said.
Well then the federal law shouldn't either, I eagerly await your challenge to it.
Keep us updated.
I peg it 60-40 in favor of being upheld, Indiana is in the most consertative appeal court circuit in the country. And SCOTUS will not be reviewing this case. In fact 20 states have similar laws and I've not heard about those laws being challenged. The only people upset about this are the people who cruised around town looking for the one bakery out of ten with bible verses on the door to jack up. Unless you are a trouble maker you have literally no chance of this being a proble
They have been threatened with financial penalty and hardship through legal channels if they do not comply... You can call that what you want, but it doesn't change what it is.
Good post, Grim. I would say I pretty much agree with you, here.
As long as they actually serve everyone, I would support that.
Do I need to guess which party he belongs to, or could I be dead wrong in my first assumption?
It's a down the middle answer for a question that is "Yes" or "No." He's wanting to have it both ways - tell the anti-SSM community that they'll have a weapon to deny service to teh gays ("Yes"), and tell the rest of the country and the business community that the law is not a license to discriminate ("No"). It's one or the other. If it's the former, then there is no "faux" outrage on the part of us leftists. You've been saying it's the latter, "No", but yet defend Pence for his non-response. Like I keep saying, pick a side. There is no middle on that question.
Please explain
The Illinois law went into effect in 1998, before anyone would have expected the left-wingnuts at the Obama Administration to argue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. that the federal RFRA didn't protect the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) because their company wasn't a "person" that could "exercise religion," even though the legal definition of person in this context was commonly understood to apply to "non-persons" such as corporations:
When it comes to judges who apparently can't read a legal dictionary, you shouldn't leave anything to chance.
You mean the ones appointed by the elected officials to deliver justice and protect the constitution? Sorry, but that is better than gerrymandering and pandering politicians who are about as trustworthy as gutter rats (and then I have to apologize to the rats because some of them are more morally upstanding than a lot of big politicians).
You do realize that is one of major functions of federal judges: to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority? Thus, overriding the wishes of the majority is not necessarily over-stepping; its doing his/her job.
Simpleχity;1064475424 said:A compelling problem with the Indiana RFRA law, is that Indiana does not have a statewide nondiscrimination law that protects sexual orientation and gender identity similar to civil rights laws forbidding discrimination based on race, color, sex, age, religion, and national origin. In states that do have statewide LGBT nondiscrimination protections, such civil rights laws are viewed by many legal scholars as a "compelling government interest" that trumps the RFRA.
This is why George Stephanopoulos asked Pence yesterday if Indiana legislators plan on adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the state's civil rights laws. Pence's response; "I will not push for that. That's not on my agenda and that's not been the -- that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana."
What we have then, is Pence refusing to even consider a legislative fix that would render the current Indiana RFRA brouhaha a moot point.
When they pick and choose who is and how they are protected, then we have a problem.
OK, but your individual motives aren't all that relevant to someone else. When you try to impose your values on those who don't share them, do you expect them to roll over? You (figuratively speaking) certainly aren't, but you want to complain when the LGBT community doesn't want to do business with those who believe they (LGBT) aren't worthy of certain rights available to you, and spends millions to make sure those rights are NOT extended to them?
You did not know religion is a protected class?
I know the religious are being discriminated against now and this law will protect them.
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?