RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Aylee -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 2:08:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A) defines "religious exercise" as follows: "The term 'religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief."

Is the RLUIPA of 2000 the same thing as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993?

I can't find the "whether or not compelled by" language in DOJ's pdf of the 1993 law.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/07/24/act-pl103-141.pdf

The updated RFRA is here. Click on Definitions:

(4) the term “exercise of religion” means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc–5 of this title.

That takes you to the (updated) quote I posted.

K.




Umm. . . the RFRA was considered a good thing when it meant that Native Americans could smoke peyote and not get fired from their job. Now it is a bad thing because a wedding planner may decline to plan a gay couple's wedding. So. . .

Is the smoking of peyote by Native Americans now a bad thing since it is the RFRA that allows that or is it now a bad thing since it is in fact a form of discrimination or is it still a good thing because smoking peyote is not a Christian thing?



DesideriScuri -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 2:34:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

~ FR ~
More RFRA follies...
Conn. Gov. Will Sign Executive Order On Travel In Protest Of Indiana Law
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) on Monday announced he plans to sign an executive order on state-funded travel in response to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signing a controversial bill into law that could allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.
Apparently he doesn't know that Connecticut has enacted the same strict-scrutiny requirements for "burdening" religious expression.
Connecticut 52-571b
Sec. 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person’s exercise of religion
(a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the Constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term “granting” does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.
(f) For the purposes of this section, “state or any political subdivision of the state” includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
K.


That is OMFG funny!



DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 2:43:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Is the smoking of peyote by Native Americans now a bad thing since it is the RFRA that allows that or is it now a bad thing since it is in fact a form of discrimination or is it still a good thing because smoking peyote is not a Christian thing?



It's bad because proliferation of drugs is how the white devils took all of our land, in the first place.



Michael



Oneechan -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 2:47:52 PM)

I just want to chime in to say, a business owner should have the right to refuse whoever they like, for any reason at all. Or no reason.

This bill is the exact opposite of tyranny.

If a gay person has a problem with it, they can either:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it
or
2. shop elsewhere, free market in action

nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, nobodys freedoms are impinged.



mnottertail -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 2:52:08 PM)

There never was, is, or will be a free-market, regardless of what the closeted european scribblers pretended.



joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 2:53:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

~ FR ~
More RFRA follies...
Conn. Gov. Will Sign Executive Order On Travel In Protest Of Indiana Law
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) on Monday announced he plans to sign an executive order on state-funded travel in response to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signing a controversial bill into law that could allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.
Apparently he doesn't know that Connecticut has enacted the same strict-scrutiny requirements for "burdening" religious expression.
Connecticut 52-571b
Sec. 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person’s exercise of religion
(a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the Constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term “granting” does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.
(f) For the purposes of this section, “state or any political subdivision of the state” includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
K.


That is OMFG funny!


I'd like you two to fully explain Connecticut's 52-571B fully to us. How its both different and the same as Indiana's controversial law in the news.




joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 3:23:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan
I just want to chime in to say, a business owner should have the right to refuse whoever they like, for any reason at all. Or no reason.


Actually no, is the correct answer. If the business person refuses service, they have to state why in exact terms. If there reason for refuse is legal, that's one thing. If its illegal, they can face any number of penalties including jail and fine.

When your a business opens to the public, its held to all the laws of local, state and federal levels. If some guy walks in with clearly different political viewpoints to yours, but behaves in a rational, legal manner; you have to serve them. Being professional means to be mature and non-judgmental on other's political views. Its one thing to keep that client/business relationship going when a political discussion comes up too; its called 'knowing the customer over many years'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan
This bill is the exact opposite of tyranny.


According to a bigot, I'm sure it is. To anyone else, its tyranny! It allows one group of Americans to discriminate towards another group. We have found this has never helped anyone. How do we know this: US History! Go to your public library and look up 'Civil Rights Era' on how Southern Whites treated Southern Blacks. Pay attention to laws past that allowed discrimination and protections of one group over another. You'll find many similarities to those laws as to the intention of this law from Indiana.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan
If a gay person has a problem with it, they can either:


You know what they say of people that bitch the loudest against gay people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan
1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it


So gay people should wear only 'government approved' clothing? I wonder what those liberalizations would say if we forced them to do the same?

If its wrong to for it on one political group, its wrong to force it on another. How about we require you to dress like a lesbian. I'm sure you would have no complaints what so ever, right?

I don't know what sort of gay people you have been near; many of those ones I've seen have dressed like anyone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan
2. shop elsewhere, free market in action


Business Law 101. The United States of America does not operate on 'laissez faire economics'. We have laws and regulations onto how each industry is to operate and handle dealings with the public. For if you refuse service to someone, and they can probe in court that you violated their rights; you just lost your business! You willing to throw all your hard work away on your business because someone doesn't share your political beliefs for a simple transaction of a donut? A car? Tickets to the theater? pack of cigarettes?

No, you'll handle things like you always have....as a professional. Because non-professional people do not stay in business for themselves for very long. The SBA has many, many examples to show.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan
nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, nobodys freedoms are impinged.


If that is true, then there is no need for this law from Indiana in the first place! The people that pushed this bullshit through did so for pettiness and political reasons.



dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 3:47:43 PM)

quote:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it

Well, bless your heart.



Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 4:23:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it

Well, bless your heart.



I dunno DC, I found the whole post rather enlightening. [8|]



Moderator3 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 4:45:22 PM)

I am rarely angry when reading what forum posters post, but I am now. I will not remove what some have spent some time on and because I am rarely stumped on what to do because of anger.

I will say some may want to take a close look at forum guidelines over-all and found in the Administrative Announcements. Check out the section guidelines found at the top of each section regarding that section, click the link to Terms of Services found at the bottom of most pages on site and read their cmail.



dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 4:54:59 PM)

quote:

I dunno DC, I found the whole post rather enlightening.

In a way, it was enlightening--a stark, sad reminder that antigay bigotry endures, even in 2015.



Aylee -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 4:59:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it

Well, bless your heart.


I think that you are looking at this wrong DC. I have been to PRIDE events in a couple different cities (Denver, Grand Junction, Lawrence, Olympia) and I have NEVER seen a "I am a huge faggot" t-shirt.

I am betting that you could make some money with this idea.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 5:57:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it

Well, bless your heart.


I second your motion, DC.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 5:58:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
I'd like you two to fully explain Connecticut's 52-571B fully to us. How its both different and the same as Indiana's controversial law in the news.


I think reading is fundamental, joether. Since you seem to be having an issue with comprehension, I will allow you to continue to attempt to comprehend. I will not take your hand and show the world to you. This is something best figured out on your own.



slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 5:59:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan

I just want to chime in to say, a business owner should have the right to refuse whoever they like, for any reason at all. Or no reason.

This bill is the exact opposite of tyranny.

If a gay person has a problem with it, they can either:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it
or
2. shop elsewhere, free market in action

nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, nobodys freedoms are impinged.

Wow,welcome to the boards....you should fit in well here [8|]



dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 6:00:00 PM)

quote:

I think that you are looking at this wrong DC. I have been to PRIDE events in a couple different cities (Denver, Grand Junction, Lawrence, Olympia) and I have NEVER seen a "I am a huge faggot" t-shirt.

I am betting that you could make some money with this idea.

Good thinking, Aylee! [:)]

Sounds like there might also be a market for "I am a huge bigot" shirts.



dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 6:04:47 PM)

FR

Saw this on Facebook and got a much-needed chuckle. [:)]

[image]local://upfiles/312801/623D9D49E0C34E3EBF2F0613DFC2790A.jpg[/image]



PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 6:10:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan

I just want to chime in to say, a business owner should have the right to refuse whoever they like, for any reason at all. Or no reason.

This bill is the exact opposite of tyranny.

If a gay person has a problem with it, they can either:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it
or
2. shop elsewhere, free market in action

nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, nobodys freedoms are impinged.


Drivel. These people are trashing free market principles by stopping people shopping in their stores - and you are, too, by supporting them. If you hate freedom so much, what are you doing living in a country that claims so much to support it?



BamaD -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 6:23:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan

I just want to chime in to say, a business owner should have the right to refuse whoever they like, for any reason at all. Or no reason.

This bill is the exact opposite of tyranny.

If a gay person has a problem with it, they can either:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it
or
2. shop elsewhere, free market in action

nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, nobodys freedoms are impinged.


Drivel. These people are trashing free market principles by stopping people shopping in their stores - and you are, too, by supporting them. If you hate freedom so much, what are you doing living in a country that claims so much to support it?

No they suffer free market consequences. If they don't do business with someone, someone else will. The only person hurt is the businessman.



slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/30/2015 6:27:13 PM)

And the folks turned away because of their orientation....are you suggesting they suffer no inconvenience ?


edited to add a missing k



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625