RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone

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

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

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/31/2015 9:12:29 PM)
In an interview, today, the guy that wrote Clinton's 1993 federal RFRA law said that there is no appreciable difference between his law and the Indiana law. I forgot his last name. His first name is "Mike" (ETA: Michael Ferris or Farris) I think something else bears repeating, also: quote: We all have a shared desire, here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties: Religious freedom. Usually, the signing of legislation by a president is a ministerial act; often, a quiet ending to a turbulent legislative process. Today, this event assumes a more majestic quality because of our ability together to affirm the historic role that people of faith have played in the history of this country and the constitutional protections those who profess and express their faith have always demanded and cherished. The power to reverse legislation … by legislation, a decision of the United States Supreme Court is a power that is rightly … hesitantly and infrequently exercised by the United States Congress but this is an issue in which that extreme measure was clearly called for. As the Vice President said, this act reverses the Supreme Court's decision, “Employment Division Against Smith” and re-establishes a standard that better protects all Americans of all faiths in the exercise of their religion in a way that, I am convinced, is far more consistent with the intent of the founders of this nation than the Supreme Court decision. More than fifty cases have been decided against individuals making religious claims against government action since that decision was handed down. This act will help to reverse that trend by honoring the principle that our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties. The free exercise of religion has been called: “the first freedom”; that which originally sparked the development of the full range of the Bill of Rights. Our founders cared a lot about religion and one of the reasons they worked so hard to get the first amendment into the Bill of Rights, at the head of the class, is that they well understood what could happen to this country; how both religion and government could be perverted if their were not some space created and some protection provided. They knew that religion helps to give our people a character without which a democracy cannot survive. They knew that there needed to be a space … a freedom between government and people of faith that otherwise, government might usurp. They have seen, now, all of us that religion and religious institutions have brought forth faith and discipline, community and responsibility over to centuries for ourselves and enabled us to live together in ways that, I believe, would not have been possible. We are, after all, the oldest democracy, now, in history and probably the most truly multi-ethnic society on the face of the earth and I am convinced that neither one of those things would be true, today had it not been for the importance of the first amendment and the fact that we have kept faith with it for two hundred years. Our citizens … (interruption by applause) What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the congress. We believe, strongly, that we can never … we can never be too vigilant in this work. Let me make one other comment, if I might, before I close and sit down and sign this bill: There is a great debate, now, abroad in the land which finds itself into … injected into several political races about the extent to which people of faith can seek to do God's will as political actors. I would like to come down on the side of encouraging everybody to act on what they believe is the right thing to do. There are many people in this country who strenuously disagree with me on what they believe are the strongest grounds of their faith. I encourage them to speak out. I encourage all Americans to reach deep inside to try to determine what it is that drives their lives, most deeply. As many of you know, I have been quite moved by Stephen Carter's book: “The Culture of Disbelief”. He makes a compelling case that today, Americans of all political persuasions and all regents have created a climate in this country in which some people believe uh that they are embarrassed to say that they advocate a course of action simply because they believe it is the right thing to do because they believe it is dictated by their faith by what they discern to be, with their best efforts, the will of God. I submit to you, today, my fellow Americans, that we can stand that kind of debate in this country. We are living in a country where the most central institution of our society, the family, has been under assault for thirty years. We are living in a country in which a hundred and sixty thousand school children don't go to school, every day because they're afraid someone will shoot them or beat them up or not knife them. We are living in a country, now, where gunshots are the single leading cause of death among teen-aged boys. We are living in a country where people can find themselves shot in the crossfire of teen-agers who are often better armed than the police, who are trying to protect other people from illegal conduct. It is high time we had an open and honest re-affirmation of the role of American citizens of faith; not so that we can agree but so that we can argue and discourse and seek the truth and seek to heal this troubled land. So, today, I ask you to also think of that. We are a people of faith. We have been so secure in that faith that we have enshrined in our constitution protections for people who profess no faith and good for us for doing so. That is what the first amendment is all about, but let us never believe that the freedom of religion imposes on any of us some responsibility to run from our convictions. Let us, instead, respect one anothers' faiths, fight, to the death, to preserve the right of every American to practice whatever convictions he or she has but bring our values back to the tables of American discourse to heal our troubled land. Thank you, very much. (Applause) William Jefferson Clinton 16 NOV, 1993 right before signing the federal RFRA Let me repeat a part of that, with emphasis: quote: We are a people of faith. We have been so secure in that faith that we have enshrined in our constitution protections for people who profess no faith and good for us for doing so. That is what the first amendment is all about, but let us never believe that the freedom of religion imposes on any of us some responsibility to run from our convictions. Let us, instead, respect one anothers' faiths, fight, to the death, to preserve the right of every American to practice whatever convictions he or she has but bring our values back to the tables of American discourse to heal our troubled land. Michael

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/31/2015 10:12:49 PM)
Yeah, I don't think so. That speech is a lot of "feel good," but it ain't heavy on substance. I don't want to make this a long Wall of Text (© joether), so I'm just going to link an article from the journal of Loyola University's school of law, and note in passing that Loyola is no hotbed of secularism. Although the article is principally an analysis of the Illinois RFRA, it touches directly on all of them, including the Federal RFRA, because they are all materially identical in their Constitutional dubiousness and potential for abuse (case in point), as reflected by the subtitle: Why RFRAs Don't Work K.

Oneechan -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 2:20:57 AM)
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? What ? They're exercising heir free-market right to find a different buyer for their products or services. See BamaD's post below yours too. If supply outstrips demand for their product (as it does for most consumer items nowadays) then they're only hurting themselves by turning away possible business. That's their righ as much as they have a right to throw away their money on drink or gambling It only becomes a possible threat to the LOCAL free market if indiana's stores start refusing service to gays on a large scale, locking them out of the market. If that unlikely scenario does happen, the gays could move to california or somesuch where they'd be more welcome. Or, more likely, use the free market again, and just found their own stores that are gay-friendly, and will benefit from lots of free publicity due to the issues. Problem solves itself. Did you seriously use the "if you hate freedom.." line? that's pretty troll tier. If you love freedom so much, why are you in favour of forcing anyone to do something against their will? especially when, as already explained, there are natural consequences for their actions.

JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 3:01:46 AM)
Twenty years ago was an entirely different world. Don't ask, don't tell seemed like a good idea then too. I think Clinton was right that the country wasn't ready to fully embrace many gay rights issues at the time. But I don't think he could have even imagined that it would take us this long to make the few steps we have. In a lot of ways, things are moving faster than I ever could have hoped. I'm still trying to wrap my head around being able to legally get married.

thishereboi -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 3:59:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Bullshit. I would expect the gay florist to enjoy the sweet irony of providing floral arrangements for WBC (We Be Chuckleheads) when WBC (Woefully Bigoted Cretins) is so adamantly opposed to homosexuality. Hell, I'd order the floral arrangement from a gay florist, so I, too, could enjoy that irony! But, I am a bit of a prick... I was chatting with some folks yesterday and brought up this comparison. One suggested that not only would he not mind providing flowers for them but had he thought about it, he would have called and offered. When I asked why he would want to do anything for those fuckwads he said it was so he could personally water each arrangement himself. His only concern was that the urine would kill the flowers before the service. Now I am not suggesting that a good christian would ever intentionally sabotage a cake, but we all know not all christians are good. Personally I would rather know up front that they are waiting on me because they want to and not because big brother said they had to.

thishereboi -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 4:05:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Twenty years ago was an entirely different world. Don't ask, don't tell seemed like a good idea then too. I think Clinton was right that the country wasn't ready to fully embrace many gay rights issues at the time. But I don't think he could have even imagined that it would take us this long to make the few steps we have. In a lot of ways, things are moving faster than I ever could have hoped. I'm still trying to wrap my head around being able to legally get married. It may seem that way to you but things really weren't that different 20 years ago unless you are talking only about technology. People were pretty much the same. But I will give you credit for coming up with a new excuse for billy boy. That's one I hadn't heard before. Still bullshit, but new bullshit.

bounty44 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 4:33:01 AM)
this an aside from the immediate conversation... Perfect timing: Things to consider the next time any of the leftists here think Christians are hypocritical, hateful bigots who don’t understand what it means to be a Christian simply because they oppose gay marriage: quote: In news that must have shocked the vast majority of New York Times subscribers, columnist Nicholas Kristof this week divulged that he has seen evangelical Christians doing selfless, crucial service in the world’s most dangerous places among the most desperately poor, even though liberals know evangelicals are religious bumpkins. Today, among urban Americans and Europeans, “evangelical Christian” is sometimes a synonym for “rube.” In liberal circles, evangelicals constitute one of the few groups that it’s safe to mock openly. Yet the liberal caricature of evangelicals is incomplete and unfair. I have little in common, politically or theologically, with evangelicals or, while I’m at it, conservative Roman Catholics. But I’ve been truly awed by those I’ve seen in so many remote places, combating illiteracy and warlords, famine and disease, humbly struggling to do the Lord’s work as they see it, and it is offensive to see good people derided. Surprisingly, Kristof doesn’t urge readers to develop a more complete and fair caricature of such “rubes,” but actually suggests liberals pause and reflect “the next time you hear someone at a cocktail party mock evangelicals.” As an evangelical Christian, I don’t get to as many cocktail parties as I used to, and I didn’t realize that folks at such parties mock people like me with enough frequency that a columnist for “the paper of record” feels duty-bound to deal with the subject. I do, however, spend a lot of time with other Christians, and it is not an extraordinary thing at church to meet folks who have traveled the world on medical missions, provided food and clothing to those in need, or helped in a variety of other personal ways. It’s also not surprising in my church to see married couples who have adopted or foster-parented multiple children whose delightful faces reflect a rich palette of human hues. I know a Christian couple from a tiny midwestern town who had more the 60 foster children over the years. Last I heard, they were living in Oaxaca, Mexico, serving people in the name of Christ. I’ve known Christians who would quietly slip cash into the hand of a needy person at their moment of greatest need, or who would let a stranger use their vehicle or their spare bedroom for as long as necessary — or who would drop everything to drive hundreds of miles to help someone. When it seemed I didn’t have a friend in the world — but I did have a case of bronchitis that was blooming into pneumonia — a pastor and his wife took me into their home, fed me, did my laundry and nursed me back to health, without being asked and without asking for anything. As odd as it sounds to me to hear Kristof’s surprise at the love and grace I see around me daily — I don’t want the moment to pass without recognizing Nick for recognizing it. I must say that a disproportionate share of the aid workers I’ve met in the wildest places over the years, long after anyone sensible had evacuated, have been evangelicals, nuns or priests. Likewise, religious Americans donate more of their incomes to charity, and volunteer more hours, than the nonreligious, according to polls. In the United States and abroad, the safety net of soup kitchens, food pantries and women’s shelters depends heavily on religious donations and volunteers. The brothers and sisters in Christ I described above don’t need praise from men, not even from impressive liberal columnists for the New York Times. They hear the applause of heaven, and feel the joy of Jesus as they work in the power of his Spirit. Nevertheless, I think it’s good for the country, for Times readers and even for Nick, whenever anyone gets a glimpse at the absurdity of his own bigotry. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/31/ny-times-shocking-revelation-evangelical-rubes-risk-their-lives-to-help-poor-black-foreigners/

mnottertail -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 6:52:05 AM)
I wonder if there is hard, citable fact of these Evangelical Christians doing the lords work throughout the world, and what percentage of evangelical christians as a whole they represent. Like how many are from Liberty University or the like. Anecdote is not synecdoche.

Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 8:57:45 AM)
Arkansas governor says he won’t sign religious liberty bill, asks lawmakers to change it Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Wednesday morning he will not sign a controversial religious liberty bill, saying he wants lawmakers to recall the bill and change it. His announcement came a day after lawmakers in the state overwhelmingly voted to approve the controversial bill despite an uproar over a similar law in Indiana. The bill that made it to his desk does not mirror a federal law, Hutchinson said, which was his goal from the beginning. As a result, he said he wants lawmakers to alter the language in the bill. “This is a bill that in ordinary times would not be controversial,” he said. “But these are not ordinary times.” Hutchinson said the bill is fairly straightforward, but says the issue “has become divisive because our nation remains split over how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions.” This division has reached his own household, Hutchinson said. He described how his son, Seth, signed a petition asking him to veto the bill, which he said highlights the generational gap that exists over the issue. Hutchinson had previously said he intends to sign the legislation, which has been compared to the Indiana bill that drew widespread criticism from business leaders, high-profile companies like Apple and major organizations like the NCAA. The firestorm in Indiana grew so severe that lawmakers and Gov. Mike Pence (R) vowed to update the bill to make clear it does not allow discrimination. Proponents of these laws say they are necessary to protect the rights of religious people. But the Indiana law and the Arkansas bill have drawn particular fire because unlike the federal religious freedom law and similar laws in states across the country, these new bills say that companies can have the same religious rights as individuals, which opponents say could be used to let businesses discriminate against gay couples. Opponents of the Arkansas bill include Walmart, which is headquartered in the state. Doug McMillon, Walmart’s chief executive, said in a statement after the bill was passed by state lawmakers that the legislation “threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/01/arkansas-governor-to-discuss-religious-liberty-bill/?tid=trending_strip_2

dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 9:08:01 AM)
FR Does anyone know when the last RFRA bill prior to Indiana's was passed? I tried researching it, but struck out.

Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 9:12:19 AM)
I think i posted the link a few pages earlier, but I could be wrong gonna see if I can find it again here ya go DC...Mississippi was the last one, and has all the statutes, and more info here http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-rfra-statutes.aspx in the sidebar and the map too...its the National Conference of State Legislatures website.

Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 9:21:09 AM)
I thought the wapo could have been an april fools day prank, but the NY times has picked it up to Arkansas Governor Seeks Changes to Religious Freedom Bill Gov. Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday called on the state legislature to recall or amend a measure billed as protecting religious freedom to make it mirror a federal version passed in 1993. Mr. Hutchinson, a Republican, said he understood how divided the state and the country was over gay marriage and religion — his own son, Seth, had asked him to veto the bill, which critics say could allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. He said he was also considering using an executive order that would make “Arkansas a place of tolerance.” “This is a bill that in ordinary times would not be controversial,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “But these are not ordinary times.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/arkansas-indiana-religious-freedom-hutchinson-pence.html?emc=edit_na_20150401

dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 9:57:08 AM)
Thanks, Lucy! Future historians will have fun sorting out why Indiana's law spurred such a reaction.

Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 10:30:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Twenty years ago was an entirely different world. Don't ask, don't tell seemed like a good idea then too. I think Clinton was right that the country wasn't ready to fully embrace many gay rights issues at the time. But I don't think he could have even imagined that it would take us this long to make the few steps we have. In a lot of ways, things are moving faster than I ever could have hoped. I'm still trying to wrap my head around being able to legally get married. It may seem that way to you but things really weren't that different 20 years ago unless you are talking only about technology. People were pretty much the same. But I will give you credit for coming up with a new excuse for billy boy. That's one I hadn't heard before. Still bullshit, but new bullshit. I personally think that a LOT has changed in the past 20 years, especially for and IN the LGBT community, I am NOT gay, or lesbian, but have family and a lot of friends who are, and Ive seen a huge change in what life is for them, now compared to 20 years ago. Gay marriage for one... Canada okayed it in only in 2003. The US had their first state ok with it when Mass okayed it in 2004 since then 36 states have okayed it. DOMA was repealed, DADT was repealed, Discrimination cases have been all to frequent. In my experience, and legally things HAVE changed enormously. my godmother recently lost her wife(my sisters godmother) when she died in spain before christmas. they have been a couple since 1960 They havent got her body back to the UK, because her marriage certificate, altho legal in spain, really upset the coroner who at first refused to release her body to anyone but blood kin(her sister or niece from her dead brother).

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 10:32:24 AM)
"We've lived your way for over 200 years, in this country. We say we want equality, but now, we want you to live our way" The multi-billion dollar Gay Rights Lobby

PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 10:33:07 AM)
FR Is there anything in the Bible saying that gluttony is bad? If so, might this lead to situation where certain Christian cake-makers (obviously only those who misinterpret a no doubt small and irrelevant part of the Bible) refuse to sell cakes to people who look overweight? Just wondering. No, I wasn't really wondering that.

Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 10:41:59 AM)
well its one of the seven deadly sins, but im leaving those suckers alone

Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 10:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr "We've lived your way for over 200 years, in this country. We say we want equality, but now, we want you to live our way" The multi-billion dollar Gay Rights Lobby WHen you can actually attribute a quote to someone outside your imagination, we may want to consider taking you seriously.

DesFIP -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 10:58:45 AM)
No state funds in Connecticut can be used to transport people to Indiana as of now. This means that UConn, last year's March Madness winner will not be in attendance.

Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 12:08:43 PM)
Indiana's Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/indiana-pizza-gay-couples_n_6985208.html A family-owned pizza parlor is causing a media stir after reportedly becoming the first business to publicly vow to reject gay weddings in the wake of Indiana's controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton said theirs is a "Christian establishment" and that they agree with Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who has come under fire after signing the bill, which allows business owners to cite religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party, ABC 57 reported. “That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual," Kevin O'Connor told the news station. "They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” O'Connor's daughter Crystal said she didn't think that the bill was "targeting gays," adding, "It's supposed to help people that have a religious belief." In a separate interview with The Daily Beast, O'Connor clarified that although he doesn't "have a problem with gay people," he does not condone same-sex marriage. Although he wouldn't cater to a same-sex wedding, he wouldn't turn anyone away from the shop itself. “I mean, we don’t believe in murder. I also don’t believe in abortion,” he added. Indiana's law has been slammed by political figures and celebrities alike. Stephen King, George Takei and Miley Cyrus are just a few of the bold-faced names to have condemned the legislation thus far. Meanwhile, Pence has since called for an amendment to clarify that the legislation does not allow businesses to deny service to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02