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

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



Message


PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 7:43:49 AM)

Far out.




thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 7:54:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Interesting bit of backstory:

Interesting bit of backstory:

When a Democrat introduced the Federal RFRA, which Congress passed with overwhelming Democrat support, and which was signed into law by a Democrat president, it wasn't anti-gay.




When 19 states enacted materially identical legislation, it wasn't anti-gay. But Indiana's materially identical law is anti-gay because some assholes are in a photo.

Tell me again who is lying?

K.





The guys in the photo have copped to their input in this legislation...that is why they are in the picture.
The law is not materially the same. It is not even in the same zip code with materially the same.

5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

The above is the Indiana law.
Below is the federal law.

(4) the term "exercise of religion means the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Notice how the Indiana law allows someone to interpret their religious bellief in ways not sanctioned by their religion.






thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 7:58:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The sun has never revolved around the earth even though many ignorant fools believed it did. The fact that ignorant fools believed believed this for more than a thousand years after it was proved wrong is no different than the ignorant fools who believe their imaginary friend does not approve of gays.

[image]local://upfiles/235229/56C91DFB1A56415A888A5E5E3384B46B.jpg[/image]
image source

K.





Thaat would seem to validate that there is no shortage of ignorant fools.




Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:17:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The law is not materially the same. It is not even in the same zip code with materially the same.

5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

The above is the Indiana law.
Below is the federal law.

(4) the term "exercise of religion means the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

42 U.S. Code Chapter 21B - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION

Click on Definitions:

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

Click on 2000cc-5:

(7)(A) The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Have a nice day.

K.




slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:57:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Maybe we should do away with these labels than.....would that work ?
Obviously you see no validity to either term.



what you wrote is not suggested by my post. how about just using them when they are applicably valid, as opposed to willy nilly throwing them about and redefining them to suit the leftist agenda?

The trouble is that you seem predisposed to jump to the conclusion that the left never uses these words properly.
That in any and all instances it is nothing more than a label to be applied to stifle legitimate discourse.
I disagree with this vehemently,there are actual bigots and racists ,and they sometimes dress up their bigotry by asserting their "freedoms" and "liberties"




thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 9:44:41 AM)

Here is a copy of the federal rfra from the govt printing office. The lli reference to what constitutes exercise of religion is no where to be seen. I don't know where they got it.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/searchresults.action;jsessionid=pyxYVvnNxp7vzJ6nLb91PdGfTGX0zGJ4HbqnyGpDsDPRJPJtCX0Z!-1677072606!67827108?st=pub.L.+103%E2%80%93141%2C+%C2%A75%2C+Nov.+16%2C+1993%2C+107+Stat.+1489




107 STAT. 1488 PUBLIC LAW 103-141—NOV. 16, 1993
Public Law 103-141
103d Congress
An Act
Nov. 16, 1993 To protect the free exercise of religion.
[H.R. 1308]
Religious ^^ *' enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
Freedom the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Restoration Act
of 1993. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
note. This Act may be cited as the "Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993".
42 u s e 2000bb. SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the fi*amers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise
of religion as an inalienable right, secured its protection in
the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious
exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious
exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious
exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that
the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed
by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal
court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances
between religious liberty and competing prior governmental
interests.
(b) PURPOSES.—^The purposes of this Act are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in
Sherbert v. Vemer, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application
in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially
burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious
exercise is substantially burdened by government.
42 use SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF REUGION PROTECTED.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially burden
a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from
a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection
(b).
(b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially burden a person's
exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application
of the burden to the person—
http://prop1.org/legal/rfra.htm

PUBLIC LAW 103-141—NOV. 16, 1993 107 STAT. 1489
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.
(c) JUDICIAL RELIEF.—^A person whose religioiis exercise has
been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation
as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate
relief against a government. Stcmding to assert a claim or defense
under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing
imder article III of the Constitution.
SEC. 4. ATTORNEYS FEES.
(a) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.—Section 722 of the Revised Statutes
(42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by inserting "the Reli^ous Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993," before "or title Vl of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964".
(b) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.—Section 504(bXlXC) of title
5, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking "and" at the end of clause (ii);
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (iii)
and inserting ", and"; and
(3) by inserting "(iv) the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993," after clause (iii).
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act—
(1) the term "government" includes a branch, department,
agency, instrumentjility, and official (or other person acting
under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision
of a State;
(2) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and
possession of the United States;
(3) the term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of
going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and
(4) the term "exercise of religion means the exercise of
religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—This Act applies to all Federal and State
law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or
otherwise, and wnether adopted before or after the enactment of
this Act.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Federal statutory law adopted
after the d£^ of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act
unless such liaw explicitly excludes such application by reference
to this Act.
(c) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious
belief.
SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret,
or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting
laws respecting the estabUshment of religion (referred to in
this section as the "Establishment Clause"). Granting government
funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under
the EstabUshment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this
42 use
2000bb-2.
42 use
2000bb-3.
42 u se
2000bb-4
107 STAT. 1490 PUBLIC LAW 103-141—NOV. 16, 1993
Act. As used in this section, the term "granting^, used with respect
to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include
the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
Approved November 16, 1993.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1308 (S. 578):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 103-88 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 103-111 accompanying S. 578 (Ctomm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 139 (1993):
May 11, considered and passed House.
Oct. 26, 27, S. 578 considered in Senate; H.R. 1308, amended, passed in lieu.
Nov. 3, House concurred in Senate amendment.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 29 (1993):
Nov. 16, Presidential remarks







Lii is not to be confused with cornell university school they are:

Welcome to the LII

Thank you for wanting to learn more about the LII. We are a small research, engineering, and editorial group housed at the Cornell Law School in Ithaca, NY. Our collaborators include publishers, legal scholars, computer scientists, government agencies, and other groups and individuals that promote open access to law, worldwide.




Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 10:23:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Here is a copy of the federal rfra from the govt printing office. The lli reference to what constitutes exercise of religion is no where to be seen. I don't know where they got it.

They got it from the GPO, of course. You want the direct link? Fine. Put your reading glasses on!

U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 21B, pages 4439-4440
U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 21C, pages 4440-4443

K.




thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 12:18:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Here is a copy of the federal rfra from the govt printing office. The lli reference to what constitutes exercise of religion is no where to be seen. I don't know where they got it.

They got it from the GPO, of course. You want the direct link? Fine. Put your reading glasses on!

U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 21B, pages 4439-4440
U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 21C, pages 4440-4443

K.



From your link
§ 2000cc–5. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) Claimant
The term ‘‘claimant’’ means a person raising
a claim or defense under this chapter.
(2) Demonstrates
The term ‘‘demonstrates’’ means meets the
burdens of going forward with the evidence
and of persuasion.
(3) Free Exercise Clause
The term ‘‘Free Exercise Clause’’ means
that portion of the first amendment to the
Constitution that proscribes laws prohibiting
the free exercise of religion.

(4) Government
The term ‘‘government’’—
(A) means—
(i) a State, county, municipality, or
other governmental entity created under
the authority of a State;
(ii) any branch, department, agency, instrumentality,
or official of an entity listed
in clause (i); and
(iii) any other person acting under color
of State law; and
(B) for the purposes of sections 2000cc–2(b)
and 2000cc–3 of this title, includes the United
States, a branch, department, agency, instrumentality,
or official of the United
States, and any other person acting under
color of Federal law.
(5) Land use regulation
The term ‘‘land use regulation’’ means a
zoning or landmarking law, or the application
(4) Government
The term ‘‘government’’—
(A) means—
(i) a State, county, municipality, or
other governmental entity created under
the authority of a State;
(ii) any branch, department, agency, instrumentality,
or official of an entity listed
in clause (i); and
(iii) any other person acting under color
of State law; and
(B) for the purposes of sections 2000cc–2(b)
and 2000cc–3 of this title, includes the United
States, a branch, department, agency, instrumentality,
or official of the United
States, and any other person acting under
color of Federal law.


This section on land use is where we find the part about

(A. In general
The term ‘‘religious exercise’’ includes any
exercise of religion, whether or not compelled
by, or central to, a system of religious
belief.)


(5) Land use regulation
The term ‘‘land use regulation’’ means a
zoning or landmarking law, or the application
of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant’s
use or development of land (including a
structure affixed to land), if the claimant has
an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude,
or other property interest in the regulated
land or a contract or option to acquire such an
interest.
(6) Program or activity
The term ‘‘program or activity’’ means all of
the operations of any entity as described in
paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2000d–4a of this
title.
(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term ‘‘religious exercise’’ includes any
exercise of religion, whether or not compelled
by, or central to, a system of religious
belief.

(B) Rule
The use, building, or conversion of real
property for the purpose of religious exercise
shall be considered to be religious exercise of
the person or entity that uses or intends to
use the property for that purpose.
(Pub. L. 106–274, § 8, Sept. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 806.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original
‘‘this Act’’, meaning Pub. L. 106–274, Sept. 22, 2000, 114
Stat. 803, which is classified principally to this chapter.
For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see
Short Title note set out under section 2000cc of this
title and Tables.

It would appear that
The term ‘‘religious exercise’’ includes any
exercise of religion, whether or not compelled
by, or central to, a system of religious
belief.
Is refering to the use of church land for those activities that may not be compelled as a tennant of belief but rather those things like bingo games or bake sales and so forth.




Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 2:52:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

It would appear that
The term ‘‘religious exercise’’ includes any
exercise of religion, whether or not compelled
by, or central to, a system of religious
belief.
Is refering to the use of church land for those activities that may not be compelled as a tennant of belief but rather those things like bingo games or bake sales and so forth.

CHAPTER 21B - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION
2000bb. Congressional findings and declaration of purposes.
2000bb-1. Free exercise of religion protected.
2000bb-2. Definitions.
2000bb-3. Applicability.
2000bb-4. Establishment clause unaffected

Section 2000bb-2. Definitions
(4) the term "exercise of religion" means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc-5 of this title
.

K.




dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 3:27:58 PM)

FR

A fellow Episcopalian posted this on Facebook, and I thought offered an interesting take on the great cake question.

[image]https://tenthousandplaces.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/gay-wedding.jpg[/image]

http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/




Sanity -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 3:31:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

A fellow Episcopalian posted this on Facebook, and I thought offered an interesting take on the great cake question.

[image]https://tenthousandplaces.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/gay-wedding.jpg[/image]

http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/


And when the recipe calls for water, substitute cow or dog urine instead

But then, I aint no Christian




Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 3:40:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

you could be right SFB


At least your reply didnt let me down.




Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 3:41:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Your link does nothing to discount Homophobic from meaning the conception most people have of it.

Using your superpowers, precisely what conception do "most people" have?

Would that be the first one you trotted out from Stonewall...
Homophobia is the irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people

or the second one you linked from Oxford...
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people

or maybe one of these...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I think you will find all dictionaries say pretty much the same thing.

Well compared to the Oxford, Cambridge adds fear and omits prejudice:
fear and dislike of homosexuals

Merrian-Webster adds discrimination and qualifies the fear as irrational:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

American Heritage introduces irrational hatred, but omits prejudice and discrimination:
irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

Collins swaps intense for irrational, but omits prejudice and discrimination:
intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

So, those are all "pretty much the same thing"? Bear in mind this is an intelligence test.

K



You wouldnt know an intelligence test if it bit you on the arse Kirata. Keep on kidding yourself you are right, if it makes you feel any better.




Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 3:45:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Maybe we should do away with these labels than.....would that work ?
Obviously you see no validity to either term.




I am quite amused that the only argument they seem to have is that I am using the wrong fucking word.... [;)]




Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 3:48:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Maybe we should do away with these labels than.....would that work ?
Obviously you see no validity to either term.



what you wrote is not suggested by my post. how about just using them when they are applicably valid, as opposed to willy nilly throwing them about and redefining them to suit the leftist agenda?


You dont know what leftist means either. I am sure there must be some Republican bullshit dictionary that I need to get a copy of.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 3:51:24 PM)

Don't forget, Kirata. The addition of 'homosexuality' in these definitions...especially those using the term 'fear of'...allows for someone to tell you that any time you stand against gays in any way, it is because you fear the homosexual within yourself.




Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 3:54:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Don't forget, Kirata. The addition of 'homosexuality' in these definitions...especially those using the term 'fear of'...allows for someone to tell you that any time you stand against gays in any way, it is because you fear the homosexual within yourself.


Wow........ just fucking wow.




Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 4:04:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Maybe we should do away with these labels than.....would that work ?
Obviously you see no validity to either term.



what you wrote is not suggested by my post. how about just using them when they are applicably valid, as opposed to willy nilly throwing them about and redefining them to suit the leftist agenda?


You dont know what leftist means either. I am sure there must be some Republican bullshit dictionary that I need to get a copy of.


conservapedia is the rule book....




CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 4:12:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Don't forget, Kirata. The addition of 'homosexuality' in these definitions...especially those using the term 'fear of'...allows for someone to tell you that any time you stand against gays in any way, it is because you fear the homosexual within yourself.


Wow........ just fucking wow.

Have a problem with what the authors of the articles I cited have to say? Take it up with them.




Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 4:15:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Have a problem with what the authors of the articles I cited have to say? Take it up with them.



Oh the fucking irony. How soon you forget your own posts on the matter.




Page: <<   < prev  38 39 [40] 41 42   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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