Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,684,715 times
Reputation: 9324

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Telling the poor to go **** off and die.

That's your contemporary religious right-wing.
You have it backwards and you know it. You hate religious people because they give their OWN money to help the poor rather than rely on the government. But you already know that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,684,715 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
C'mon Roadking. Not a church, but take a look at the AFA sometime. That organization is pure hatred.
As I said, give me an example of their hateful politics. I'm not familiar with the AFA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,299 posts, read 2,343,568 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
I'm somewhere in the middle on this issue. I agree that you should not be forced to do or participate in anything that advocates for a lifestyle and sexual behavior you believe is immoral.

The only cases of that I can think of would be tied to a same-sex wedding. You can't force the local Catholic Church to allow you to get married in their building or on any of their property. You can't force a wedding photographer to do your wedding photos. You can't force a caterer to cater for your wedding. You can't force any minister or pastor you like to perform the marriage ceremony. The tricky part in all that is that somebody needs to provide those services or you've got a big problem. I don't envision this being a problem in most parts of the country, but you need a plan in case it comes up.

On the flipside:
  • If you're selling houses, you have to sell it to gay and straight people equally and without bias.
  • If you're renting an apartment, then you rent to gay and straight equally.
  • If you have a restaurant, you serve gay and straight equally.
  • If you're a pizza delivery service, you deliver to gay or straight equally.
  • If you're giving haircuts, you give them to both gay and straight equally.
  • If you sell clothes, you sell them to gay and straight equally.
  • If you are hiring folks, you hire equally.

Expand that and you get the idea. There is only a tiny fraction of people who have any realistic need to opt out of offering a service to gays. Thing is, those are all things where nobody ask for nor cares much about your sexual orientation.
I don't think there needs to be a centralized plan. The way I see it is that the service will be provided by someone. IMO, it's an irrational fear to worry that absolutely nobody would accept that person's business...or that nobody else would take advantage of that situation. If there is demand, someone will say "I don't care, I'll do the job for you".

Even if that were false and the person had absolutely nobody that would do business with them, I don't think it's that person's right to use the guns of government and force them to. If it's wrong for a person to do individually, it's still wrong if you have other people do it for you. The question I always ask myself is "if I personally did this, would it be wrong?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:24 PM
 
594 posts, read 344,945 times
Reputation: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
By game you mean the ridiculous nonsense that treating every customer the same would somehow magically mean that a butcher has to change what products they stock - that kind of silly game?
Not at all. The silly game is to assume the worst possible scenario will become the norm.

Even if you think your rligious freedom has been infringed upon, you will still need to go before a court and present your case, and demonstrate a substantial burden to your religious freedom.

The game is pretending that in Indianna it is now legal for a business owner to essentially slap up a sign stating "NO GAYS ALLOWED."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:25 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,509,373 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr

I'm looking forward to the convenience of going to the Muslim butcher nearby and being able to get a quality pork shoulder.
Such laws don't say butchers (or anyone) have to provide the services demanded by customers. It says that the services already provided by the business must be offered to everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:27 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,509,373 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleidd View Post
Not at all. The silly game is to assume the worst possible scenario will become the norm.

Even if you think your rligious freedom has been infringed upon, you will still need to go before a court and present your case, and demonstrate a substantial burden to your religious freedom.

The game is pretending that in Indianna it is now legal for a business owner to essentially slap up a sign stating "NO GAYS ALLOWED."
Indiana Pizzeria Tells Local News Station They Won

A local Indiana ABC station spoke to a pizzeria Tuesday night who will not serve to same-sex marriages after the Indiana law was passed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,382,621 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1 View Post
I wonder where opinions would fall if it were a muslim owned bakery that refused to put two grooms on top of a cake?
He'd get the same treatment.

Again, if your phony baloney God wants you to openly and arbitrarily* discriminate against "sinners" who participate in a lifestyle you disagree with, DON'T OPEN A BUSINESS TO THE PUBLIC.

Don't like adulterers? Don't work at a strip club. Don't believe in working on Sunday? Stay away from Walmart.

See how this works?


(*I say arbitrarily because I've never heard of an obese person being denied service at a Christian bakery. Gluttony = ok. Being gay = not okay).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Corona del Mar, CA - Coronado, CA
4,477 posts, read 3,281,311 times
Reputation: 5609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
That's because, unlike Indiana, none of the other RFRAs explicitly allows for-profit businesses to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." And in some of those states sexual orientation is a protection class. Furthermore, Louisiana and Pennsylvania explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

So Goldberg and many others here are either too lazy to read the actual text of those laws or are intentionally lying when to say that Indiana's law is just like other RFRA's.

Which is it?
Here is the text of the Indiana bill:

Quote:
[CENTER][CENTER]SENATE BILL No. 568 [/CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER][/CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure. [/CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER][/CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:[/CENTER][/CENTER]

1 SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS 2 A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON 3 PASSAGE]: 4 Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration Act 5 Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "burden" means an action 6 that directly or indirectly: 7 (1) constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of 8 religion by a person; or 9 (2) compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the 10 person's exercise of religion. 11 (b) The term includes: 12 (1) withholding a benefit from a person; 13 (2) assessing a criminal, a civil, or an administrative penalty 14 against a person; or 15 (3) excluding a person from a governmental program or 16 denying a person access to a governmental facility. 2015IN 568—LS 7497/DI 69

2 1 Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "compelling governmental 2 interest" means a governmental interest of the highest magnitude 3 that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the exercise 4 of religion. 5 Sec. 3. (a) As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" means 6 the practice or observance of religion. 7 (b) The term includes a person's ability to: 8 (1) act; or 9 (2) refuse to act; 10 in a manner that is substantially motivated by the person's 11 sincerely held religious belief, regardless of whether the religious 12 belief is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief. 13 Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "person" means an individual, an 14 association, a partnership, a limited liability company, a 15 corporation, a church, a religious institution, an estate, a trust, a 16 foundation, or any other legal entity. 17 Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "state action" means: 18 (1) the implementation or application of a state or local law or 19 policy; or 20 (2) the taking of any other action; 21 by the state or a political subdivision of the state. 22 Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based 23 on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to 24 the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or 25 policy of general applicability, unless the state or political 26 subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to 27 the person's exercise of religion is: 28 (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; 29 and 30 (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling 31 governmental interest. 32 Sec. 7. (a) A person whose exercise of religion: 33 (1) has been substantially burdened; or 34 (2) is likely to be substantially burdened; 35 by a violation of section 6 of this chapter may assert the violation, 36 or impending violation, as a claim or defense in a judicial 37 proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political 38 subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. 39 (b) A person who asserts a claim or defense under subsection (a) 40 may obtain appropriate relief from a violation, or an impending 41 violation, of section 6 of this chapter, including relief against the 42 state or a political subdivision of the state. Appropriate relief 2015IN 568—LS 7497/DI 69

I am not sure what "profit" or "non-profit" has to do with this law. I don't see it in the text.


The definition of person is irrelevant. It conforms to the Court's current treatment of corporations where rights are concerned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:36 PM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,484,803 times
Reputation: 4620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Aha!

I just hope it causes Pence and the Indiana GOP to sweat.

A lot.

From all appearances, that's what's happening.

And it's so amusing.

I'm also amused, but for a different reason.

When the furor over this piddling law dies down, Indiana will still be without a statewide law prohibiting discrimination against gays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 01:36 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,509,373 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1 View Post
I wonder where opinions would fall if it were a muslim owned bakery that refused to put two grooms on top of a cake?
What does being Muslim have to do with anything? You're not one of those "Obama is a Muslim" people, are you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top