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.
so now nascar is against the constitution as well, eh? where was this outrage twenty years ago when clinton signed the federal law that does the same thing that 22 other states have now done?
spoken like someone who has no clue, and read no details. This law is very different from other states in that it applies the rules to private business AND offers no protection against discrimination.
Seriously? You're not aware that an objection to performing abortions based on conscience has been allowed since Roe v. Wade? Or did you simply see another opportunity to take a cheap shot at religion?
His question was bigger than religion.
But let's ask an important question: what is religion? Is religion restricted to supernatural things, like gods? And do religious freedom apply only to the religious? Are atheists protected in this freedom? After all, religion isn't free if it can be forced onto another. If an atheist is not free to be and express his atheism, does this not make him oppressed? In fact, does atheism count as a religion?
So let's assume freedom of religion simply means freedom in respect to things pertaining religious views. This protects everyone, including the non-religious. Freedom of religion should leave an individual to choose to be free from religion, and have the views associated with that view protected under the law.
Most atheists do not have a positive view on religion, just as many Christians do not have a positive view on homosexuals (or atheists). This view then must be protected, as to do otherwise would not ensure genuine religious freedom. So, if homosexuality is a moral issue, so is religious belief. Meaning an atheist can refuse service to any religious person because they do not view that religion is moral. Is this protected? And if not, why are the atheist's views deemed of less importance or value than the religious person's view?
And can Muslims refuse to serve Jews and Christians?
The main issue is this, and I'm not sure why people think this is okay. I'd honestly like to hear the reasoning for why it's okay for one human being to force another, at gunpoint, to participate in a transaction they don't want to be a part of. It's not that I'm in favor of their bigotry, it's that I think it's incredibly immoral to use violence against non-violent people.
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.
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?
Right, I'm sure you read the text of all the RFRA laws, and didn't copy your info from somewhere
First, the Louisiana law applies to individuals, which covers some for-profit businesses.
I admit I haven't read all the state laws. To the extent they follow the federal RFRA, they'll apply to a limited type of profit-making business. The Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby said so.
When Indiana amends the law to more closely match the standard language, the outrage machine will continue anyway.
So true. Conservative Christian bakers live in fear they may have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but the next day they may unknowingly sell candy covered cup cakes to a child molester, who uses them to seduce children. If they can't live with those possibilities, they shouldn't be in a business open to the public.
I wonder where opinions would fall if it were a muslim owned bakery that refused to put two grooms on top of a cake?
But let's ask an important question: what is religion? Is religion restricted to supernatural things, like gods? And do religious freedom apply only to the religious? Are atheists protected in this freedom? After all, religion isn't free if it can be forced onto another. If an atheist is not free to be and express his atheism, does this not make him oppressed? In fact, does atheism count as a religion?
So let's assume freedom of religion simply means freedom in respect to things pertaining religious views. This protects everyone, including the non-religious. Freedom of religion should leave an individual to choose to be free from religion, and have the views associated with that view protected under the law.
Most atheists do not have a positive view on religion, just as many Christians do not have a positive view on homosexuals (or atheists). This view then must be protected, as to do otherwise would not ensure genuine religious freedom. So, if homosexuality is a moral issue, so is religious belief. Meaning an atheist can refuse service to any religious person because they do not view that religion is moral. Is this protected? And if not, why are the atheist's views deemed of less importance or value than the religious person's view?
And can Muslims refuse to serve Jews and Christians?
We already know that Muslims can not refuse service to people with dogs or alcohol regardless of their religious beliefs.
How many Apple keystrokes, smiling selfies, or texts equate to each gay's execution?
I give up.
Is this a quiz?
Quote:
Why Apple specifically matters... Tim Cook voluntarily injected himself and Apple into this debate.
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.
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.
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.
At least your sarcasm is funny.
Tim Cook?
