Bills like this are how you get the Hobby Lobby case, where a company can exempt themselves from regulations because they believe things that are empirically false.
All Venix did was back up my description, further proving why this bill is outrageous. Religious freedom getting trampled on by PC? lol gtfo.
All Venix did was back up my description, further proving why this bill is outrageous. Religious freedom getting trampled on by PC? lol gtfo.
Religious freedom getting trampled on by PC? lol gtfo.
Bills like this are how you get the Hobby Lobby case, where a company can exempt themselves from regulations because they believe things that are empirically false.
All Venix did was back up my description, further proving why this bill is outrageous. Religious freedom getting trampled on by PC? lol gtfo.
Yes, how dare someone hold a belief not sanctioned by the party! Everyone must conform comrade!
What are you babbling about? The Hobby Lobby case was about the fact that the business believed certain contraceptives were abortifacients, and that violated their religious beliefs.
Actual scientists who knew how the birth control methods worked said they did not cause abortion in any way, but that didn't matter because they had a 'religious belief' that they worked that way, facts be damned.
Wrong, as the SCOTUS also concluded.
Your definition of what should or shouldn't go against someone's religious beliefs is not relevant, they are their beliefs. They should not be forced to go against those unless there's a compelling interest in doing so. This law isn't saying anyone can ignore regulations based on religious beliefs, it just sets the threshold such that there has to be a compelling interest and that the method used is narrow.
That seems very reasonable, unless you're someone who just blindly believes government is always right and individual rights should mean nothing.
Now you can always argue about what is a substantial compelling interest etc, that's a different discussion.
An interesting provision in this bill that is not being discussed in the media is that it could force local zoning boards to allow churches to move into commercial/retail zones.
A little background: many small cities and towns are already struggling with dwindling retail and commercial tax bases, and churches don't pay taxes.
All Venix did was back up my description, further proving why this bill is outrageous. Religious freedom getting trampled on by PC? lol gtfo.
Forcing a private business to do business with those they'd rather not is most definitely trampling freedom. The type of freedom doesn't matter in the slightest.
If I, as a business owner, would rather not cater to people who wear yellow shirts, I should be allowed to do that. And the yellow shirt community should be allowed to boycott me with whatever groups side in their favor.
Ultimately, the market will determine whether such decisions are appropriate. And there are more than enough of every kind of business for it to not matter in the slightest.
Faux liberal outrage at its best.
False. SCOTUS did not conclude that IUDs and such were abortifacients.
I didn't make any statement as to what should or shouldn't comprise someone's beliefs or what should go against them. I'm just telling you that Hobby Lobby was able to exempt itself from federal regulations based on a demonstrably wrong understanding of science, because they claimed that wrong understanding was a religious belief.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how easily something like that could be abused, which is why laws like this are dumb ideas..
It seems very reasonable until you think about the incredibly obvious ways it can be abused.
The fact that you're trying to say that the only way someone could recognize that is because they think 'government is always right' shows that you haven't thought about it.
Nor did I say they did. Their ruling in the case shows they disagree with your general interpretation.
Exactly, so you're arguing that their religious belief has to adhere to your (or someone's) scientific definitions. That's simply wrong.
I agree with you for the most part on that point. They can be abused.
That is true, I agree there is a strong potential for abuse, but what you define as "abuse" is not the same as what someone else might. Hobby lobby didn't "abuse" the law, though I suspect you think it did.
I conceptually like limitations on government and forcing narrow scope on government actions without strong compelling reasons because the nature of government is to always grow and grow more intrusive over time. If you respect individual rights, then you have to be in favor of limitations on government's ability to override those rights without compelling reasons. That doesn't mean this particular law is perfect or can't be abused, but generally such limitations are a good thing. It's just tricky to implement without creating loopholes for abuse.
Forcing a private business to do business with those they'd rather not is most definitely trampling freedom. The type of freedom doesn't matter in the slightest.
If I, as a business owner, would rather not cater to people who wear yellow shirts, I should be allowed to do that. And the yellow shirt community should be allowed to boycott me with whatever groups side in their favor.
Ultimately, the market will determine whether such decisions are appropriate. And there are more than enough of every kind of business for it to not matter in the slightest.
Faux liberal outrage at its best.
The amendment was proposed by Rep. Mike Jacobs (R-Brookhaven), who stated that he was inundated with calls and emails from constituents concerned about the bill's effects. After several minutes of debate and a call to vote on the amendment, Rep. Barry Fleming (R-Harlem) gave a stern warning to the committee that if the amendment passed and anti-discrimination language was included in the final version of the bill, he would vote no on it.
Forcing a private business to do business with those they'd rather not is most definitely trampling freedom. The type of freedom doesn't matter in the slightest.
If I, as a business owner, would rather not cater to people who wear yellow shirts, I should be allowed to do that. And the yellow shirt community should be allowed to boycott me with whatever groups side in their favor.
Ultimately, the market will determine whether such decisions are appropriate. And there are more than enough of every kind of business for it to not matter in the slightest.
Faux liberal outrage at its best.
A little background: many small cities and towns are already struggling with dwindling retail and commercial tax bases, and churches don't pay taxes.
For anyone who thinks these bills aren't largely intended to legalize discrimination for religious reasons. I give you Georgia, where a similar RFRA was tabled when an amendment to add protections against discrimination passed.
I will give recognition that the amendment to add anti-discrimination protections was actually added by a Republican, which I admit surprised me. Sadly only 3 of 11 Republicans voted for it though, all 6 Democrats voted for the amendment. You still got a ways to go Republicans.
I like the idea I saw from another state pushing a law like this, the business should be required to post a sign at the front door stating who it discriminates against, that way people can make a informed decision.
That way customers can tell before even going inside that the people who run it are worthless bigots.