In Islam, Jesus comes back and kicks Antichrist ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam#Second_coming
Only if the Sharia Law they have talks about Jesus being the savior. If they do the Islamic Sharia then its scary devil work.
In Islam, Jesus comes back and kicks Antichrist ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam#Second_coming
Listening to Pence presser
Blame Clinton
Blame media
I have a fundamental question:
Why are "right to refuse service" laws always phrased in terms of religious freedom? I mean, why (according to proponents of these laws) is it okay to refuse service to (say) gay people using as the justification "My religion tells me that homosexuality is a terrible sin, and serving such people condones the sin; I don't want to condone sin." But why (again, according to proponents of these laws) is it NOT okay to refuse service to the same group using as the justification "I feel very uncomfortable around homosexuals, so I don't want to do business with them"?
My point is: Why is RELIGIOUS freedom being treated as "more worthy" than PERSONAL freedom? I mean, if you're going to allow discrimination, why should it matter what the justification is?
I have a fundamental question:
Why are "right to refuse service" laws always phrased in terms of religious freedom? I mean, why (according to proponents of these laws) is it okay to refuse service to (say) gay people using as the justification "My religion tells me that homosexuality is a terrible sin, and serving such people condones the sin; I don't want to condone sin." But why (again, according to proponents of these laws) is it NOT okay to refuse service to the same group using as the justification "I feel very uncomfortable around homosexuals, so I don't want to do business with them"?
My point is: Why is RELIGIOUS freedom being treated as "more worthy" than PERSONAL freedom? I mean, if you're going to allow discrimination, why should it matter what the justification is?
Because doing things in the name of religion make it all ok.
/s
I have a fundamental question:
Why are "right to refuse service" laws always phrased in terms of religious freedom? I mean, why (according to proponents of these laws) is it okay to refuse service to (say) gay people using as the justification "My religion tells me that homosexuality is a terrible sin, and serving such people condones the sin; I don't want to condone sin." But why (again, according to proponents of these laws) is it NOT okay to refuse service to the same group using as the justification "I feel very uncomfortable around homosexuals, so I don't want to do business with them"?
My point is: Why is RELIGIOUS freedom being treated as "more worthy" than PERSONAL freedom? I mean, if you're going to allow discrimination, why should it matter what the justification is?
Freedom of religion is protected by the first amendment, while freedom of personal sensibilities is not.
I think the religious justifications for not serving gay people are hilarious bullshit anyway, as the train of logic is ridiculous. (God doesn't like gay sex, therefore I can't bake someone a wedding cake because then they will get gay married and have gay sex because they totally wouldn't if they weren't married)
But from freedom of association and freedom of speech (and probably other person freedoms specified in the Constitution), the "distance" between exercising those freedoms and engaging in discrimination is just as small as the distance between practicing a religion and engaging in discrimination. So I question why discrimination under the guise of religion is considered more justified than plain old bigotry.
Facing growing unhappiness within the state, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on Tuesday called for a legislative fix this week to clarify that the state’s new religious law does not permit discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Yep. And considering that it took us damned near two hundred years to enshrine that into law, we don't need to be backsliding.:thumbsup:
The point of government is to defend all its citizens, not kowtow to a tyranny of the majority. And that's not a 21st century opinion; the founding fathers said as much themselves.
And lest you think him a hypocrite for complaining of the tyranny of the majority while founding a nation with legalized slavery, Adams (and his son) were among the only founders who never owned slaves. Not relevant to the discussion at hand, but something I didn't learn until today. History is fascinating.
Agreed, government should be kept separate from the private sector, but unfortunately the Indiana law goes past restricting government enforcement and would (apparently anyway, from a casual reading) allow government employees to refuse service where it conflicts with their religion. Standing in line waiting for the "gay marriage license" clerk to get free while others are served is the same principle as the separate negro lines. Whether it's a taxi ride or refusing to handle pork or refusing to treat gays like everyone else, this should not be allowable. If I am next in line, I deserve to be served next, regardless of the clerk's religion. And if the clerk's religious beliefs are too strong and rigid for this, I will admire his or her convictions - just as soon as he or she quits that job.I think you need to be careful lumping mandates on gov't officials with those on private citizens (business owners). For one, services provided by gov't officials are often necessary conditions to the activities in which a person may wish to engage, and those officials frequently have a monopoly power on those activities - for example, a county clerk of the court is usually going to be the only official in the county with the ability to issue a marriage license, and that license is a necessary condition to getting legally married. I'm perfectly OK with a court clerk being fired for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple if the law of the land would allow that couple to get married. The clerk shouldn't hold that position if they're unwilling to meet all the legal obligations of that position.
In contrast (using the "Christian baker" example), a wedding cake is not a necessary condition to a legal wedding, and no baker has monopoly power on baking cakes in any community. For these reasons, I think I'm OK with allowing a private bakery to refuse service to an event with which they disagree. I think there's an important distinction between refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, and refusing to serve gay customers for any reason (for example, refusing to provide a birthday cake). The latter should be illegal, but maybe not the former? It's definitely an interesting balancing-of-rights question, and there are still nuances to it which I'm probably missing; thus, my equivocation.
I suspect you are correct. Following the federal law would be a good idea here.The legislature will repeal or "fix" the law, I guarantee it. The one positive thing to come out of this is that this incident will hopefully end Governor Dense's political career and he won't get re-elected in 2016.
Remember, this is the same moron who wanted to waste taxpayer money on a state-run "news agency" just a couple of months ago and finally abandoned the plan because of the outrage of the citizens. Trust me, I'm familiar with some of the higher-ups in his administration and top to bottom, they're morons. I mean, REAL morons.
Also, another note -- as much as you guys like to portray it, this isn't a conservative/Christian vs. liberal issue. It is more a fundie evangelical fringe vs. everyone else. Several prominent Republicans and Christians such as Mitch Daniels, the CEO of Angie's List, the Mayor of Indianapolis, etc. are outraged by this bill.
Dense is a lawyer and you could see the wheels turning when the question was asked 8 times. He knew no matter how he answered, he was in hot water so that's why he kept duhverting.
WOW! NASCAR coming down on that new law!
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nasca...-indiana-religious-freedom-law-154311892.html
In principle I agree with you that businesses should be free to follow their conscience. In practice I see no way to do that without infringing on someone else's right to equality.
"Right to equality" is vague, and thus problematic. In balancing these rights, you'd almost have to go on a case by case basis. I'm not necessarily sure the right to a gay wedding cake is such a fundamental right that the law needs to protect it. [I'm assuming here that bakeries seeking the 'religion' exemption would otherwise serve gay customers' other baked good needs - birthday cakes and what have you.] The baker's refusal to make a wedding cake has no effect whatsoever on a gay couple's right to marry or otherwise take their business elsewhere.
*Just to be clear, if I owned a small business (I don't), I'd have no problems having gay customers. But that's beside the point - as Alan Dershowitz used to say, if you're going to defend a specific freedom, you have to defend it in all forms.
It's not a violation of a fundamental right to have a wedding cake, it's a violation of public accommodation laws that were created due to widespread, systemic racism that lasted decades.
I mean the Civil Rights Act didn't just come out of nowhere, it came in response to years and years of black people getting screwed over.
According to our local paper, "Indiana governor says he wants clarification to religious-objections law on desk this week".
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said Tuesday that he wants legislation on his desk by the end of the week to clarify that the state's new religious-freedom law does not allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/298097571.html
That's local but I'll assume it's a copy of a national story.
***edit***
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...rence-clarify-religious-freedom-law/70712968/