Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Brad Johnson on March 29, 2015, 01:24:27 PM
-
Indiana passes law religious freedom law which also includes business owners. Liberals, progressives, and LGBT types go into full-bore meltdown.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/29/pence-indiana-law-not-about-discrimination-not-going-to-change/
Interesting that Angie's List, a supposedly pro-business entity is threatening to cancel an Indiana expansion as a result. I would think that anything pro-small business would be something they'd celebrate. Is there some anti-business part of the law that's not being reported, or is Angie's List less politic-neutral than they've appeared?
Brad
-
Based on what I've read, including the law itself, it merely codifies something that already existed - that there are no statutory anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ (heard that one on NPR yesterday).
Based on all the hooha being flung the Gov says he is going to ask the legislature for some clarification of the intent of the law.
Best I can figure out is the law was passed to put a stop to any federal "Commerce Clause" nonsense when some business tells a LGBTQ they do not want to do business with them.
Imma wait to see if some free market enterpriser figures out where the LGBTQ centers of Indiana are and opens shops specifically advertising they will do business with the LGBTQ. (And quietly raises prices.)
stay safe.
-
Based on what I've read, including the law itself, it merely codifies something that already existed - that there are no statutory anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ (heard that one on NPR yesterday).
It's not an issue of simply doing business (or not) with customers of a certain persuasion. There is a difference between selling a dozen donuts to a woman in a crew cut, and an Indigo Girls t-shirt; versus selling a wedding cake with two brides on top of it. So far, all the "anti-gay" discrimination cases I've seen have been about the latter.
Of course, both types all types of discrimination should be legal.
-
Mirrors the federal law that Bill Clinton signed (Which was also the basis of the Hobby Lobby decision) in 1993.
Also mirrors the legislation signed in 19 other states. there are another dozen or so that have the language in their constitution or codified in prior court rulings.
But since Indiana had passed a law and fought in federal court against LGBTWTFBBQ marriage last year, anything that has "Religion" in it is obviously an assault on the LGBTBBQWTF'ers.
So the left has to lose it's damn mind over something that isn't there.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Yea pointing out how Clinton signed the bipartisan federal law after it passed overwhelmingly rattles the liberal world
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Liberals and leftists only believe in their own freedom.
The Angie's List stuff is just plain bizarre - if I were running such a business, I wouldn't touch this issue with a ten foot pole, as it would call into question my own impartiality on, well, everything.
-
And Angie's list is trying to get millions in tax concessions from Indiana as well
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It is my strongly held opinion that a business owner is completely within his/her rights to refuse to do business with whomever they choose to for any reason whatsoflippin'ever. Age or color or dress or demeanor or sexual orientation or religion or height or weight or national heritage or speech pattern or anything. let the marketplace inform them if it is sound business practice.
-
The Indiana state constitution is pretty clear about religious freedom. It devotes an entire clause to protecting religious opinion and conscience against interference by the state.
There have been occasions where the LGBT crowd tried to use the power of the state to bully Christians into violating their consciences. AFAIK all those attempts failed, and in fact were shut down hard, in large part because the state constitution is so explicit about religious freedom.
So this new law is nothing new. It just restates and makes statutory what was already well defined constitutional law.
ETA Relevant section of state constitution:
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinions
No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
ETA #2 Summary of the new RFRA bill:
Religious freedom restoration act.
Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees
The RFRA bill is just a mushy, watered-down restatement of the provision in the state constitution. Incidentally, it says nothing about discrimination, protected classes, LGBT, or anything of the sort. It's limited to defining when and how the state can force people to violate their religious beliefs.
-
Based on what I've read, including the law itself, it merely codifies something that already existed - that there are no statutory anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ (heard that one on NPR yesterday).
That's correct. It's unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, age, gender, and disability. Gender assignment and sexual orientation are not included in the list of protected classes. I find it ironic that in a country founded primarily for the purpose of enjoying religious freedom, and in which it's unlawful to discriminate on the basis of religion, the SJWs have so lost their way that anyone asking only to be left alone so they can run their business in accordance with their religion is "spewing hate." Next we'll see a movement to try to force kosher delis to serve ham and cheese sandwiches.
Saw an article somewhere recently that said some states have revised their laws to allow so-called transgender people to have their birth certificates changed -- even if they have NOT undergone surgery.
I do not understand how such a small percentage of the population has succeeded so totally in directing and co-opting the discussion.
-
I do not understand how such a small percentage of the population has succeeded so totally in directing and co-opting the discussion.
They didn't. They're useful mascots, and weapons for the left to use against America. Like other minority groups, women, etc.
-
Check to see if you need to check your privilege:
http://volokh.com/2010/07/09/religious-exemption-law-map-of-the-united-states/
11 oput of 50 (and I was mildly surprised to see which they were) have no such laws.
stay safe.
-
I presume most of us are now familiar with the pizza shop that closed down, after various threats to their allegedly bigoted business. I hear they have received a frillion donations from crowd-funding, and are set to re-open. I hope they start selling merch. I need a shirt, or something.
I'd rather like to visit some random bakeries, and ask them to make me a cake for a gay-straight conversion therapy commencement ceremony, or maybe just a cake that says "No Pizza For Queers." Or perhaps it would be best to go all the way, and just ask for a Klan kake ("150 Hateful Years!"). Someone with more videography experience should take on this project.
-
I'd rather like to visit some random bakeries, and ask them to make me a cake for a gay-straight conversion therapy commencement ceremony, or maybe just a cake that says "No Pizza For Queers." Or perhaps it would be best to go all the way, and just ask for a Klan kake ("150 Hateful Years!"). Someone with more videography experience should take on this project.
I think you'd get quite a few refusing most of those on the basis that it's a 'negative message', and getting away with it just fine.
The KKK cake, without the 'hateful years' thing, might be something you could force them into doing.
-
That's why I led off with the conversion therapy bit, and I made it about a commencement - something positive (from the conversion therapist's perspective).
And FWIW, that was before I started the thread about the Denver bakery.
-
Local radio station did a parody on that. A KKK guy called an obviously gay baker and asked for a cake with racist stuff on it. He was refused. He than called Otis' Bakery (black guy) and asked him to make the cake. Otis just says " Is your money green?" Then the KKK guy says "Oh, you must be one of the good ones." Otis says "One of the good what?!"
It was pretty funny.
-
Oh, and "White Power" and "Black Power" are both "positive," in the sense in which we're using the term here. =)
-
You can refuse to do negative messages, but the State determines what constitutes a "negative message." Sounds legit.
-
What I'd like to see is the progressive (or whatever they're calling themselves) movement go after the muslim bakeries that refuse to bake a same-sex wedding cake:
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/ (http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/)
-
What I'd like to see is the progressive (or whatever they're calling themselves) movement go after the muslim bakeries that refuse to bake a same-sex wedding cake:
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/ (http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/)
or even better yet everyone just learn how to leave folks alone that don't want to mingle outside their peers/subculture/group whatever.
-
You can refuse to do negative messages, but the State determines what constitutes a "negative message." Sounds legit.
I guess some bakers would refuse to do a "Fighting Autism" cake, or a "Moms Against Drunk Drivers" cake, etc.