First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Indiana: First Amendment Rights or Bigotry?
Posted 3/31/15

camelbackcinema wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


camelbackcinema wrote:

Civil Rights Act of 1964, good research. Then I guess I'm beat, but I honestly think the general public in the year of 2015, with the internet being capable of spreading news of ill will instantaneously, is enough to root out issues like this now. But still, why buy a cake from a guy who hates your guts? It's like antagonizing a chef, and then expecting him to not spit in your lasagna.



I guess I could see where your coming from.




At the end of the day, even if there is a law forcing service, I don't think people will change because the law tells them to. They just bottle it up and let that distrust and hate grow. I wish we lived in a world without block buttons, and people weren't afraid to talk to people they disagreed with, but we can thank the internet for allowing people to segregate themselves digitally.


I think giving people free reign would make them even bigger wieners. Like how cursing can make you more aggressive. But that's just my opinion. I know for certain that if I sister enabled my racism I'd be in a very different place today.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 3/31/15
I cant believe something this backwards and stupid may slip into the books.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15
Bigotry, plain and simple.

Christians of so little to fear in this modern society that they have very little to face in terms of discrimination. It's clear that this is a response to cases such as the bakery being closed down over refusing to serve a gay couple, even if Gov Pence goes through hoops and obstacles to neither confirm nor deny that. The only reason my mind would change is if someone could demonstrate any modern (i.e. last five years) policy that has disfavored Christians because of their faith and did not have to do with protecting another protected class (namely, LGBT individuals).

Edit: To everyone citing the 1993 law, you do realize that law was passed as retribution for Native Americans--such as not having to forfeit sacred land for public/government use? I'm pretty sure the Indiana law isn't being passed for the same reasons as the 1993 law.
17893 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 4/20/15
I am so fucking ashamed I live in this state
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15

gvblackmoon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

Does anyone here know that discriminatory contracts are illegal?


Most folks don't understand that when you go into a place of business you are possibly entering into a contract for services or goods. This is of course if you purchase something since in fact that is a basic contract. Person buying promises to pay for good purchased person selling goods promised to provide those goods or services. It is a contract an unspoken one but still a contract, it is also regulated and enforceable by law.

So most folks don't even get that much it is just how business works they don't understand that they are entering into an agreement when buying something as simple as a candy bar. Since contracts are regulated by law this means you can legally control anti discriminatory practices at the state and federal level since federal law controls interstate commerces. Which means you can't write laws that allow folks to discriminate against others.


If the business accepted payment but did not deliver, etc, your statement would be valid.

What you are advocating is not a contract, but government enforced coercion.

Which is quite unconstitutional.

39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15

maxgale wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

Does anyone here know that discriminatory contracts are illegal?


Most folks don't understand that when you go into a place of business you are possibly entering into a contract for services or goods. This is of course if you purchase something since in fact that is a basic contract. Person buying promises to pay for good purchased person selling goods promised to provide those goods or services. It is a contract an unspoken one but still a contract, it is also regulated and enforceable by law.

So most folks don't even get that much it is just how business works they don't understand that they are entering into an agreement when buying something as simple as a candy bar. Since contracts are regulated by law this means you can legally control anti discriminatory practices at the state and federal level since federal law controls interstate commerces. Which means you can't write laws that allow folks to discriminate against others.


If the business accepted payment but did not deliver, etc, your statement would be valid.

What you are advocating is not a contract, but government enforced coercion.

Which is quite unconstitutional.



http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html

Please read Title II of Civil Rights 1964 act: " All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. " And please read in painstakingly detail what places of public accommodation means--the law is not that vague on that point.

If the business provided an obstacle preventing someone from "full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, etc." because of race/color/religion/national origin, they have broken Federal Law; refusing to accept payment because of race, color, religion, or national origin and thereby denying good service is, quite frankly, refusal to provide "full and equal enjoyment" of goods, services etc. because of race, color, religion, or national origin. It's not just constitutional--it's the law for protected classes. I really don't know how to make this any more clear.

And yes, I'm well aware that LGBT isn't recognized as a protected class at a federal level (except possibly transgender in some cases--since Department of Justice has said 'sex' includes transgender individuals). Nevertheless, most state laws will probably mirror the language seen above, if LGBT is protected in that state.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 3/31/15

Zoraprime wrote:


maxgale wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

Does anyone here know that discriminatory contracts are illegal?


Most folks don't understand that when you go into a place of business you are possibly entering into a contract for services or goods. This is of course if you purchase something since in fact that is a basic contract. Person buying promises to pay for good purchased person selling goods promised to provide those goods or services. It is a contract an unspoken one but still a contract, it is also regulated and enforceable by law.

So most folks don't even get that much it is just how business works they don't understand that they are entering into an agreement when buying something as simple as a candy bar. Since contracts are regulated by law this means you can legally control anti discriminatory practices at the state and federal level since federal law controls interstate commerces. Which means you can't write laws that allow folks to discriminate against others.


If the business accepted payment but did not deliver, etc, your statement would be valid.

What you are advocating is not a contract, but government enforced coercion.

Which is quite unconstitutional.



http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html

Please read Title II of Civil Rights 1964 act: " All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. " And please read in painstakingly detail what places of public accommodation means--the law is not that vague on that point.

If the business provided an obstacle preventing someone from "full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, etc." because of race/color/religion/national origin, they have broken Federal Law; refusing to accept payment because of race, color, religion, or national origin and thereby denying good service is, quite frankly, refusal to provide "full and equal enjoyment" of goods, services etc. because of race, color, religion, or national origin. It's not just constitutional--it's the law for protected classes. I really don't know how to make this any more clear.

And yes, I'm well aware that LGBT isn't recognized as a protected class at a federal level (except possibly transgender in some cases--since Department of Justice has said 'sex' includes transgender individuals). Nevertheless, most state laws will probably mirror the language seen above, if LGBT is protected in that state.


If you recognize what you are advocating isn't covered under federal, I am in agreement with you there.

And wonder what therefore is the problem with legislation that doesn't conflict with federal law.
41690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere
Offline
Posted 3/31/15
I don't like the law and find it pointless. The way I see it is being very circular (hope that's the word I want to use). If a religious person refused service to someone in opposition to their beliefs, then the opposed person can refuse service to the religious person, right? I feel like if that's the case then some religious people will then cry discrimination because of the opposed party not agreeing to serve them. They will mention that the religious person is always persecuted by the secular world and demand their religious freedom. So if i have the right idea of what the law is, it's going to discriminate anyone who has different beliefs than the owner of the business. If the customer poses some kind of threat to the business and other customers then by all means they do not have to be served. However if it's because of their gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc then that's just a stupid reason not to serve someone. If the business owner allows the possible dangerous customer in it could potentially hurt the business. However if the business owner does not allow a person in do to there gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc then it will also hurt the business.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 4/20/15

maxgale wrote:

If you recognize what you are advocating isn't covered under federal, I am in agreement with you there.

And wonder what therefore is the problem with legislation that doesn't conflict with federal law.


What part, exactly?

If you mean that LGBT aren't a federally recognized protected class yet, then yes, I'm aware they are not. Everything else I mentioned is federal law.

And therein lies the keyword: 'yet.' The Supreme Court can recognize certain classes as 'suspect class.' While not the same as protected class, it still confers some benefits of being a protected class. And although LGBT haven't been defined as suspect class yet, the way how federal courts are ruling (i.e. on same-sex marriage) may indicate it's only a matter of time before they do. There is one way to circumvent suspect classification, and that is federal courts must defer to the minimum imposed by the state law. In the abscence of Indiana's Law, federal courts would likely favor LGBT individuals if a suspect classification existed. With Indiana's Law and the fact of state-level protection legislature for LGBT, someone merely needs to scream religion and federal courts would have to favor the person screaming religion.

Which is precisely what makes laws like Indiana's so scary. They are, by far and large, a license to discriminate. And the cover that it's just "Federal RFRA 1993 repackaged" is horse dung. First of all, it's not even the same law verbatim as this article will point out: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/ . Moreover, the original law was based for Native Americans and their sacred land; which isn't the context for Indiana's law. Lastly, as I already commented, Christians already have so much privilege in this country that there is hardly any reason to give them more protection--except, again, if you consider this law as a means to discriminate against LGBT individuals.

Point is, the fact that LGBT isn't a federally recognized class hardly counters my point; moreover, the fact they aren't federally recognized as one just makes the context for Indiana's Laws (and laws like it soon to follow) downright scary.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 3/31/15

Zoraprime wrote:


maxgale wrote:

If you recognize what you are advocating isn't covered under federal, I am in agreement with you there.

And wonder what therefore is the problem with legislation that doesn't conflict with federal law.


What part, exactly?

If you mean that LGBT aren't a federally recognized protected class yet, then yes, I'm aware they are not. Everything else I mentioned is federal law.

And therein lies the keyword: 'yet.' The Supreme Court can recognize certain classes as 'suspect class.' While not the same as protected class, it still confers some benefits of being a protected class. And although LGBT haven't been defined as suspect class yet, the way how federal courts are ruling (i.e. on same-sex marriage) may indicate it's only a matter of time before they do. There is one way to circumvent suspect classification, and that is federal courts must defer to the minimum imposed by the state law. In the abscence of Indiana's Law, federal courts would likely favor LGBT individuals if a suspect classification existed. With Indiana's Law and the fact of state-level protection legislature for LGBT, someone merely needs to scream religion and federal courts would have to favor the person screaming religion.

Which is precisely what makes laws like Indiana's so scary. They are, by far and large, a license to discriminate. And the cover that it's just "Federal RFRA 1993 repackaged" is horse dung. First of all, it's not even the same law verbatim as this article will point out: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/ . Moreover, the original law was based for Native Americans and their sacred land; which isn't the context for Indiana's law. Lastly, as I already commented, Christians already have so much privilege in this country that there is hardly any reason to give them more protection--except, again, if you consider this law as a means to discriminate against LGBT individuals.

Point is, the fact that LGBT isn't a federally recognized class hardly counters my point; moreover, the fact they aren't federally recognized as one just makes the context for Indiana's Laws (and laws like it soon to follow) downright scary.


It is hard to discuss matters of Constitutionality with those who fault Constitutionally protected classes as being too "privileged" and seek to remedy this by revoking said rights.

When the solution to a question of Constitutional merit is to begin by dismantling the very first guaranteed rights enumerated in the document, there is no area of law that can serve as reasonable foundation for such anarchy.
27824 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15
Indiana and Arkansas... two big jokes of the USA.
12048 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 4/20/15
Ok so most of the people here agree that all of us that believe that this has nothing to do with LGBT cause we can read. We also know that everyone that signed the Federal RFRA 1993 are all bigots and discriminators . "Cough cough Bill Clinton." Hate to point this out but there are countries out there "cough cough Middle eastern countries." That will straight up kill you for being of the LGBT life style/ choice whatever. They freely toss LGBT off buildings, hang them shoot them, even to the point of beheading them. I don't see a bunch or christian folks doing that to the LGBT community. So to be a 100% honest I think the people being the bigots around here are those of you that think this is a way for Christians to gain more freedoms you need to go learn to read and do some studying and then come back when you have read and understand that this is not the first bill/act to be put in place. There are 19 other states and the federal government of 1993 have passed bills/ acts for the same reason.

P.S. People are just getting pissed off even more cause this passed and the final four are being held in Indiana, and there bracket and team were not part of the four.
7829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/31/15

Zoraprime wrote:


maxgale wrote:

If you recognize what you are advocating isn't covered under federal, I am in agreement with you there.

And wonder what therefore is the problem with legislation that doesn't conflict with federal law.


What part, exactly?

If you mean that LGBT aren't a federally recognized protected class yet, then yes, I'm aware they are not. Everything else I mentioned is federal law.

And therein lies the keyword: 'yet.' The Supreme Court can recognize certain classes as 'suspect class.' While not the same as protected class, it still confers some benefits of being a protected class. And although LGBT haven't been defined as suspect class yet, the way how federal courts are ruling (i.e. on same-sex marriage) may indicate it's only a matter of time before they do. There is one way to circumvent suspect classification, and that is federal courts must defer to the minimum imposed by the state law. In the abscence of Indiana's Law, federal courts would likely favor LGBT individuals if a suspect classification existed. With Indiana's Law and the fact of state-level protection legislature for LGBT, someone merely needs to scream religion and federal courts would have to favor the person screaming religion.

Which is precisely what makes laws like Indiana's so scary. They are, by far and large, a license to discriminate. And the cover that it's just "Federal RFRA 1993 repackaged" is horse dung. First of all, it's not even the same law verbatim as this article will point out: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/ . Moreover, the original law was based for Native Americans and their sacred land; which isn't the context for Indiana's law. Lastly, as I already commented, Christians already have so much privilege in this country that there is hardly any reason to give them more protection--except, again, if you consider this law as a means to discriminate against LGBT individuals.

Point is, the fact that LGBT isn't a federally recognized class hardly counters my point; moreover, the fact they aren't federally recognized as one just makes the context for Indiana's Laws (and laws like it soon to follow) downright scary.


Except the Atlantic is as usual wrong on their interpretation. Hobby Lobby decision gave corporations and llcs the same protection under the RFRA as individuals. The Indiana law incorporated this into the wording of the statute, so it is the 1993 statute as interpreted by the courts repackaged to provide the same protections at the local level. I wish it specified closely held corporations as the decision did, but that's about it.

A lawsuit in federal court would already allow the federal RFRA to be used as a defense. This allows the same protections in state court and lawmaking which wasn't the case previously. It just requires proving a compelling interest.

Despite the mass hysteria assorted yellow journalists have whipped up it doesn't provide a license to discriminate, nor was it ever intended to.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 4/1/15
I think we should wait until the legislation that demands non-discriminatory wording comes through, but I don't think any of us are business owners.

Indianapolis has already lost GenCon, a national labor union convention, and potentially (but not likely) a college basketball championship.

The legislation was quick and left out a lot of details, the state government is quickly being taken to task over those details, this is a good fight that might result in some reconciliation. I'm not personally that much of an optimist, I think we should be more focused on Florida right now, but Indiana has put itself in an exciting legal grey area.
3318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / NW
Offline
Posted 4/1/15
What does it take for something to be considered a religion? A group of people with similar view points? The words cult or religion seem interchangeable unless you need to base it on numbers. So say you get a group of like minded males that want to set up a monastery and become monks, but it is against their viewpoint to allow women to the inner sanctum that only caters or sells tickets to enter to male members. Does that mean men only clubs can legally exist in Indiana now? No shirt, no shoes, no infidels, no service?

Or if I take the bill title "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" literally? If most religious people make me uncomfortable? Do I say "Sorry sir I cannot in good conscious sell a scientific calculator to a (insert any religion)". Can we establish science only zones then? I tried reading the Indiana bill, and all I got was the feeling that religion was allowed to deny science, but science was not allowed to deny religion.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.