Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13976
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:19 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 248):
But nothing stops them from pickup up Buddhism,

do they decide "I am a buddist now", or did they just realize that buddism is much closer to what they believe than catholizism?

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:30 pm

Quoting luckyone (Reply 242):
My mother has been listening to him almost daily since I can remember. It astonishes me that 1) accounting for changes in his voice and appropriate name changes one can take his program from today, and then listen to an episode from 1992, and unless you were well-versed in the political figures of the day, it would be impossible to distinguish the two because he keeps saying the exact same thing, and 2) how earnestly some people want to be told they're right.

I have close friends that listen to him. Why? I have no idea. If he was preaching religion, or trying to sell a car, I still could not stand him. There is something about his style that grinds on me. Maybe I sense that he is a phony, no other way for me to explain it. Of course him trying to be a political Guru does not help at all.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
luckyone
Posts: 3540
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:35 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 251):
There is something about his style that grinds on me. Maybe I sense that he is a phony, no other way for me to explain it. Of course him trying to be a political Guru does not help at all.

He's a glorified prostitute. A marketing genius, but smarmy and sleazy nonetheless. Tells people what they want to hear, and rakes in the cash, regardless of his own opinions about it. Can't say I fault him too much as people keep paying him to spout the drivel that they want to hear. But yes, I think the tipping point is the air of expertise he attempts to convey. One would think it would be easier, and cheaper to just buy a talking monkey that says ''DEMOCRAT BAD. REPUBLICAN GOOD!" on an endless loop.
 
mt99
Topic Author
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:40 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 249):

Well, but somehow the Christians in Syria have problems switching their religion to Islam in order to save their lives in the face of the ISIS. They would be stupid not to switch religions, aren't they? Why don't they make this simple, live-preserving choice?

I dont know. Ask them. You are assuming that not a single
person has actually done it.

What i do know is that you can now join the Church of Cannabis in Indiana

http://abc7chicago.com/news/church-o...iana-religious-freedom-law/605042/
Step into my office, baby
 
lewis
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:45 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 240):
Being religious isn't as simple as choosing which car to buy. If I put a gun to your head and told you to believe in the tenets of Islam, could you? You could say you believed all day, but you wouldn't. If you put a gun to a Christian's head and told them not to believe in God, could they simply stop believing?

It happened all the time in the old days and in some parts of the world it still does.
 
lewis
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:53 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 253):
I dont know. Ask them. You are assuming that not a single
person has actually done it.

A lot of Christians have. It also depends how strong of a believer you are and whether or not you really buy into the "martyrdom" story.
 
AR385
Posts: 6936
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:26 am

I just saw an interview where they are explaining how the law that the Indiana gov. says exists at the Federal level since Clinton signed it into law in 1995, and said governor says is just like the one that was just enacted in Indiana, is completely different.

They are saying that it is a law that protects the individual from the State, or the Government infringing in an individual´s freedom of religion.

I have read the entire thread but I still don´t get why the Indiana law is particularly different. I´ve read mt99´s post where there is some sort of 11 page document but it´s too much legalese for me.

Can someone explain to me in simple terms (if it´s not too much effort) what are the differences? What does it mean "to protect someone from the government interferring in his freedom of religion"? Does it mean that the government can tell you not to wear a cross in a public building? Or does it mean that the government can´t tell you same?

I also don´t get this:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 191):
The mayor of Indianapolis has said he will not enforce this law and has spoken out against this law. In fact, he wants LGBT equality written into city/state law.

http://www.newsweek.com/indianapolis...ligious-freedom-restoration-318068

So, hypothetical, what happens if cities, counties, higher education refuse to enforce the Indiana RFRA law and, instead, go the other way and write protections for LGBT into their own local ordinances?

How does this work? In our law system, based on the Napoleonic Code, municipalities cannot pass laws that go against state law and States cannot pass laws that go against laws at the Federal level. A Federal law becomes State law automatically. Is this not so in the US?

If somebody feels I have not read the thread thoroughly, apologies in advance. Same if somebody feels this is veiled criticism of the US. It´s not. Please understand that these particularities of the US law system are difficult for me to get, even more so since I´m not a lawyer, but I´m very curious.

Thank you.

[Edited 2015-04-01 17:40:32]
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18279
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:07 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 256):
Can someone explain to me in simple terms (if it´s not too much effort) what are the differences?

I think it largely comes down to how broad the IN and AR laws were written, versus the other states and federal version:

"The federal law does not go so far as to define a "person." Indiana's law does. And a "person," by its standard, is not what you might think.

Section 7 of the Indiana code includes people, churches and corporations in that definition:"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit..._term=nprnews&utm_content=20150401

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 249):

Well, but somehow the Christians in Syria have problems switching their religion to Islam in order to save their lives in the face of the ISIS. They would be stupid not to switch religions, aren't they? Why don't they make this simple, live-preserving choice?

Is this what IN is worried about?  
I don't take responsibility at all
 
luckyone
Posts: 3540
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:20 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 256):
Can someone explain to me in simple terms (if it´s not too much effort) what are the differences? What does it mean "to protect someone from the government interferring in his freedom of religion"? Does it mean that the government can tell you not to wear a cross in a public building? Or does it mean that the government can´t tell you same?

In a nutshell, the 1993 law (and all but Texas' RFRA) limits the scope of the law to matters between the government and the citizen. The Indiana law, and the unsigned AR law, broaden that scope to cover disputes between private individuals/persons, described as such above.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4726
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:44 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 256):

How does this work? In our law system, based on the Napoleonic Code, municipalities cannot pass laws that go against state law and States cannot pass laws that go against laws at the Federal level. A Federal law becomes State law automatically. Is this not so in the US?

You were mostly right. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution makes most federal law unassailable by a lesser government (state, municipality, etc...). The 10th Amendment does say that any rights not granted to the Feds in the Constitution are held by the states and the people, although that is mostly ignored since the Civil War (and altered slightly by the 14th Amendment).

Speaking of the 14th Amendment, it just occurred to me that these "religious freedom" laws directly violate it. The 14th guarantees "equal protection under the law". Making a law that says religious beliefs always trump non-religious beliefs in a dispute places religious people in a higher class, and thus makes non-religious people "less equal" in the eyes of the law. Since the 14th came after the 1st, it would supersede any extra rights the 1st might have conferred upon the religious.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8623
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:29 am

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 259):
The 14th guarantees "equal protection under the law".

Religious views are protected because they are recognized. Sexual orientation, not so much. When they include sexual orientation as a protected class, then the 14th amendment would apply and an LGBT would have the same protections as a straight person.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 259):
Since the 14th came after the 1st, it would supersede any extra rights the 1st might have conferred upon the religious.

Since many laws are subjective to the people interpreting them, unless the 14th Amendment explicitly addressed concerns from the 1st Amendment, the 1st is still completely intact. Notice how the states are using the 10th Amendment to defend their SSM bans, even though the 14th guarantees equal protection under the law and states are required, by the Full Faith and Credit clause, to honor marriages performed in states that do perform them.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:44 am

Quoting luckyone (Reply 220):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 218):
As long as they don’t violate the rights of homosexuals, there’s nothing you can do if they don’t want to play together.

Privatley, you are absolutely correct.

Precisely. And that's exactly what private businesses interacting with private citizens are...private.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 220):
Such social conservatives would be the first to scream bloody murder if someone turned them away based on a belief, or their choice.

Let them scream all they want, but as long as their rights are not being violated, there's nothing they can do other than vote with their feet if a business wants to turn them away based on their beliefs.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:54 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 244):
Take rich Christians, they all know a rich person is highly unlikely to get to heaven, yet most try to become even richer. So, if they really believe what they say, and maybe think, they obviously don't want to go to heaven. Hence we can conclude they want to go to hell, and therefore they are not Christians at all....

True, but I think it's more complex and subconscious than them just saying "well, I'm gonna throw out this verse and that one." It's rationalization, socialization, etc

Quoting mt99 (Reply 246):
I don't think so. You can convert from one religion to the next (each with different values) - it might be a process and take a while - but in the end it is a choice.

People choose to stop being Catholic all the time!

Well again, I don't think they simply just choose to stop being Catholic, they have reasons to not be able to believe Catholicism anymore. It's not like you have devout Catholics waking up one day and deconverting. They will see something that questions their beliefs, maybe they're swayed by another religion, maybe they are turned off by scandals. The process in their mind is what leads them one way or another, not some conscious, arbitrary choice

Quoting lewis (Reply 254):
It happened all the time in the old days and in some parts of the world it still does.

Interesting point, I'll have to think on that a while. Right off the bat I see a few differences but I do not have time to write out a well thought out reply
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4726
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:54 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 260):
Religious views are protected because they are recognized. Sexual orientation, not so much.

Which violates equal protection. Recognizing one class of people and extending protection to them, but not another, is inherently unequal.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 260):
Notice how the states are using the 10th Amendment to defend their SSM bans

Notice how insanely unsuccessful they have been at it.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 261):

Precisely. And that's exactly what private businesses interacting with private citizens are...private.

Except it's not a private business. If you are otherwise open to the public (e.g, not a closed members-only club), you are not a private business interacting with private citizens: you are a business interacting with the public.

The fact that you and BMI can't see that means you don't understand a thing about the last 300 or so years of law.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 261):
but as long as their rights are not being violated

That's like saying "You can kill someone for any reason, so long as their rights are being violated" and then using that to justify killing an innocent person sitting on their porch. Like the right to life, the right to conduct public business regardless of one's religious affiliation is unassailable.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22988
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:54 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 256):
Can someone explain to me in simple terms (if it´s not too much effort) what are the differences?

I thought the explination in mt99s post #182 was easy to understand.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 256):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 191):
The mayor of Indianapolis has said he will not enforce this law and has spoken out against this law. In fact, he wants LGBT equality written into city/state law.

http://www.newsweek.com/indianapolis...ligious-freedom-restoration-318068

So, hypothetical, what happens if cities, counties, higher education refuse to enforce the Indiana RFRA law and, instead, go the other way and write protections for LGBT into their own local ordinances?

How does this work?

That was already discussed as well. If a city, like IND, passes a law in direct opposition to state law, the city law will go to court. Post 192.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 251):
I have close friends that listen to him. Why?

He uses buzz words and feel good words to make listeners feel superior. He also uses words to tell everyone how trustworthy he is. What is the name he gave to his "network" for example. The same way Fox calls themselves "fair and balanced" and O'Reilly says he is "no spin."
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21966
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:31 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 234):
I believe don't believe religion and homosexuality to be choices. One grows up with the beliefs of the parents, and so one can't really choose a religion. If the society is 99% Christian, it's also hard to be the lone Muslim or Hindu - because of lack of societal acceptance.

Really? People switch religions (or abandon them altogether, as I did) all the time.

I mean, I'm not sure that "choose" is the best way to describe my atheism, but I examined all the evidence (and choosing to do so openly and without preconceptions was a choice) and concluded that it was unlikely that any religion had a monopoly on truth (except for Pastafarianism, which is the only truly evidence-based religion).

Sexuality I didn't choose. But even if I did, what of it? It affects nobody who does not wish to be affected. It's not like smoking or loudly chewing with an open mouth. When I go to work, my home life by and large stays at home.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 243):
Sure, one can become a Christian, or a Muslim. But it's as easy as being deeply in love with your wife and then deeply being in love with another. As I understand it, love is not a choice. Love comes and love goes, without a conscious, wilful decision.

In my experience, religion does not carry the emotional impetus of love. I don't think they feel similar at all. Awe/wonder is a powerful emotion, yes. But it need not imply religion.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 261):
Precisely. And that's exactly what private businesses interacting with private citizens are...private.

Within the law. Nondiscrimination laws have been a part of life since most of us were born (or at least were very young).

Quoting AR385 (Reply 256):
I have read the entire thread but I still don´t get why the Indiana law is particularly different. I´ve read mt99´s post where there is some sort of 11 page document but it´s too much legalese for me.

Can someone explain to me in simple terms (if it´s not too much effort) what are the differences? What does it mean "to protect someone from the government interferring in his freedom of religion"? Does it mean that the government can tell you not to wear a cross in a public building? Or does it mean that the government can´t tell you same?
I'm going to put this in bold because it's important and I feel like a lot of people on this site don't know this:

The difference is that the Federal law and the law present in the other states express that the State can't sue to force someone that goes against their religious beliefs unless it is in the compelling interest of the state (i.e. my religion requires me to kill all political leaders...the state would have a "compelling interest" in stopping me), but it allows individuals to still sue.

*Indiana's allows neither individuals nor the government to sue. One possible interpretation of this is that I could even cheat you out of money and claim religious defense (which I very much doubt would work since one could argue that there's a compelling state interest, but it's a conceivable defense the way the bill is written). It also means that if I'm Jewish and you fire me, the state can't enforce a nondiscrimination law if you claim religious belief. It would have to fall to a federal suit. And Indiana's law doesn't carve out an exemption for nondiscrimination law, except that all classes except sexual orientation are covered under federal law anyway. So it can only apply to one group.

*Indiana's law also apples to companies, not just private people. Now until Hobby Lobby the idea that a company could even have a religion was patently absurd, but then the SCOTUS did the most stunning thing and decided that companies an have religions. So that's a bit up in the air, but the fact that the Indiana law explicitly includes companies speaks volumes.

*And then there's context.


For the federal RFRA and existing state ones, the passage of those laws coincided with Supreme Court cases and had to do with protecting minority religions. In one case, Native American drug counselors were fired for taking peyote as part of a Native American ritual that was sacred of them and the SCOTUS ruled against them (the government had conceded that it had no compelling interest in stopping a religious ritual that had been performed on this soil for thousands of years before there was a USA). RFRA was passed to ensure that the rights of minority religions were protected. Then the SCOTUS ruled that it didn't apply to the states, so many states passed their own versions. For this FRFA it is all openly and explicitly about discriminating against LGBT people (until people get upset and then "Oh gee, that law isn't intended to do exactly what it was intended to do!"). The group of players at the signing ceremony made it very clear what was about. Gay-curers, Gay=bestiality people, Gay=pedophilia people (that's our community's "Blood Libel"), and people who freak out when girls wear tuxes to proms or whatnot. But no, it had nothing to do with the LGBT community. Nobody here but us morons.

So that's what's so different.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 259):
Speaking of the 14th Amendment, it just occurred to me that these "religious freedom" laws directly violate it. The 14th guarantees "equal protection under the law". Making a law that says religious beliefs always trump non-religious beliefs in a dispute places religious people in a higher class, and thus makes non-religious people "less equal" in the eyes of the law.

Ah yes, which brings us to that ridiculous religious conservative refrain that we have "freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion."
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:54 am

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 263):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 261):

Precisely. And that's exactly what private businesses interacting with private citizens are...private.

Except it's not a private business. If you are otherwise open to the public (e.g, not a closed members-only club), you are not a private business interacting with private citizens: you are a business interacting with the public.

The fact that you and BMI can't see that means you don't understand a thing about the last 300 or so years of law.

I can't speak for BMI, but I'm not discussing what is, rather what should be. "The public" is nothing for than a group of individuals.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 263):

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 261):
but as long as their rights are not being violated

That's like saying "You can kill someone for any reason, so long as their rights are being violated" and then using that to justify killing an innocent person sitting on their porch.

What a daft argument. This is why the courts exist.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22988
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:06 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 266):
I can't speak for BMI, but I'm not discussing what is, rather what should be. "The public" is nothing for than a group of individuals.

So, you agree that Wal-Mart should and can have the right to tell women wearing hijab they are not allowed in their stores?

I know Wal-Mart would not be that extreme, but that is what you are saying: a business open to the public and for public consumption has the right to tell the public who can and can not shop there.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:18 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 148):
So in other words, you think a doctor should be allowed to let me die because I'm gay (or Black or whatever). Wow, that's... amazing.

Whatever personal moral or ethical obligations you feel you have personally are your business, but you don't get to push those on everyone. (For precisely the same reasons fundamentalist Christians don't get to push theirs on you)

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 150):
Wow, BMI727 is once again the perfect example of how libertarianism is hot sauce. Dash here and there nicely livens things up, but too much in and the whole dish tastes like shit.

The fact that libertarianism is an -ism and not just the basic, unassailable reality it should be means that the battle is most likely already lost to people who hold themselves and their fellow man in low regard. That doesn't mean I'll willingly take a position that is wrong, despite the fact that the battle may have been lost as soon as the Bill of Rights was conceived.

Liberty, not libertarianism, is really more like the broth in a stew. Without it, there's just a pile of stuff.

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 156):
Sorry BMI727 you are wrong. Absolutely wrong. These are protected classes according to the Constitution. No business may turn away a black man based on the color of his skin. That is unconstitutional.

None of that is in the Constitution. Some of the freedoms that are violated are though.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 157):
I agree with some of the facets of libertarian.

Liberal intolerance is what that is. Liberty is great and all as long as nobody might use it to do something that you don't like. Free association is fine as long as everyone wants to be your friend.

Of course you agree with some facets of libertarianism. It's exactly the same as how the KKK has no problem with anyone as long as their straight and white.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 179):
To anybody who lives in Indiana: Can you please found a religion that views everything as a gift, and that any financial obligation is contrary to its teachings?

No religion gives you the rights to violate the rights of others.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 152):
Oh yes there is. What if it's a restaurant and it's a waiter who refuses service? Despite the customer paying the restaurant for the food, tips are a direct link between employee and customer.

No it actually isn't. When you go out to eat, what shows up on your credit card statement?

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 179):
No, I won't pay any rent, any fees, any fines, no, nothing.

Then enjoy being homeless.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 260):
Religious views are protected because they are recognized. Sexual orientation, not so much. When they include sexual orientation as a protected class, then the 14th amendment would apply and an LGBT would have the same protections as a straight person.

Do you not see the problem with the government picking out which groups are protected?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 266):
I can't speak for BMI, but I'm not discussing what is, rather what should be. "The public" is nothing for than a group of individuals.

Precisely.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:39 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 267):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 266):
I can't speak for BMI, but I'm not discussing what is, rather what should be. "The public" is nothing for than a group of individuals.

So, you agree that Wal-Mart should and can have the right to tell women wearing hijab they are not allowed in their stores?

It sounds like you're conflating two different issues here. Do I believe they could or should do this? No. They'd be turning away profits and I'm sure their shareholders as well as the public would have something to say about it. Do I believe they should have the right to do this? Yes, it's their store, it's their property, Muslim women don't have to shop there and they have no right to be able to shop at Wal-Mart. No rights of theirs are being violated by Wal-Mart.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13976
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:21 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 268):
(For precisely the same reasons fundamentalist Christians don't get to push theirs on you)

If a fundamentalist "Christian" Doctor lets me die because of whatever religious obligations he thinks he has, then i would consider that the most forceful way to push his believes onto me that is possible. He should then convert to an equally fundamentalist version of Islam, move to Iraq an join ISIS, because they are his spiritual brothers.....

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 269):
They'd be turning away profits and I'm sure their shareholders as well as the public would have something to say about it.

Not if their shareholders are fundamentalist Christians...

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 269):
Yes, it's their store, it's their property,

It is. So what? They don´t build the streets their customer use to get to their business to let them spend money there, the public does. They don´t pay for the police that tracks down robbers, the public does. The public enables them to operate that business, the public can very well demand them to be open to the public. If you use public infrastructure for your business, but exclude parts of that public, you are practically embezzling money from the tax payer.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4325
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:45 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 268):

The fact that libertarianism is an -ism and not just the basic, unassailable reality it should be means that the battle is most likely already lost to people who hold themselves and their fellow man in low regard.

Why wouldn't I hold my 'fellow man' in low regard?
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
diverted
Posts: 1296
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:59 am

Here's something to ponder...

Doesn't the Bible say something along the lines of go out, spread the good word, fishers of men or some such thing?

If these "Christian businesses" are refusing to even serve gays, then how can they claim to be good, dutiful Christians? If they act like the Bible says, they should be openly inviting gays into their businesses, if for no other reason than to "spread the good word"
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6009
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:02 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 256):
A Federal law becomes State law automatically. Is this not so in the US?

In Switzerland, which also was heavily influenced by Napoleonic law, federal law trumps state law, and state law trumps municipal law. In practice, the federation and the states split tasks. For example, federal law says how much unbuilt land (forests, meadows, fields...) to preserve, and then state law defines how to preserve that (e.g. by defining exemptions, by defining natural protection areas). Finally, municipal laws define what kind of buildings can be built (e.g. ridge roofs, flat roofs, how many storeys, if the building can serve business...) because it's the commune that knows how to preserve and design a coherent town.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 265):
I mean, I'm not sure that "choose" is the best way to describe my atheism, but I examined all the evidence (and choosing to do so openly and without preconceptions was a choice) and concluded that it was unlikely that any religion had a monopoly on truth (except for Pastafarianism, which is the only truly evidence-based religion).

In my book, belief flatly contradicts with "examining evidence". If you think about if there is proof for a godly being, you stop believing automatically. But as MD90 wrote, different beliefs can provoke different reactions from your mind or soul, which leads to you "choosing" a religion despite you can't consciously choose one. You feel that you are in line with a belief, and then you settle on that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 268):
No religion gives you the rights to violate the rights of others.

But it does. According to the Indianian law, your "firmly held religion" is protected against people wanting to sue you for whatever reasons. Somebody who is suing you has only equal and fair chances in court if he sues you because his firmly held religion was violated.

Suing me because his property rights were violated? Dang, because settling this issue would violate my religious rights.

I think you don't really understand what this law means.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 268):
Then enjoy being homeless.

Nope. My religion says that everybody is entitled to a home. A core Christian value.


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6009
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:22 am

Quoting diverted (Reply 272):

Because those Christians believe that Jesus was a rich, white shop owner who hated paying taxes. He protected prostitutes when it came to working in his house, and he offered them a little more favorable conditions. Jesus also never served time in prison, was a law-abiding citizen and although he did wonders to the blind and the lame, he checked first if the patients could pay the treatment.

Just my 0.0185 Euros.


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13976
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:26 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 274):
he checked first if the patients could pay the treatment.

not to forget, he totally supported using religion for business by inviting business men to conduct business in the temple.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
diverted
Posts: 1296
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:31 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 274):
Because those Christians believe that Jesus was a rich, white shop owner who hated paying taxes. He protected prostitutes when it came to working in his house, and he offered them a little more favorable conditions. Jesus also never served time in prison, was a law-abiding citizen and although he did wonders to the blind and the lame, he checked first if the patients could pay the treatment.

Legendary, welcome to my respected user list.

He also was probably a capitalist, and was in favour of limited government, unless it benefited his agenda.


Then again, Jesus also preached something about turning the other cheek, but that's a whole different story
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15468
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:58 am

I love the hypocrisy of big companies that bashed these 'religious freedom' laws yet exploit workers, ruin the environment and push overconsumption in the USA and all around the world. Their main reason is to reduce any risk of GLTBQ employees to not want to work for them in their facilities in states with such offensive laws.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8623
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:08 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 263):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 260):
Notice how the states are using the 10th Amendment to defend their SSM bans

Notice how insanely unsuccessful they have been at it.

It's a compelling argument though. It just isn't good enough. Besides, many states have used something other than 10th amendment rights. Reproduction, the right of a child to have both parents, people voted on it, etc.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 268):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 152):
Oh yes there is. What if it's a restaurant and it's a waiter who refuses service? Despite the customer paying the restaurant for the food, tips are a direct link between employee and customer.

No it actually isn't. When you go out to eat, what shows up on your credit card statement?

When you sign a slip, unless you give $0 tip, you're instructing the restaurant to add $X more and give it to the waiter. So while your card statement shows only the transaction to the restaurant, there's also a direct (if cash) or indirect (if added to the bill) link with the waiter.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 268):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 260):
Religious views are protected because they are recognized. Sexual orientation, not so much. When they include sexual orientation as a protected class, then the 14th amendment would apply and an LGBT would have the same protections as a straight person.

Do you not see the problem with the government picking out which groups are protected?

The only problem I see is people creating subclasses. All men are created equal apparently meant only men. So we had to protect by gender. But then that leaves out blacks. So we had to protect by race. But it sounded like it was only Christian people, so we now protect by religion. But now it sounds like it's just straight people. And once we turn this page and protect by gender, what's next? Only the richest are created equal?

Quoting diverted (Reply 276):
Jesus also preached something about turning the other cheek, but that's a whole different story

Oh yes. He turned the other check and came back with a few stealth bombers and army tanks and bombed the hell out of the place.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6009
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:10 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 275):
not to forget, he totally supported using religion for business by inviting business men to conduct business in the temple.

Oh noes...  Wow!

And I wonder if Mr. Limbaugh ever tells us of Hezekiel 23:19-20 in his radio & TV rants!

Quoting diverted (Reply 276):
Legendary, welcome to my respected user list.

Thanks.  

I'm a Christian and Pastafari. I hold the life and the deeds of Jesus to be a guideline for my own, though I'm often weak and cannot truly follow him.

I once read Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", and I was truly impressed by Jean Valjean. I think Hugo wrote a modern parable of Jesus, and I was crying during the last chapter.


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13976
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:35 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 279):
And I wonder if Mr. Limbaugh ever tells us of Hezekiel 23:19-20 in his radio & TV rants!

  

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 279):
I'm a Christian and Pastafari. I hold the life and the deeds of Jesus to be a guideline for my own, though I'm often weak and cannot truly follow him.

aside of being Christian and Solipsist. .. I couldn't agree more.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6009
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:42 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 280):
Solipsist

Did the FO of the Germanwings flight adhere to solipsism? There's only me, and the passengers in the back are an illusion of my mind...

...but I digress from the topic. 


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21966
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:12 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 268):
Do you not see the problem with the government picking out which groups are protected?

"Protected class" is a misnomer.

Antidiscrimination laws work both ways. I can't put a sign on my clinic that says "No colored allowed," and nobody can put a sign on their clinic that says "No whites allowed." The fact that the former used to be commonly done while the latter was almost never done had nothing to do with the law that said that neither is allowed, but the fact that the former used to be done necessitated the law.

"Gays" or "LGBT" are not the protected class. "Sexual orientation" is. Everyone, gay or straight, is protected under the law.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
LFutia
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 11:04 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:07 pm

We Illinoisians are having fun at this still!

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150...-chicago-pride-fest-escape-new-law

However,

this is an awesome tweet from HoneyMaid ( took a screenshot) :

http://gyazo.com/ccd23fad5e8ef485ff6e1b7417424d7f

Leo/ORD
Leo/ORD
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8623
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:08 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 278):
And once we turn this page and protect by gender, what's next?

Correction: sexual orientation
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8358
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:09 pm

As a straight white christian (with closet pastafarian urges), I am ashamed that what is being done here is happening in the name of my belief.

We are all born equally, and we all die equally. People should not have the right to deny me service because of my faith or preferences, nor should I deny anyone else the same.

There is no space in the world for racial, gender or sexual bias.

The republican party members need to ensure that the religious right don't totally take over the show.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4726
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:34 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 278):
It's a compelling argument though.

No, it's not. The 10th Amendment reserves those rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, to the states and people.

The 14th Amendment grants the federal government the right (and the duty) to prohibit unequal protection under the law. The 1st prohibits establishment of religion. Not "a religion", but any religion, or all religions. The laws currently being passed establish religion as a governing force.

Therefore, since other parts of the Constitution explicitly grant these powers, the 10th does not apply.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 278):
It just isn't good enough.

It's not good, period.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 278):
Reproduction

Then sterile people can't get married either. Violation of equal protection.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 278):
the right of a child to have both parents

No such right exists.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 278):
people voted on it

Not everything can be voted on. We are a democratic republic, not a democracy. You can't just vote away rights willy-nilly.


Again, piss poor arguments.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8623
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:04 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 286):
Again, piss poor arguments.

I don't know if you realize...I'm on your side. I'm just stating how the states are using other excuses when the 10th amendment (which is perhaps the strongest argument) is not working out for them. Wait until the SCOTUS rules. Odds are that if the SCOTUS says no bans on SSM, the dissenters will claim how the SCOTUS trampled on states' rights.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13976
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:09 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 286):
No such right exists.

If it would, consequently divorce would have to be illegal, or at least, after a divorce you´d have to be very, very restrictive about how far someone can move away from his child after the divorce and custody would have to be almost always shared.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21966
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:38 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 285):
The republican party members need to ensure that the religious right don't totally take over the show.

Too late.

As we have seen here, the arguments made by the "social conservatives" including our own BMI727 logically conclude that the CRA was wrong, that businesses should still have the right to put up "No Colored" signs and "Help needed; Irish need not apply" and the like. We thought this debate was over; evidently it is not.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6009
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:05 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 286):
Then sterile people can't get married either. Violation of equal protection.

Interestingly, impotent but fertile men cannot marry under Catholic church laws.

*duck* *cover*

And then, the Wiccans are up in joy, and they want to ritually dance nude in front of the Indianapolis Capitol during full moons:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/w...ygamy-nude-rituals-at-the-capitol/



David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21966
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:14 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 290):
And then, the Wiccans are up in joy, and they want to ritually dance nude in front of the Indianapolis Capitol during full moons:

Ah yes, and here is another problem with the law: the vague "compelling state interest." Could the state simply conclude that banning nudity on the Capitol lawn is a compelling state interest? Could they conclude that the state has a "compelling interest" in allowing freedom of religion to only Judaism and Christianity? How is this defined?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13976
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:14 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 290):
And then, the Wiccans are up in joy, and they want to ritually dance nude in front of the Indianapolis Capitol during full moons:

I am sure somehow that would be against the states vital interests. ..

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 290):
Interestingly, impotent but fertile men cannot marry under Catholic church laws.

they will usually get a dispense these days, however. .. that doesn't make the rule any better. But at least, by religious standards, it is consistent. ...

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22988
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:24 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 269):
No rights of theirs are being violated by Wal-Mart.

If Wal-Mart denies women wearing hijab, Wal-Mart would then be denying religious rights to those women. Those women are practicing one facet of their religion.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:18 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 269):
Do I believe they could or should do this? No. They'd be turning away profits and I'm sure their shareholders as well as the public would have something to say about it.

Publicly traded companies should be required by law to disclose any discriminatory policies they may have. To do otherwise would be fraud.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 270):
If a fundamentalist "Christian" Doctor lets me die because of whatever religious obligations he thinks he has, then i would consider that the most forceful way to push his believes onto me that is possible.

No he isn't. He's just following his beliefs, but isn't stopping you from seeing another doctor nor keeping another doctor from caring for you.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 271):
Why wouldn't I hold my 'fellow man' in low regard?

If I were a liberal and hung out with a majority of liberals I probably would too. And I don't really think people aren't stupid, I just think they should have the freedom to be that way.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 273):
Suing me because his property rights were violated? Dang, because settling this issue would violate my religious rights.

Your rights do not allow you to violate someone else's rights. I really hope you're just obfuscating and don't seriously think that is the argument.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 273):
Nope. My religion says that everybody is entitled to a home. A core Christian value.

Then open your home to whomever asks. But you don't get to force your views on others.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 278):
When you sign a slip, unless you give $0 tip, you're instructing the restaurant to add $X more and give it to the waiter. So while your card statement shows only the transaction to the restaurant, there's also a direct (if cash) or indirect (if added to the bill) link with the waiter.

That's not true. You're relationship to the waiter is entirely governed by the policies of the restaurant owner. Don't believe me? Then do you get to specify if the waiter pools tips? Or engages in the practice of "tipping out"? What about establishments that have gratuity included?



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 282):
I can't put a sign on my clinic that says "No colored allowed," and nobody can put a sign on their clinic that says "No whites allowed."

Both equally infringe on your property rights.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 289):
As we have seen here, the arguments made by the "social conservatives" including our own BMI727

I'm not a social conservative. I'm not a social anything - do what you want as long as you don't violate anyone's rights, including the right to free association.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 289):
that businesses should still have the right to put up "No Colored" signs and "Help needed; Irish need not apply" and the like

They should.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 289):
We thought this debate was over; evidently it is not.

Nobody is arguing over whether or not discrimination is okay, it clearly is not. But that does not mean that it should be illegal and certainly does not make it a virtue higher than liberty.

So many people fail to see how overwhelmingly hypocritical they are. They are up in arms whenever the government tries to legislate morality on things like gay marriage. But you don't really have a problem with the government legislating morality, you just want to make sure that it's your morality. In that respect, you're no better than the Westboro Baptists. You're singing the same song in a different key.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 293):
If Wal-Mart denies women wearing hijab, Wal-Mart would then be denying religious rights to those women. Those women are practicing one facet of their religion.

No, they have the right to wear a hijab and practice their religion. What they do not have is the right to shop at Walmart.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:26 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 270):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 269):
They'd be turning away profits and I'm sure their shareholders as well as the public would have something to say about it.

Not if their shareholders are fundamentalist Christians...

Perhaps not, but at a large multi-national like Wal-Mart? Not likely. Especially unlikely the public would have nothing to say about it.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 270):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 269):
Yes, it's their store, it's their property,

It is. So what? They don´t build the streets their customer use to get to their business to let them spend money there, the public does. They don´t pay for the police that tracks down robbers, the public does. The public enables them to operate that business, the public can very well demand them to be open to the public. If you use public infrastructure for your business, but exclude parts of that public, you are practically embezzling money from the tax payer.


Absurd. What do you think the businesses also pay taxes for? Their own amusement?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 293):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 269):
No rights of theirs are being violated by Wal-Mart.

If Wal-Mart denies women wearing hijab, Wal-Mart would then be denying religious rights to those women. Those women are practicing one facet of their religion.


Nope. In no way are those women prohibited from exercising their religion. If they choose to go into Wal-Mart and remove their hijabs, that's their choice. But they're perfectly free to remain in their hijab and shop elsewhere.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8358
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:29 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 291):
Could the state simply conclude that banning nudity on the Capitol lawn is a compelling state interest? Could they conclude that the state has a "compelling interest" in allowing freedom of religion to only Judaism and Christianity? How is this defined?

The rest can wear little pink triangles and yellow stars?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 294):
No he isn't. He's just following his beliefs, but isn't stopping you from seeing another doctor nor keeping another doctor from caring for you.

At a road side at 2am......
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
scamp
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:48 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:14 am

This just in from Virginia: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04...uple-gets-what-she-deserves-video/

Judge hit her with a thousand dollar fine. Thing is, one of the grooms was a previously long time customer.
If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22988
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:55 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 295):
If they choose to go into Wal-Mart and remove their hijabs, that's their choice.

But Wal-Mart telling women they can not wear them in the store is infringing on their right to practice religion. Like a Catholic nun being told she can not wear her habit in Wal-Mart.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 294):
they have the right to wear a hijab and practice their religion. What they do not have is the right to shop at Walmart.

Those are two separate statements that have nothing at all in any way to do with each other.

I have the right to shop at Wal-Mart. It is a public company with no membership fees or requirements.

On a completely and independent topic that has nothing at all to do with anything other than religion: Muslim women wear hijab.

One has nothing to do with the other.

The sooner the evangelicals in control of the Republican party understand the separation of church and state and that their religion is not under attack, the sooner we can move this country forward.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 294):
Publicly traded companies should be required by law to disclose any discriminatory policies they may have.

Because of (some) state and federal law, they do not.

I do not eat at Chick-Fil-A because of the donation habits of some of the owners. I know they would not deny me service if I ordered and paid for a chicken sandwich. They are a public company. If I walked in drunk and said unflattering things about the cashier's mother, they should deny me service. But, if I simply order, pay, and leave, no problem on either end.

Get it?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4325
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:52 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 294):

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 271):
Why wouldn't I hold my 'fellow man' in low regard?

If I were a liberal and hung out with a majority of liberals I probably would too.

Oh, ha... ha... ha! Bottom line is your brand of full blown libertarianism is about the most naive, idealistic political philosophy around and makes any garden variety democrat or republican look like rational realists.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GDB, moo, Tiredofhumanity, Virtual737 and 38 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos