Indiana's freedom of religious discrimination

Post by **Vince** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:00 pm

Arkansas to become the 20th state to pass a religious liberty bill along with the federal governments.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:00 pm

It got straightened out in the end.

There's a lot of detail left out there.

It was and it wasn't. Gray area. Context is important.

I bet I can find someone that thinks your "straightening out" argument is just as contextual.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:05 am

"Democrats are more interested in sanctions on Indiana than Iran."

Post by **Vince** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:00 am

The purposeful self delusion on what this law does is mind blowing. I'm so going Galt.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:00 pm

Yeah, there's lots of obfuscation happening, so I am just going to default to my "if hippies hate it it's most likely good" position. Too hard to get the real facts. Even the name of the law is misleading.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:05 pm

In defense of those worried it will be used to discriminate against homosexuals, when Governer Pence signed the bill standing around him for the photo op were some of the most horrible anti-gay activists alive today celebrating their win against the sinful. If this law is so innocent maybe someone should tell them they should stop being proud of what they accomplished because it's not about that.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:11 pm

It's not bigotry if it's a direct order from above.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:11 pm

"The end of tolerance, and rise of enforced morality."

http://thefederalist.com/2015....orality

“The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage. Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party… The same reversal of tolerance applies to religious liberty. When RFRA passed in 1993, liberal outfits like the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. But now the ACLU is denouncing Indiana’s law because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its cultural agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights.”

This shit is hard for me to understand, and I think I am getting measurable stupider as I age, but is this law about the bakery refusing to bake a cake for the gay wedding?

Edited By GORDON on 1427904891

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:16 pm

If the bill limited shit to people's places of worship, I wouldn't mind so much. This bill invites litigation.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:32 pm

The bill could in theory be used to make Gay Jim Crow.

It shouldn't and it probably won't very much, but there will be at least a few incidents I'm sure.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:41 pm

TPRJones wrote:The bill could in theory be used to make Gay Jim Crow.

It shouldn't and it probably won't very much, but there will be at least a few incidents I'm sure.

Hope all the plaintiffs have deep pockets or aclu friends.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:01 pm

Vince wrote:Arkansas to become the 20th state to pass a religious liberty bill along with the federal governments.

Nope.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he does not plan to sign the religious freedom bill that sits on his desk right now, instead asking state lawmakers to make changes so the bill mirrors federal law. The first-term Republican governor said he wants his state "to be known as a state that does not discriminate but understands tolerance."

That'd be the gaystapo, GLAAD-happy gov of Arkansas saying the law might have some issues.

Edited By Malcolm on 1427907719

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:08 pm

Vince wrote:Looking at what does and doesn't produce great outrage in this nation, a couple of weeks ago a woman in Colorado literally ripped an unborn 7 month old baby out of a pregnant mother and left the child to die alone in a cold bathtub. In that case the state opted to not charge the woman with the murder of the baby.

This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.

How rightful is your damning now?

Post by **Vince** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:19 pm

GORDON wrote:"The end of tolerance, and rise of enforced morality."

http://thefederalist.com/2015....orality

“The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage. Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party… The same reversal of tolerance applies to religious liberty. When RFRA passed in 1993, liberal outfits like the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. But now the ACLU is denouncing Indiana’s law because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its cultural agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights.”
This shit is hard for me to understand, and I think I am getting measurable stupider as I age, but is this law about the bakery refusing to bake a cake for the gay wedding?

Hell, I don't know anymore. I do believe the freedom from religion folks are jumping on this bandwagon as well. No proof of that, but most of the hate is coming not from Christians, but from atheists. Almost to a person, every Christian business owner I've heard speak said they would never refuse any other service to a homosexual, but they we uncomfortable with the marriage thing. They are not discriminating against the people. They are discriminating against being part of a specific ceremony that they feel goes against their religious beliefs. And I think we've shit the first Amendment with this.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:22 pm

They are discriminating against being part of a specific ceremony that they feel goes against their religious beliefs.

If we're talking a strictly religious ceremony, you might have a leg to stand on. Marriage is not a religious thing. It's financial and legal. Any religious overtones are in the head of the beholder.

Edited By Malcolm on 1427913032

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:59 pm

Indeed. The fundamental problem is that society has conflated a civil institution and a religious one into a single mish-mash. There either needs to be no legal effects of marriage, or it needs to stop being a religious thing. That's the only way to solve the problem.

Post by **Vince** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:25 pm

TPRJones wrote:Indeed. The fundamental problem is that society has conflated a civil institution and a religious one into a single mish-mash. There either needs to be no legal effects of marriage, or it needs to stop being a religious thing. That's the only way to solve the problem.

That goes with one of my long standing ideas. Keep marriage and civil unions as two different things. One is civil and one religious.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:08 pm

I like it if you mean someone getting "married" would also have to file for a civil union if they wanted to be counted as a couple under tax law and have spousal privileges and etc. The marriage part is just a church thing.

If you mean marriage is marriage and civil union is civil union and you get one or the other but not both, then I would say I don't think "separate but equal" is something that ever seems to work.

Post by **Vince** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:36 pm

TPRJones wrote:I like it if you mean someone getting "married" would also have to file for a civil union if they wanted to be counted as a couple under tax law and have spousal privileges and etc. The marriage part is just a church thing.

This. You could grandfather churches in or something but have them as separate things and separate titles. You could even work around all the cake and photography stuff by having the baker and photographer contract with the churches. Then the couple isn't hiring them.

I have no doubt at all that they'll work their way to suing churches that won't perform the service anyway, but I don't think the church marriage should be tied to the civil union part.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:41 pm

Something tells me the priests and such won't give up this tradition without long, pointless fight.