RFRA laws are common, as shown by this map. Whether or not such laws are good policy, they are about accommodating religious belief, not authorizing discrimination....Indiana has focused attention on RFRA laws, but it's stupid to focus on Indiana. These laws are all over the place. Understand them. Understand how they apply in many different scenarios and how they are limited by courts in their application. Understand that if we're going to relieve religious believers of the burdens of generally applicable laws, courts are going to have to avoid preferring one religion over another. You can't accommodate the religions you agree with or think are sweet and fuzzy and say no to the ones who seem mean or ugly. We need to figure that out. If, in the end, you think the Indiana RFRA is a bad idea, check that map and see if your state has RFRA (or a RFRA-like state constitutional provision) and push for repeal in your state. And get after Congress. Congress started it. Unless you're Hoosier, leave Indiana alone. Stop otherizing Indiana.
The Indiana RFRA is not identical to every other RFRA, but the textual differences are not particularly material....
Are there any scenarios in which a state-level RFRA might result in an individual business owner denying service to a same-sex couple? Perhaps. The most likely scenario would be something like a religious wedding planner refusing to help plan a wedding that violates his or her religious beliefs. But even if such laws eventually allow this sort of thing, it is a far cry from... a general license to discriminate against one’s neighbors....
AND: I had to wonder What does Garrett Epps think about this? Because Garrett Epps wrote a whole book about how terrible it was for the U.S. Supreme Court to deny special exceptions to religious believers, especially in that case where Native Americans wanted the freedom to use peyote. As I predicted, Epps is otherizing Indiana.
Posts
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215Sorry I forgot about the cannon fodder like you, Fen. Go cannon fodder. Go! Cannon to the left/right of them! Cannon-Man Fen!
Oh wait, I'm discussing history with biblical literalists again.
Idiot.
Libtards have no clue what Biblical literalism means, and they throw around the term "fundamentalist" with as much understanding as a chimpanzee throws a suitcase.
They think "fundamentalist" means a believer they find icky.
Ignorant twits.
Thank you for that calm, rational, convincing, typically right-wing response, Jason.
I don't know about "typical," but it seemed a "calm, rational, convincing ... response" to your uninformed, anti-Christian trollwork.
Oh, shut the f**k up, idiot, before you beclown yourself further.
You don't know what you don't know. Don't get ticked at the universe when more informed people than you make note of it.
R&B wrote:
"Hey. I'm just responding tongue-in-cheek to YH's mini-manifesto. But I forget how impervious you connies are to humor."
Whew! I am glad to hear that! You sounded like a complete idiot with your 'the Christians killed each other off in religious wars so us humanist atheists types were able to pull of the Enlightenment' comment. I mean, only an idiot would believe that. Someone steeped in ignorance, but convinced that he was head-and-shoulders above his fellow men when it came to knowledge and wisdom.
Glad to hear that you aren't like that, R&B!
I see that you are still working the same schtick, what with your "the principle political achievement of the enlightenment was the establishment of America" comment, and your weird reference to the "Biblical literalists". You go, girl!
I have also cancelled my Angies List membership.
I demanded my money back under their 110% guarantee and the rep claimed that it only applies to FIRST year annual memberships. In fact, the Membership Bill of Rights posted on their site last updated on October 2014 contains no such limitation.
I could be headed down to small claims court soon :)
Surely a one-party-state of your favorite right-wingers would be your definition of utopia. Feel free to impose at will, enlightened humanist!
Conservatives don't long for that nor has it ever happened.
Meanwhile, we've seen what your beliefs lead to...
Lawfare, something real conservatives should take up as if Patton demanded it.
Tomorrow I go, fighting city hall.
"I could be headed down to small claims court soon :)"
Ted Cruz.
We know what would happen and so demand it: 30,000 lawsuits all requiring proper attention to every single detail in sundry jurisdictions across the land, some without computers.
If a lawyer for Angie's List needs to fly to the backwoods of Alaska to answer to the charges of breaking The Law, by God they will do it.
You don't break the law, not as a big interstate corporation who only cares about profit (and unlike, oh say Starbucks, Angies List sucks at profit--in a bad way--not like Amazon does in a "we're forming as many monopolies as quick as we can" way) so they had better have 2000 or so lawyers, all sober as a judge with their A game ready.
Kickstart me people, we will advertise to the farthest reaches of Montana/Hawaii/The Keys/Maine as well as the great state of Alaska as previosly mentioned.
Crash the gates!
Also canceled Angie's List. Also because I hadn't realized how little I used it until they decided to bring attention to themselves. The fact that they revealed themselves to be idiots was a bonus reason.
Gay Mafia puts contract out on Indiana demanding repeal of religious freedom. Democrats follow up with demand that the state change its name to "Native Americana."
If it's illegal to refuse service, couldn't a wedding photographer, for example, simply charge more? If they have set prices now, take them down and start doing business by bid. If the photographer doesn't want to be at an event, they simply bid higher. Most likely they wouldn't get the job, but if they did, they could simply contract the work out. In other words, hire someone to be present at the event.
To me, this would not be discrimination since they did service the client. But they didn't personally have to participate.
Pence is going to change the law now...that was fast.
It wasn't the fags bitching about it; it was the corporations.
What if you refuse the business because you're going to be on vacation that week? Is it okay to (gasp of horror) inconvenience a gay person just because you have nonrefundable tickets? If they say you were seen going into a church, does that mean you're now a horrible Xtofascist who has to prove your lack of malice?
Post a Comment