E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Well, looks like Governor Pence is scrambling to salvage his political career and the well-being of his State. We’ll see what this new legislation will be.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
One suggestion I have seen is that the law should be amended to require all businesses that want to discriminate against certain groups on religious grounds to make this clear in their advertising, and in the shop window: “This business will not serve left handed people on religious grounds.” That way nobody has to make a wasted journey or enter a shop where they may be turned away. Failure to advertise would allow the business to be sued.
Judging by the fallout in Indiana, Arizona’s Governor Brewer was wise to veto the equivalent bill in Arizona.
rossum
meltzerboy
New member
Legislation like this opens itself up to lawsuits because there is often a fine distinction between discrimination against an individual per se vs. discrimination against the individual’s behavior which is contrary to the business owner’s religious principles. Further, the question arises whether a business owner is entitled to discriminate if a gay couple’s (or anyone else’s) request goes against the owner’s PERSONAL moral convictions even if the owner is not particularly religious or is not a member of the religion that is being violated? Finally, can it be proved (or need it be) that the owner is discriminating specifically due to their religious or moral values rather than for some other, arbitrary reason?
S
SeannyM
Guest
I think he also needs to clarify whether or not this law allows a pharmacist to refuse to dispense HIV medications or prophylaxis. These laws can have consequences far beyond the bakery or florist.
A
ARSpade
Guest
Still haven’t figured out why everybody is freaking out over a state level copy of the RFRA. You know, the law Hobby Lobby won using.
U
Used2beSherryG
Guest
My take on the “firestorm” is that the gay lobbyists are working overtime to create the appearance that the whole wide world is up in arms over protection of religious liberty. NOT SO! The haters are the ones making all the noise right now as usual. the devil is having a field day and all the sheep in the world say nothing so as not to upset a very small minority who have an evil agenda. People have a right to protections of their religious freedoms in this country. It would not be necessary to spell things out so descriptively except for the radicals who work tirelessly to help evil reign, Just as the world hated Jesus, so it hates people who hold Christian values dear. Pray for strength and believe in the Gospel. Don’t succumb to the wiles of the devil.
M
MacBP
Guest
EmperorNapoleon, I know you have been particularly opposed to the RFRA, so perhaps you might be able to answer this question.
Is there a version of the law you would find acceptable? I’ve read the as written and while I admittedly don’t have a legal background, the worst thing I can say about the law is that it might be overly broad. With that being said, I’m sure we would both agree that the freedom to practice one’s religion and the freedom to protect one’s conscience is very important. This is especially true when we’re speaking about individuals with minority beliefs or values that fall outside the norm (if those beliefs or values were mainstream it’s less likely that they would require protection). I understand that all rights have limits,and unlimited right to either freedom of religion or freedom of conscience could have consequences on those around them (although, practically, I suspect that a lot of the fear surrounding this bill is highly effective fear mongering since laws like this exist without dire consequences) but the text of the bill seems to admit at as much and suggest that governments can place a reasonable restriction on freedom of religion.
What I’m getting at, here, is that even if you think the law is overly broad (which it might be) I think we should agree that some level of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience deserves protection. What amendments would you suggest to make this law acceptable?
Is there a version of the law you would find acceptable? I’ve read the as written and while I admittedly don’t have a legal background, the worst thing I can say about the law is that it might be overly broad. With that being said, I’m sure we would both agree that the freedom to practice one’s religion and the freedom to protect one’s conscience is very important. This is especially true when we’re speaking about individuals with minority beliefs or values that fall outside the norm (if those beliefs or values were mainstream it’s less likely that they would require protection). I understand that all rights have limits,and unlimited right to either freedom of religion or freedom of conscience could have consequences on those around them (although, practically, I suspect that a lot of the fear surrounding this bill is highly effective fear mongering since laws like this exist without dire consequences) but the text of the bill seems to admit at as much and suggest that governments can place a reasonable restriction on freedom of religion.
What I’m getting at, here, is that even if you think the law is overly broad (which it might be) I think we should agree that some level of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience deserves protection. What amendments would you suggest to make this law acceptable?
N
Neofight
Guest
They better clarify it!
This is not a gay/lesbian issue…its a civil rights issue.
Those of us with religious opposition to homosexuality, can sit back smugly, and say that since the intent of the law is supposedly to preserve “religious freedom”, businesses should have the right not to serve those who have lifestyles at odds with the religious convictions of business owners.
But if the law spread to other states, it might not be so appealing.
Can you imagine similar laws in states where Catholics are in a very decisive minority, where Catholicism is misunderstood, feared, or even hated? The law would make it legitimate for businesses to refuse service to Catholics, simply if the business owners’ religious convictions include a belief that they should not associate or interact with Catholics.
And, suppose the ardent cry to protect religious freedoms was held up by the Supreme Court, and spread beyond private business. When your house catches fire, will the non-Catholic firefighters say, “Sorry, can’t help, it violates my religious freedom!” Same could hold true for emergency room medical people, police departments, etc.
This is not a gay/lesbian issue…its a civil rights issue.
Those of us with religious opposition to homosexuality, can sit back smugly, and say that since the intent of the law is supposedly to preserve “religious freedom”, businesses should have the right not to serve those who have lifestyles at odds with the religious convictions of business owners.
But if the law spread to other states, it might not be so appealing.
Can you imagine similar laws in states where Catholics are in a very decisive minority, where Catholicism is misunderstood, feared, or even hated? The law would make it legitimate for businesses to refuse service to Catholics, simply if the business owners’ religious convictions include a belief that they should not associate or interact with Catholics.
And, suppose the ardent cry to protect religious freedoms was held up by the Supreme Court, and spread beyond private business. When your house catches fire, will the non-Catholic firefighters say, “Sorry, can’t help, it violates my religious freedom!” Same could hold true for emergency room medical people, police departments, etc.
J
josie_L
Guest
He as much admitted that Christians should not own any businesses which cater to the public.
E
estesbob
Guest
It already has “spread” to other States-19 in fact and there is also a federal version of the law. None of the dire consequences homosexual apologists warn of have come about anywhere this law is in effect. The law does not target homosexuals-it protects religious freedom.They better clarify it!
This is not a gay/lesbian issue…its a civil rights issue.
Those of us with religious opposition to homosexuality, can sit back smugly, and say that since the intent of the law is supposedly to preserve “religious freedom”, businesses should have the right not to serve those who have lifestyles at odds with the religious convictions of business owners.
But if the law spread to other states, it might not be so appealing.
Can you imagine similar laws in states where Catholics are in a very decisive minority, where Catholicism is misunderstood, feared, or even hated? The law would make it legitimate for businesses to refuse service to Catholics, simply if the business owners’ religious convictions include a belief that they should not associate or interact with Catholics.
And, suppose the ardent cry to protect religious freedoms was held up by the Supreme Court, and spread beyond private business. When your house catches fire, will the non-Catholic firefighters say, “Sorry, can’t help, it violates my religious freedom!” Same could hold true for emergency room medical people, police departments, etc.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
N
Neofight
Guest
Doesn’t surprise me…the paradoxical nature of something so contrary to the gospel being called a law to protect religious freedoms is, however, surprising. I guess we should re-evaluate the right of other countries to impose Sharia law, now that we have instituted our own version of it…and, even within the boundaries of the U.S., where there are large Moslem populations, haven’t we just given them legal protection to, in the name of religious freedom, live out Sharia law? If not, its not a law protecting religious freedom, its a law protecting the religious freedom of some, but not others, which is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I guess if I have a daughter being married in the Catholic Church, when I order the wedding cake, I need to be prepared to present proof to the bakery that the marriage is valid in the eyes of whatever religion the shop owner is…wow, that’s a good idea!
I’m just saying!
E
estesbob
Guest
The over the top hyperbole on this innocuous law is unbelievable. Every time someone of the Left gets their beliefs challenged they drag out Sharia law and predict the end of the world as we know it if homosexuals cant get a cake anywhere they want.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Opinions are plenty which is acknowledged, however legal precedent cannot be ignored because of opinion.
I’m sure the icing on the cake could be resolved when others don’t expect Catholics or whichever Christian area to act contrary to conscious, seems like intentional suppression and legal neglect and abuse.
Little sisters of the poor and Hobby Lobby come to mind. Obama being a constitutional attorney and civil rights professor ought to join us with his Christian denomination in upholding the law instead of transgressing it. Some are of the legal opinion he ought to be impeached and insist you can never be too right with God.
I’m sure the icing on the cake could be resolved when others don’t expect Catholics or whichever Christian area to act contrary to conscious, seems like intentional suppression and legal neglect and abuse.
meltzerboy
New member
I’m wondering how Sharia law would affect devout Muslims’ services to the general public in the US? IOW, what would be a few specific examples of discriminatory restrictions based on not violating Islamic religious principles?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You simply can’t have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. Thats at “Burger King” where you can have it YOUR way. 
When discrimination is exclusive of religion, then that is discrimination of religion which is protected.
When discrimination is exclusive of religion, then that is discrimination of religion which is protected.When you order the pork you need to not discriminate against those who won’t touch it. Then again I would have to ask why you would go ask muslims to touch pork? To see if they discriminate against you?
meltzerboy
New member
Would this law, by protecting religious freedom of conscience, make it possible not to rent an apartment or home to a gay couple, an unmarried straight couple, or a divorced person, even if such a situation has not yet arisen?
R
rossum
Guest
Try, “I am sorry, ma’am. I cannot serve you because you are not decently dressed.”
“No hijab; no service.”
rossum
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I have fetl for sometime that this nation needs to make a basic choice.
Do we want to be a nation that places the highest value on equality for all, or
Do we want to be a nation that places the highest value on personal liberty?
In truth, we cannot have both because true liberty means we will not always have complete equality for all, and true equality for all means we cannot have true liberty for all.
Do we want to be a nation that places the highest value on equality for all, or
Do we want to be a nation that places the highest value on personal liberty?
In truth, we cannot have both because true liberty means we will not always have complete equality for all, and true equality for all means we cannot have true liberty for all.
- Status