Gov. seeks to 'clarify' Indiana 'religious freedom' law

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course you are-but you are the one who said these things should be decided by the legislatures.
I said the WILL be decided by legislatures… But the point of that post was that personal opinion effects those legislatures, both in their composition and in the decision making. The public has an obligation to participate in that process, and to make their opinions known to the legislatures… One way of doing that is what we’ve seen take place surrounding this law in Indiana.
 
This RFRA thing has been a decisive turning point. I have always been fair and understanding towards gay people and I would never discriminate against someone due to their being gay except in circumstances that require my direct participation in activities I hold to be sinful. Now, I see the LBGT community as outright hostile to religious believers, and an implacable foe to religious freedom. Rubicon crossed.
Yes, David Brooks (to the left of me) expressed this same sentiment in the New York Times recently. It is crossing a line. I personally think there are extremists on both sides of the issue - that is just human nature. But hostility to Christians, in particular, with reference to Christians citing Christian doctrine on the issue of gay marriage, is becoming more mainstream and openly expressed in the gay community. I also think that that mentality extends to the progressive left in general. Of course this is nothing compared to what Christians face in terms of persecution worldwide, but it is part of the same intolerance. I do think it is a dangerous situation.
As a matter of principle, it is simply the case that religious liberty is a value deserving our deepest respect, even in cases where it leads to disagreements as fundamental as the definition of marriage.
Morality is a politeness of the soul. Deep politeness means we make accommodations. Certain basic truths are inalienable. Discrimination is always wrong. In cases of actual bigotry, the hammer comes down. But as neighbors in a pluralistic society we try to turn philosophic clashes (about right and wrong) into neighborly problems in which different people are given space to have different lanes to lead lives. In cases where people with different values disagree, we seek a creative accommodation.
In the Jewish community, conservative Jews are generally polite toward Orthodox Jews who wouldn’t use their cutlery. Men are generally polite to Orthodox women who would prefer not to shake their hands. In the larger community, this respectful politeness works best.
The movement to champion gay rights is now in a position where it can afford to offer this respect, at a point where steady pressure works better than compulsion.
It’s always easier to take an absolutist position. But, in a clash of values like the one between religious pluralism and equality, that absolutism is neither pragmatic, virtuous nor true.
nytimes.com/2015/03/31/opinion/david-brooks-religious-liberty-and-equality.html
 
This RFRA thing has been a decisive turning point. I have always been fair and understanding towards gay people and I would never discriminate against someone due to their being gay except in circumstances that require my direct participation in activities I hold to be sinful. Now, I see the LBGT community as outright hostile to religious believers, and an implacable foe to religious freedom. Rubicon crossed.

Though I will still not discriminate except in the circumstances I outlined or be uncharitable towards gays, I will fight the political expression of the LGBT community as it encroaches on my religious freedom with everything I have.
Hostile to believers? Many of us are believers. Many of our strongest allies are Christian Churches.
 
Yes, David Brooks (to the left of me) expressed this same sentiment in the New York Times recently. It is crossing a line. I personally think there are extremists on both sides of the issue - that is just human nature. But hostility to Christians, in particular, with reference to Christians citing Christian doctrine on the issue of gay marriage, is becoming more mainstream and openly expressed in the gay community. I also think that that mentality extends to the progressive left in general. Of course this is nothing compared to what Christians face in terms of persecution worldwide, but it is part of the same intolerance. I do think it is a dangerous situation.

nytimes.com/2015/03/31/opinion/david-brooks-religious-liberty-and-equality.html
I campaigned for Howard Dean in 2004, I voted for John Kerry in 2006 and interned for Russ Feingold, and I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Granted, I’ve been shifting more conservative in the last few years, but this has sealed it for me.
 
Hostile to believers? Many of us are believers. Many of our strongest allies are Christian Churches.
I don’t want to get into a discussion about this because I feel it would stretch the boundaries of my ability to be charitable, I’ll just leave it at that.
 
Hostile to believers? Many of us are believers. Many of our strongest allies are Christian Churches.
All of whom jettisoned centuries of their denominations teaching on homosexuality to do so.
 
I said the WILL be decided by legislatures… But the point of that post was that personal opinion effects those legislatures, both in their composition and in the decision making. The public has an obligation to participate in that process, and to make their opinions known to the legislatures… One way of doing that is what we’ve seen take place surrounding this law in Indiana.
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.
 
I campaigned for Howard Dean in 2004, I voted for John Kerry in 2006 and interned for Russ Feingold, and I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Granted, I’ve been shifting more conservative in the last few years, but this has sealed it for me.
I’m with you. I voted for Obama too, both times. Bitter pill, huh? My only excuse is that he represented himself much more to the center than he turned out to be. I didn’t vote for this.
 
I’m with you. I voted for Obama too, both times. Bitter pill, huh? My only excuse is that he represented himself much more to the center than he turned out to be. I didn’t vote for this.
As a state senator obama voted to keep partial abortion legal which is basically infanticide. There was NO excuse for voting for this man in 2008 or 2012. None at all.

Ishii
 
As a state senator he voted to keep partial abortion legal which is basically infanticide. There was NO excuse for voting for this man in 2008 or 2012. None at all.

Ishii
However better late that never.
 
I was an agnostic for many years, although I was still opposed to late term abortion. I guess I figured that when push comes to shove the Republicans would cave on this issue anyway so it didn’t really matter. Republicans are expert spelunkers. Mitt Romney was literally a fish out of water writhing and flopping on the deck in pain at the sun when it came to abortion.
 
Ban:
  1. Noun: An official or legal prohibition
  2. Verb: to officially or legally prohibit
Calling this a “ban” makes as much sense as calling a law against nuclear-powered carrots a “ban” - it presupposes the redefinition.
The onus is on those who would infringe upon a fundamental right to show compelling state interest in doing so.
First, we have to establish that two persons of the same sex have a “fundamental right” to claim the same privileges and benefits as two persons of the opposite sex who marry.
The reason state bans on same sex marriage should be overturned is because they violate the 5th and 14th amendments.
The laws defining marriage as a union of male and female were enacted according to proper procedure for their states, so there goes the 5th amendment argument. As for the 14th amendment, one has to establish that somehow the law which prevents a person from legally “marrying” a person of the same sex is unequal, but a law which prevents a person from “marrying” a corporation/bridge/brother/5-year-old/horse is not.
I don’t see how my getting “married” affects your “marriage.” I also don’t see how it inhibits any state interests, compelling or otherwise.
Let’s try an analogy: As I recall, you served in the armed forces - would you be offended by someone claiming to be due all the benefits of military service without actually being in the military? By their definition, it’s discriminatory to reserve veteran’s benefits to veterans. Now say they got the court to agree with their position, and you now have to salute them as you would a fellow - or superior - officer.
 
Thanks buddy. 🙂
Yes glad to have you on board. But as to your excuse that obama played to the center - it’s impossible to say he did that on abortion. He also attended the church of rev wright (“God damn america”) and he “wanted to spread the wealth around.”

Ishii
 
Calling this a “ban” makes as much sense as calling a law against nuclear-powered carrots a “ban” - it presupposes the redefinition.

First, we have to establish that two persons of the same sex have a “fundamental right” to claim the same privileges and benefits as two persons of the opposite sex who marry.

The laws defining marriage as a union of male and female were enacted according to proper procedure for their states, so there goes the 5th amendment argument. As for the 14th amendment, one has to establish that somehow the law which prevents a person from legally “marrying” a person of the same sex is unequal, but a law which prevents a person from “marrying” a corporation/bridge/brother/5-year-old/horse is not.

Let’s try an analogy: As I recall, you served in the armed forces - would you be offended by someone claiming to be due all the benefits of military service without actually being in the military? By their definition, it’s discriminatory to reserve veteran’s benefits to veterans. Now say they got the court to agree with their position, and you now have to salute them as you would a fellow - or superior - officer.
👍
 
Next time somebody asks, “What would Jesus do?” Remind them smashing tables, throwing merchandise around, and chasing people with a whip is not beyond the realm of possibilities.

The all so good and gentle Jesus is not biblical. The dude was pretty tough and didn’t mind showing it. The whole kind and gentle Jesus loves you, so whatever your bag is go ahead and do it, is more Godspell not gospel.

Without condemnation of individuals, that is heavens job, more discrimination is called for not less. That which is abhorrent, ugly, immoral and offensive need to be discriminated against. It needs to be shunned and ostracized.
Hey, Ishii, you wanted an example? Here you go. Didn’t take long, either.

This is beyond vile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top