jerseyhoya wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:and Pence signs the bill to allow businesses discriminate against gays into law

The Republicans are really painting themselves into a corner with this shit

Becoming the 20th state to pass a state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act written by Chuck Schumer and signed into law by President Clinton. The radicalism is almost too much to stomach.

TomatoPie wrote:Anybody got the wording of the bill? Or a good paraphrasing?

If you accept current laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, creed, color, and religion, you should embrace extending those same protections to sexual orientation.

The reporting on this, though, has been terrible.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Anybody got the wording of the bill? Or a good paraphrasing?

If you accept current laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, creed, color, and religion, you should embrace extending those same protections to sexual orientation.

The reporting on this, though, has been terrible.

are you daft?

this does the opposite and allows businesses to deny service to gays based solely on their religious beliefs

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental
entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion,
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's
exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates
that application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:and believing in that sort of horseshit spin is what makes you a party hack

Soren wrote:jh, I'd be more interested in what your position on the law and upholding it is rather than a "You guys were homophobic first" comment.

It's one of the best kinds of spin, in that it is straightforward, easy to understand, and true.

pacino wrote:shouldn't it follow that it should be legal to deny services to a black person if it conflicts with their personal beliefs?

It's one of the best kinds of spin, in that it is straightforward, easy to understand, and true.

and what are the two parties' actual positions NOW? you bring this stuff up like it wins you 'points' or something. no one's counting. lincoln was a republican, too. kudos.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:shouldn't it follow that it should be legal to deny services to a black person if it conflicts with their personal beliefs?

No, I'm not really sure what belief would be substantially burdened there. And the state or a court could always conclude that a state anti-discrimination law in that case is a narrowly tailored solution to a compelling government interest even if the belief was demonstrated.

It's one of the best kinds of spin, in that it is straightforward, easy to understand, and true.

and what are the two parties' actual positions NOW? you bring this stuff up like it wins you 'points' or something. no one's counting. lincoln was a republican, too. kudos.

I think the law itself is fine. Maybe it's problematic in some instances, but it's problematic in the reverse if it was not in existence. I don't know how many Democrats would actually favor repealing RFRA. The law was originally written to make sure Native Americans were permitted to use peyote in keeping with the religious rituals.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:shouldn't it follow that it should be legal to deny services to a black person if it conflicts with their personal beliefs?

No, I'm not really sure what belief would be substantially burdened there. And the state or a court could always conclude that a state anti-discrimination law in that case is a narrowly tailored solution to a compelling government interest even if the belief was demonstrated.

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:shouldn't it follow that it should be legal to deny services to a black person if it conflicts with their personal beliefs?

No, I'm not really sure what belief would be substantially burdened there. And the state or a court could always conclude that a state anti-discrimination law in that case is a narrowly tailored solution to a compelling government interest even if the belief was demonstrated.

It's one of the best kinds of spin, in that it is straightforward, easy to understand, and true.

and what are the two parties' actual positions NOW? you bring this stuff up like it wins you 'points' or something. no one's counting. lincoln was a republican, too. kudos.

I think the law itself is fine. Maybe it's problematic in some instances, but it's problematic in the reverse if it was not in existence. I don't know how many Democrats would actually favor repealing RFRA. The law was originally written to make sure Native Americans were permitted to use peyote in keeping with the religious rituals.

exactly how? by making people acknowledge that these people do, in fact, exist? i can always count on you to defend the poor, misunderstood bigots.

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:shouldn't it follow that it should be legal to deny services to a black person if it conflicts with their personal beliefs?

No, I'm not really sure what belief would be substantially burdened there. And the state or a court could always conclude that a state anti-discrimination law in that case is a narrowly tailored solution to a compelling government interest even if the belief was demonstrated.

It's one of the best kinds of spin, in that it is straightforward, easy to understand, and true.

and what are the two parties' actual positions NOW? you bring this stuff up like it wins you 'points' or something. no one's counting. lincoln was a republican, too. kudos.

I think the law itself is fine. Maybe it's problematic in some instances, but it's problematic in the reverse if it was not in existence. I don't know how many Democrats would actually favor repealing RFRA. The law was originally written to make sure Native Americans were permitted to use peyote in keeping with the religious rituals.

exactly how? by making people acknowledge that these people do, in fact, exist? i can always count on you to defend the poor, misunderstood bigots.

Indians not being able to smoke their peyote?

And I can always count on you to advocate for people to have their lives ruined over holding incorrect views.

jerseyhoya wrote:What do you all think is the correct punishment for a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

Are there (non-profane) cake requests a baker should be allowed to turn down due to their personal or religious beliefs?

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:shouldn't it follow that it should be legal to deny services to a black person if it conflicts with their personal beliefs?

No, I'm not really sure what belief would be substantially burdened there. And the state or a court could always conclude that a state anti-discrimination law in that case is a narrowly tailored solution to a compelling government interest even if the belief was demonstrated.

time and again thre have been religious beliefs that blacks are inferior and thus should be separate. Who are you to deny them their beliefs?

Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
- Deuteronomy 7:3

Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled.
- Deuteronomy 22:9

You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
- Leviticus 19:19

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

"Purity of race is a gift of God. And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed."

"Allowing the blood of the races to mix is a direct attack on the Divine plan of God."

The Nightman Cometh wrote:The law is by definition restricting access to services based on sexual orientation and certainly will be more broadly interpretated and willapply to situations other than the cake example. although I'm sure you want to harp on one of the few examples that could be perceived as a reasonable application of this law.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:What do you all think is the correct punishment for a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

Are there (non-profane) cake requests a baker should be allowed to turn down due to their personal or religious beliefs?

To bake a fucking cake like a civilized person.

You also ignored my question. Many people still believe in the inferiority of others due to their religious beliefs. Why stop at those who dislike gays?