New Indiana Law bad for business?
- Thread starter Chevy1
- Start date
One is too many agreed. But like your comments to Keep suggest. Let the market sort it out. If a biz owner is dumb enough to turn away business in today's times, so be it. THATS CAPITALISM IN A NUTSHELL.
Since it appears you didn't take the time to read:
Under the various RFRAs, a state or the federal government-by law or other action-may not substantially burden an individual's exercise of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest
It's a balancing test for litigation. It puts exercise of religion on one side of the scale and then government interest on the other. If the government's interest is not important enough-literally compelling-it cannot outweigh an individual's right to practice his religion as he sees fit.
This isn't just a religious "right" law. Suggesting such would be one of those "political notions" some on here keep trying to point out.
Yep... Looks like both Indiana and Arkansas are caving in to big business... LOL... Both Governors are back peddling... So, once again, it just goes to prove that Big Business is indeed the puppet master of the Republican Party... I wonder how the social-issue driven neo-fascist christian conservative wing of the Republican Party will respond to the latest turn in events...
Jesus.......That's part of the problem on this board, you can't even ask a question regarding an issue without some smart-ass being a dick about it.
I read the law........My question still stands.
What protections does it provide that those "practicing" their religion are concerned about? (ie: Not being compelled to host/perform a same sex marriage, etc.)
Since similar laws exist in other states, what rights has it provided. Have any been tested?
I didn't say it was a Religious Right Law.....I asked why they seem to be so concerned about it. Just haven't heard any outcry of support from Rabbis or Muslim Clerics.
Not serving someone because they are black (no control over that) is different than not serving someone because of who they choose to have sex with or marry. You CAN control those things.
I don't care about gays personally but don't try to force others to participate in your gay activities is all that I'm saying. If a straight couple was denied a cake from a gay bakery I would not support them suing the bakery either.
Part of me is inclined to let the market sort it out.
But I have three issues with that.
First, the religious right was not inclined for a market solution. They want to inject religion into government at every opportunity.
Second, I agree with rifle that the problem with patchwork discrimination is a patchwork market. This is a largely rural state, with limited options in the service industry.
Third, the law includes stuff like housing and employment. With housing, we get into an area where banks and developers could pretty much exclude someone from the market altogether. With employment, while I fully support the right of a church (an actual church, not a huge money-making venture like Catholic hospitals) to not hire a "sinner", for secular employers I firmly believe private life is none of their damn business. Forget the limits in the law for a second, as intellectual arguments are usually based on absolutes. The same intellectual argument makes it A-OK to for Catholics to not hire Baptists, Muslims to not hire Christians, etc. That's a whole row of horseshit we need to guard against, the kind of stuff that causes civil unrest in some countries.
And the State (and Gay Lobby) are not trying force their secularism upon Christian businesses and churches?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").
Correct. These gays charging lawsuits or public outcry on these businesses are violating Title vii of the civil rights act for harassment and creating a hostile work environment.
Did you not read the link? You better be careful or you could be sued for violation of the civil rights act
I remember choosing to be straight every time I have sex. Because I am choosing a women's vagina. I could just as easily put it into a guys man scaped butt hole but I dont.
Geaux, if you could actually just as easy have mansex, I wager you are at least bisexual.
Nothing about a man's ass gives me wood, period.
Keep, a business is not a person (contrary to what some idiot Justices believe) and cannot have religion. No one is forcing secularism on any individual.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Nothing about a man's ass gives me wood, period.
Keep, a business is not a person (contrary to what some idiot Justices believe) and cannot have religion. No one is forcing secularism on any individual.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
