New Indiana Law bad for business?

[Raoul Duke MU]

Originally posted by extragreen:
Someone show me a New Testament Biblical scripture where a Christian shouldn't bake a cake or make a flower arrangement, etc for a gay couple. OK, time's up. There are none. What happens with all this religious freedom controversy if Christians simply follow the commandment of Jesus to love everyone and treat them as they'd like to be treated?

You should buy a lottery ticket. We agree, again.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Originally posted by Raoul Duke MU:

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:

"Political notions"? I choose to focus on the ignorant premise by those that suggest simply because a law is passed with the word "Religion" in it, that businesses all across the state of Indiana are suddenly going to start profiling their customer's sexual orientation and stop selling their goods and services to the ones who are gay.

Suddenly you guys take what a republican CEO says seriously too??? That is as rich as their bank accounts you usually complain about.

One is too many.

Given a choice between the religious right segment of the GOP and the CEO segment, I'll take the CEO segment any day. While many of them care more about the dollar than their country, that is capitalism in a nutshell. A bear can't help shitting in the woods.

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.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Originally posted by CockyHerd:
So what right or priviledge does this law afford that isn't already provided by the US Constitution? Why is this law so important to the Religious right?

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.

 

[pj(HN)]

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:

Originally posted by Raoul Duke MU:

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:

"Political notions"? I choose to focus on the ignorant premise by those that suggest simply because a law is passed with the word "Religion" in it, that businesses all across the state of Indiana are suddenly going to start profiling their customer's sexual orientation and stop selling their goods and services to the ones who are gay.

Suddenly you guys take what a republican CEO says seriously too??? That is as rich as their bank accounts you usually complain about.

One is too many.

Given a choice between the religious right segment of the GOP and the CEO segment, I'll take the CEO segment any day. While many of them care more about the dollar than their country, that is capitalism in a nutshell. A bear can't help shitting in the woods.

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.

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...

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

There goes PJ again, using that word "fascist" again...

 

[CockyHerd]

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:

Originally posted by CockyHerd:
So what right or priviledge does this law afford that isn't already provided by the US Constitution? Why is this law so important to the Religious right?

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.

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.

 

[GeauxHerd]

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.

 

[GeauxHerd]

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.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Originally posted by raleighherdfan:
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.

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.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

And the State (and Gay Lobby) are not trying force their secularism upon Christian businesses and churches?

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Originally posted by GeauxHerd:
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.

Do you remember choosing to be straight?

 

[pj(HN)]

Originally posted by big_country90:
It's obvious that leftists like pj only support the rights of people on their side, while they couldnt care less about the rights of those whom they don't agree with. Why are gays a protected class but Chrisitians aren't? Why force someone to act against their beliefs?

This isnt a gay/Christian thing. Its a freedom thing. Liberals hate freedom, period. They want the government to force its will on those of whom they disagree in order to get the things they want. Typical authoritarians.

Really, B.C.e... Christians are the largest protected class in America...

 

[pj(HN)]

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").

 

[GeauxHerd]

Originally posted by pj(HN):
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.

 

[pj(HN)]

Originally posted by GeauxHerd:

Originally posted by pj(HN):
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.

Now that is some funny shit right there... LOL...

 

[GeauxHerd]

Originally posted by pj(HN):

Originally posted by GeauxHerd:

Originally posted by pj(HN):
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.

Now that is some funny shit right there... LOL...

Those people posting stuff to that pizza companies website could be getting themselves into hot water with the harassment.

link

 

[pj(HN)]

Internet bullying is a real concern...

 

[GeauxHerd]

Did you not read the link? You better be careful or you could be sued for violation of the civil rights act

 

[HRHF]

You guys claiming that being gay is a choice... just stop. It makes you sound stupid. Beyond stupid. And it negates any other halfway decent points you may make.

 

[GeauxHerd]

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.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

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

 

[GeauxHerd]

If you have a boner you can put it in a hole. No I am not bisexual.