Brian 2.0 Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/index.htmlReally curious if this gets a veto or not.
JLHPROF Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Oh, there's no way that's not getting overturned if anyone cares enough to fight it up the chain... 1
Brian 2.0 Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 Is it not essentially the same thing as the Utah bill and what the church recently asked for?
The Nehor Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Look ma! Politicians grandstanding ridiculous proposals that will never stand to win votes!Perhaps we should replace the politicians with clowns so they will be more amusing/horrifying. Edited March 26, 2015 by The Nehor 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Now that you have read the completely lopsided CNN story- here is another perspective...http://dailysign.al/1byfaXt
pogi Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Is it not essentially the same thing as the Utah bill and what the church recently asked for? No, the Utah bills do not allow for discrimination in public accommodations and the church did not ask for that. HB322, which is the Utah religious liberty bill that most closely resembles the one in Indiana, did not pass in the Utah Senate. The Church did not support or sponsor HB322. Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi 1
Stone holm Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Indiana historically has a complex political culture. Back in the early Twentieth Century it had one party that was taken over by the KKK and succeeded in electing a Governor before scandal finally broke the KKK's grip. Muncie Indiana was in the mid 20th Century one of the headquarters for the modern KKK. What is happening here is that the State legislature is at odds with the City of Indianapolis which stands to lose big time. In the late 20th century, Mayor Hudnut revitalised Indianapolis which had been a very dangerous slum ridden City and turned the Central business district into a Mecca for Conventions. The State is now being threatened with a series of boycotts which could potentially devastate Indianapolis' economy. Indiana is also noted for electing Centrist Governors from the minority party whenever the majority party causes too much economic havoc or becomes too corrupt. My guess is that if this bill becomes law, we will see a different political party in control of the Governor's Office. Indiana Governor's have term limits so, Pence is probably preparing his post Governor credentials with social conservatives without much concern he of the impact on his party.
california boy Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Now that you have read the completely lopsided CNN story- here is another perspective...http://dailysign.al/1byfaXtSorry, I am not buying this explanation. If there was a federal law that allows for discrimination by businesses because of religious beliefs, then this law would be unnecessary. To the contrary, federal law prohibits discrimination. This law will be overturned when the first person is discriminated against and sues to overturn the law. In the mean time, companies and individuals who are against discrimination will boycott this state. It is already happening. It will probably only increase. 3
tonie Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Sorry, I am not buying this explanation. If there was a federal law that allows for discrimination by businesses because of religious beliefs, then this law would be unnecessary. To the contrary, federal law prohibits discrimination. This law will be overturned when the first person is discriminated against and sues to overturn the law. In the mean time, companies and individuals who are against discrimination will boycott this state. It is already happening. It will probably only increase. The Federal Law, RFRA, came about due to a peyote smokers loosing their jobs. They claimed "religious freedom" to smoke peyote. SCOTUS said "Nope". Congress reacted - I think Elder Oaks testified to Congress even - by creating the RFRA. RFRA was ruled unconstitutional as to its attempted applicability to States. States reacted by creating their own RFRA. Non-discrimination is a compelling State Interest, so I am not so confident that these types of laws will protect a Baker or a Florist.
Stone holm Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 There is a distinct difference between what was going on in the peyote cases and what appears to be pushing this wave of religious liberty cases. In the peyote cases people were losing their jobs because of something they did in their time off involving their own use of a substance that they considered the equivalent of a sacrament. The persons who lost their jobs were not trying to discriminate against other people. But with some of these laws, the exact opposite could occur. If for example you had a religious belief that members of the Native American Church which uses peyote as a sacrament were followers of Satan with whom you should not have any contact, you might try to avoid giving them service. That appears to be what could flow from the Indiana statute, not sure it would flow from the Utah statute. Its a subtle but important nuance, because in one case you are using the law as a shield to protect someone from being harassed because of their individual religious beliefs as to their own private conduct, and in the other you are giving people a sword to legalize harassing people because of their private conduct due to your religious beliefs. 1
tonie Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Stoneholm, Whether is smoking peyote or marijuana as a religious sacrement OR whether it business owners excluding otherwise protected classes based on religious beliefs - Religious Freedom laws cover both situations; both activities would be claimed as "religious freedom". So Yes, RFRAs are a shield and a sword. The Government can not prohibit the religious use of peyote or marijuana without showing a prohibition against religious sacremental use of marijuana is a done for "compelling state interest" AND prohibition of religious sacremental use of marijuana is "the restrictive means". Same would would apply to a business owner excluding others based on religious beliefs. As was warned in 1890, RFRAs essentially make "every man a law unto themself".
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/sorry-gays-you-dont-have-the-right-to-be-free-from-discrimination/ 1
Tacenda Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Sorry, I am not buying this explanation. If there was a federal law that allows for discrimination by businesses because of religious beliefs, then this law would be unnecessary. To the contrary, federal law prohibits discrimination. This law will be overturned when the first person is discriminated against and sues to overturn the law. In the mean time, companies and individuals who are against discrimination will boycott this state. It is already happening. It will probably only increase.http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/audra_mcdonald_just_slammed_indiana_gov_mike_pence_with_the_most_amazing_tweets I think she feels pretty unwelcome now.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Once you all get on the "non-discrimination" bandwagon, you better be prepared to see it to its logical end.
pogi Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Once you all get on the "non-discrimination" bandwagon, you better be prepared to see it to its logical end. I feel pretty good about the church's balanced approach. Balance is not a bandwagon approach. The fact is that the church supported balanced bills over extreme religious liberty bills (HB322) similar to the one in Indiana, which probably would have passed if it had the church's support. Both extreme bandwagons have a consequential "logical end" that I am not fond of. That's why I support the balanced approach of the church, what about you?
thesometimesaint Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Let the churches/mosques/synagogues/temples/shrine keepers/what have you discriminate for or against anyone they want to in the private sphere. The state has an affirmative responsibility to remove discrimination in the public sphere. 1
Daniel2 Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Let the churches/mosques/synagogues/temples/shrine keepers/what have you discriminate for or against anyone they want to in the private sphere. The state has an affirmative responsibility to remove discrimination in the public sphere.Agreed. 1
Jeanne Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 I guess I am not understanding.to me, religion..almost all religions are/should not be against descrimination. and yet we find that they can use religion to descriminate..
danielwoods Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/sorry-gays-you-dont-have-the-right-to-be-free-from-discrimination/ That's possibly one of the best articles he's written. Good one!
danielwoods Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Let the churches/mosques/synagogues/temples/shrine keepers/what have you discriminate for or against anyone they want to in the private sphere. The state has an affirmative responsibility to remove discrimination in the public sphere. Sorry, but the public sphere is protected by the constitution, freedom of speech, association, etc.. Only the state itself can't discriminate agains individuals. People are free to do so, until the constitution is obliterated by the left that is.
The Nehor Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 I guess I am not understanding.to me, religion..almost all religions are/should not be against descrimination. and yet we find that they can use religion to descriminate..Read more history if you think nondiscrimination is the historical religious norm.
Brian 2.0 Posted March 27, 2015 Author Posted March 27, 2015 http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/audra_mcdonald_just_slammed_indiana_gov_mike_pence_with_the_most_amazing_tweetsI think she feels pretty unwelcome now.I love this. My favorite was the first one:Some in my band are gay & we have 2 gigs in your state next month. Should we call ahead to make sure the hotel accepts us all? 1
carbon dioxide Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Sorry, but the public sphere is protected by the constitution, freedom of speech, association, etc.. Only the state itself can't discriminate agains individuals. People are free to do so, until the constitution is obliterated by the left that is. Discrimination is a part of life. We discriminate on the foods we eat, the places we go, the people we associate with. There are good and bad forms of it yet people seem to use it as if its always a bad thing. 1
carbon dioxide Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Sorry, I am not buying this explanation. If there was a federal law that allows for discrimination by businesses because of religious beliefs, then this law would be unnecessary. To the contrary, federal law prohibits discrimination. This law will be overturned when the first person is discriminated against and sues to overturn the law. In the mean time, companies and individuals who are against discrimination will boycott this state. It is already happening. It will probably only increase.Is not a boycott a form of discrimination? 1
pogi Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) I love this. My favorite was the first one:Some in my band are gay & we have 2 gigs in your state next month. Should we call ahead to make sure the hotel accepts us all? Hello fellow Mormon rocker! What is your band and do you have any links to sample music?You can catch some samples from my band here - I am the one on the old 5-wire (banjo): https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/hoodooh/id64013116 Don't ask where the proceeds go if you buy the album because we have been disbanded (no pun intended) for several years now. We don't have a website anymore or I would send you there. Now back to the regular scheduled discussion. Edited March 27, 2015 by pogi
Recommended Posts