It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial 'religious freedom' bill

page: 18
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




I wish there was a vomit face I could add to finish this post.


I totally agree....






posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Kind of like the "spirit" of the EEOC and Civil rights laws that are essentially racism in a different direction?


Okay, all credibility is now lost.

If you think civil rights laws are "reverse racism" then there is no rational debate to be had with you on this issue.
If you really think white people were unfairly treated by black people, and that EQUALITY is "racism" then I think we should all just give up on trying to discuss anything sensibly with you.

I wish there was a vomit face I could add to finish this post.


How is there credibility lost? A law that demands that people be judged by race for governmental contracts or jobs or university admission is racist because preferring one race over another is the entire definition of racism. Just because you like the racism involved does not make it any less racist.

You don't want equality, you just want preferences.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Edited. Didn't recognize the new avatar and violated the radio silence agreement. My bad.
edit on 30-3-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Rocker2013




I wish there was a vomit face I could add to finish this post.


I totally agree....




So please explain to me how racial preferences in employment and higher education is not racist and how wanting our laws to be color blind, with no preferences for race at all, nauseating? I thought the goal was a color blind society.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Ah yes, the freedom to discriminate. Set it in stone on the Lincoln Memorial why don't you. Discrimination is a disease that afflicts America, it's most potent symptom is religion...and religion has never been about upholding freedom, but about curtailing it, shrinking it down to an enforced orthodoxy of thought...'You're either with us or against us!'


It all goes back to the tribal brain.
Whether it's religion, nation, sport, politics, gender... we all have a need to be a part of a collective, and we pick out groups of people who support what we deem to be "safety". For most people it's all pretty harmless, like choosing groups of people who share your hobbies. The problem arises when that tribal mentality becomes less of a hobby and more of a driving force behind any group.

Some of us have moved on from it, but it's incredibly prominent in the extremes of American society. Perhaps it's because America is such a young nation in comparison?

We have it in the UK of course, most notably in football, but it seems to be more damaging in the US as it extends to politics, race, sexuality and religion, more obviously than almost anywhere else.

Nothing is going to change in the US until you start to confront the core problem of tribal nature, and that can only come about through the willful desire of the people to diminish it. I would suggest starting with nationalism and the notion of "American Heroism" you seem to want to drum into the youth from the moment they're born. America really isn't that special when compared to all other nations on Earth, but too many seem to grow up with the belief that America is the world leader and awesome at everything. lol

Next I would remove religion from the government in every way possible. Remove "In God We Trust", stop with the "God Bless America" nonsense, remove religion from schools in every way other than teaching of all theology.

Can you tell I have an interest in psychology?

edit on 30-3-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
What it allows is: if you refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and want to sue. The business can use religion as reason for their discrimination in court.

So, it allows business to discriminate because legally who they discriminate against can not win in court.

Except there is an amendment that specifically says this, and this amendment appears to be part of the final law:

(d) This chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to: (1) any civil rights law, including, but not limited to, the Indiana Civil Rights law under IC 22-9-1; or (2) a criminal prosecution under state or federal law.


So... how?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Rocker2013




I wish there was a vomit face I could add to finish this post.


I totally agree....




So please explain to me how racial preferences in employment and higher education is not racist and how wanting our laws to be color blind, with no preferences for race at all, nauseating? I thought the goal was a color blind society.


The laws may be on the books but the US is far from being color blind in education, employment or culturally; in fact we are going backwards.
ATS is a valid example with division along racial lines totally apparent. We're not color blind and imo this Indiana bill further works to divide the American people.

Be my guest to base your opinions on the ideological, political and fantasy USA, but it just doesn't exist to those of us that arent isolated in our little gated communities realize The real world is far from being what tptb want us to think it is.

God I'm glad I don't have kids to watch America splinter into more hate and division. Exactly what they are doing in Indiana.
edit on 30-3-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Kind of like the "spirit" of the EEOC and Civil rights laws that are essentially racism in a different direction?


Okay, all credibility is now lost.

If you think civil rights laws are "reverse racism" then there is no rational debate to be had with you on this issue.
If you really think white people were unfairly treated by black people, and that EQUALITY is "racism" then I think we should all just give up on trying to discuss anything sensibly with you.

I wish there was a vomit face I could add to finish this post.


How is there credibility lost? A law that demands that people be judged by race for governmental contracts or jobs or university admission is racist because preferring one race over another is the entire definition of racism. Just because you like the racism involved does not make it any less racist.

You don't want equality, you just want preferences.


It really sucks that Equality has to be forced. Imagine if it didn't.

The idea that everyone should just take care of themselves, do what they need to do, don't step on anyone's toes, etc - - because everyone comes from a place of integrity and compassion - - - doesn't even work in a family of 5 - - - let alone and entire country of millions of people.

In a family of 5 you have different ages, different abilities, different likes and dislikes - - - you're always adjusting to create fairness.

Black people only got equality and rights in MY lifetime. Too bad for "whities" that some programs were put in place to create stepping ladders to help them catch up.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Annee
What it allows is: if you refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and want to sue. The business can use religion as reason for their discrimination in court.

So, it allows business to discriminate because legally who they discriminate against can not win in court.

Except there is an amendment that specifically says this, and this amendment appears to be part of the final law:

(d) This chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to: (1) any civil rights law, including, but not limited to, the Indiana Civil Rights law under IC 22-9-1; or (2) a criminal prosecution under state or federal law.


So... how?


Its about what they're trying to do.

Its about pushing and pushing and pushing - - until you get something like the Hobby Lobby disaster.

Would there have been an amendment if no one spoke up?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

You detest all unconstitutional laws? What about laws that force a private citizen to engage in commerce he disagrees with? Or is that different.


But the don't disagree with engaging in commerce. They disagree with the personal lifestyle of the customer. Every part of their business transaction is in compliance. The customer has the money required to pay for the service that the business is offering. They have requested a product which the owner does provide. There are no other requirements or obligations that need consideration for the transaction to take place.

Think about it, would you want someone to not sell you some pants because you like to have sex with your wife doggy style??? Should that even be something that comes up in the first place???

"Sorry sir, these suit pants are for gentlemen not for sexual perverts who like having sex in ungodly positions and treat their wives like animals. I refuse to sell my suits to perverts and sex fiends like yourself."

Why the hell would someone's personal life even be a consideration in doing business when it has no barring on the business being done.

I wonder if these same businesses also refuse to do business with people of other religions, who wear clothes made of two fabrics, work in the porn industry, atheists, adulterers, don't go to church on Sunday, eat shell fish, etc.???



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Kind of like the "spirit" of the EEOC and Civil rights laws that are essentially racism in a different direction?


Okay, all credibility is now lost.

If you think civil rights laws are "reverse racism" then there is no rational debate to be had with you on this issue.
If you really think white people were unfairly treated by black people, and that EQUALITY is "racism" then I think we should all just give up on trying to discuss anything sensibly with you.

I wish there was a vomit face I could add to finish this post.


How is there credibility lost? A law that demands that people be judged by race for governmental contracts or jobs or university admission is racist because preferring one race over another is the entire definition of racism. Just because you like the racism involved does not make it any less racist.

You don't want equality, you just want preferences.


It really sucks that Equality has to be forced. Imagine if it didn't.

The idea that everyone should just take care of themselves, do what they need to do, don't step on anyone's toes, etc - - because everyone comes from a place of integrity and compassion - - - doesn't even work in a family of 5 - - - let alone and entire country of millions of people.

In a family of 5 you have different ages, different abilities, different likes and dislikes - - - you're always adjusting to create fairness.

Black people only got equality and rights in MY lifetime. Too bad for "whities" that some programs were put in place to create stepping ladders to help them catch up.



So how long do you have to discriminate to not discriminate? Why is it okay for the federal government--something nobody can get away from or avoid--to discriminate but a private citizen can't when one could just go down the block to another store?

If someone does not want to serve me, I take my money somewhere else. If the government does not want to serve me, or treat me equitably, and I "take my money somewhere else", they put me in jail for tax evasion.

Logically, giving government that much ability to force your wants on your fellow man is a dangerous game because in doing so you give the government the the ability to let your fellow man force his wants and desires upon you.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc

You detest all unconstitutional laws? What about laws that force a private citizen to engage in commerce he disagrees with? Or is that different.


But the don't disagree with engaging in commerce. They disagree with the personal lifestyle of the customer. Every part of their business transaction is in compliance. The customer has the money required to pay for the service that the business is offering. They have requested a product which the owner does provide. There are no other requirements or obligations that need consideration for the transaction to take place.

Think about it, would you want someone to not sell you some pants because you like to have sex with your wife doggy style??? Should that even be something that comes up in the first place???

"Sorry sir, these suit pants are for gentlemen not for sexual perverts who like having sex in ungodly positions and treat their wives like animals. I refuse to sell my suits to perverts and sex fiends like yourself."

Why the hell would someone's personal life even be a consideration in doing business when it has no barring on the business being done.

I wonder if these same businesses also refuse to do business with people of other religions, who wear clothes made of two fabrics, work in the porn industry, atheists, adulterers, don't go to church on Sunday, eat shell fish, etc.???


I'm against coercion. If someone doesn't want to do business with me, I'll go somewhere else. Being Eurasian, I have faced discrimination, but things worked out for the better because I'd rather do business with someone who wants to do business with me.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.


That's what some are saying... But while it may be modeled on the federal law, it is NOT the same...

What Makes Indiana's RFRA Different?



There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. Here, for example, is the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack: “Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law? Nothing significant.” I am not sure what McCormack was thinking; but even my old employer, The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. “Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA,” the Post’s Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.


So, it would appear that not only does Indiana's law apply to for-profit businesses, but the government doesn't even have to be involved! In other words, this law can be used in a lawsuit between two citizens! If you feel someone is violating your religious freedom, you can sue them and win!
edit on 3/30/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
This SCOTUS is pretty horrible, but they aren't the ones pushing laws - only interpreting them.

The state senate version of the amendment was filed back in February. Looking at sources from back then, a few sources reported on the planned bill back in December. Maybe it was because of them - or maybe not? No idea... it's speculation at best.

Anyway, however idiotic Gov. Pence looked on camera, I'm not the only one with this opinion:
Opinion: Indiana didn’t actually pass an anti-gay bill

Another legal professor initially took the view that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, was anti-gay, but added that his knowledge of it so far was based on media coverage. While we were speaking, I found the text of the law online and emailed it to him. Then I called him back a few minutes later, when he had had a chance to read it.

His opening words when he got back on the phone? “Forget everything I just said.”
...
What the legal experts told me: In a nutshell, the new law does not give anyone carte blanche to refuse to serve homosexuals, or any other group, based on religion (or any other grounds).


The first part, I think, is telling. We're being told this law will do such and such. Maybe, or maybe not. Hence, my quoting of the actual law and one of the amendments that will be part of that law.

I'm not a legal expert by any means, so I'd simply like to know how the language in that bill, with the context of that amendment, leads to the idea that discrimination will become the norm.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Originally Religious Freedom Restoration Act was put into place to protect people and religious groups. not businesses.
why is it that the gov't enforcing policies onto businesses that happen to rub the owners of those businesses the wrong way because of religious faith shouldn't be allowed to happen but well the idea that an employee should be protected from the employer in like manner is so off the wall?

if the business can deny service to someone based on religious grounds then why shouldn't the employees also be afforded the same right after all it is their rights that the original laws sought to protect not business entities!

America's moral compass should be held by the people, not the gov't or businesses! both of which have proven all too often to be corrupt and more inclined to seek their own profits than to care much at all about morality of any kind!



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Kind of like the "spirit" of the EEOC and Civil rights laws that are essentially racism in a different direction?


Okay, all credibility is now lost.

If you think civil rights laws are "reverse racism" then there is no rational debate to be had with you on this issue.
If you really think white people were unfairly treated by black people, and that EQUALITY is "racism" then I think we should all just give up on trying to discuss anything sensibly with you.

I wish there was a vomit face I could add to finish this post.


How is there credibility lost? A law that demands that people be judged by race for governmental contracts or jobs or university admission is racist because preferring one race over another is the entire definition of racism. Just because you like the racism involved does not make it any less racist.

You don't want equality, you just want preferences.


It really sucks that Equality has to be forced. Imagine if it didn't.

The idea that everyone should just take care of themselves, do what they need to do, don't step on anyone's toes, etc - - because everyone comes from a place of integrity and compassion - - - doesn't even work in a family of 5 - - - let alone and entire country of millions of people.

In a family of 5 you have different ages, different abilities, different likes and dislikes - - - you're always adjusting to create fairness.

Black people only got equality and rights in MY lifetime. Too bad for "whities" that some programs were put in place to create stepping ladders to help them catch up.



So how long do you have to discriminate to not discriminate? Why is it okay for the federal government--something nobody can get away from or avoid--to discriminate but a private citizen can't when one could just go down the block to another store?

If someone does not want to serve me, I take my money somewhere else. If the government does not want to serve me, or treat me equitably, and I "take my money somewhere else", they put me in jail for tax evasion.

Logically, giving government that much ability to force your wants on your fellow man is a dangerous game because in doing so you give the government the the ability to let your fellow man force his wants and desires upon you.


I realize you have your own idealistic concept of how you think life should be.

But, not everyone agrees with you.

I've lost jobs because I don't speak Spanish. My fault. I should have learned Spanish.

There are very brilliant children born in poverty that should have the right to develop their brains and succeed in life.

Why should some dumb loser get a college education because his wealthy parents pay for it - - - over someone who really wants it?

Sometimes Fairness has to be created. That's just the way it is.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
So we have governors signing bills that seem to favor Christians and not favor LGBT?

Remember that perception is the key and the perception of these bills/laws are that they are discriminatory.

Why would you even push a bill through like this when there is infrastructure, Welfare, Veteran, police, innercity violence, unemployment, environmental, tax and every other kind of issue under the sun. Who thought it would be a good idea to put all the real issues on the back burner and push through legislation that will cost their state millions of dollars for nothing?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Annee
This SCOTUS is pretty horrible, but they aren't the ones pushing laws - only interpreting them.



So it should be.

Scalia loves to talk and express his personal views outside the SCOTUS.

To say he makes unbiased interpretations is a stretch.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I'm against coercion. If someone doesn't want to do business with me, I'll go somewhere else. Being Eurasian, I have faced discrimination, but things worked out for the better because I'd rather do business with someone who wants to do business with me.


I understand that. That shows tolerance on your part. But there are other situations that arise.

What if I'm an employee that has no problem with Gays but my employer does. Should I be forced to deny service to someone because of his beliefs just because I work for him??? What about my beliefs???

What if my business has a supplier who is anti-gay and won't sell to me unless I also deny service to them also??? That is how the mob control local businesses like bars and nightclubs. Not by controlling each one of them but by being the only supply of alcohol to that area.

What if the person isn't gay at all but just seems like they are and is refused service because he sounds gay or wears a pink shirt??? Where does it stop???

A business has no preference about the personal habits of peoples personal lives only people do and this is a way for them to use their business as a weapon against people they don't like which is stupid. I agree with you that Gov. shouldn't be involved but people are sneaky bastards that find ways of attacking others liberties in creative ways which force the Gov. into having to act so as to protect these people. It's unfortunate I agree, but I blame the A-holes who put everyone in this position in the first place. If it was only a person doing these things it would be different but people are using the institution of commerce/business to block individuals access to public accommodations based on their "belief" that the person is doing some wrong. It's a ethical/moral conflict that has no barring on them doing business together.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Kind of like the "spirit" of the EEOC and Civil rights laws that are essentially racism in a different direction?


Okay, all credibility is now lost.

If you think civil rights laws are "reverse racism" then there is no rational debate to be had with you on this issue.
If you really think white people were unfairly treated by black people, and that EQUALITY is "racism" then I think we should all just give up on trying to discuss anything sensibly with you.

I wish there was a vomit face I could add to finish this post.


How is there credibility lost? A law that demands that people be judged by race for governmental contracts or jobs or university admission is racist because preferring one race over another is the entire definition of racism. Just because you like the racism involved does not make it any less racist.

You don't want equality, you just want preferences.


It really sucks that Equality has to be forced. Imagine if it didn't.

The idea that everyone should just take care of themselves, do what they need to do, don't step on anyone's toes, etc - - because everyone comes from a place of integrity and compassion - - - doesn't even work in a family of 5 - - - let alone and entire country of millions of people.

In a family of 5 you have different ages, different abilities, different likes and dislikes - - - you're always adjusting to create fairness.

Black people only got equality and rights in MY lifetime. Too bad for "whities" that some programs were put in place to create stepping ladders to help them catch up.



So how long do you have to discriminate to not discriminate? Why is it okay for the federal government--something nobody can get away from or avoid--to discriminate but a private citizen can't when one could just go down the block to another store?

If someone does not want to serve me, I take my money somewhere else. If the government does not want to serve me, or treat me equitably, and I "take my money somewhere else", they put me in jail for tax evasion.

Logically, giving government that much ability to force your wants on your fellow man is a dangerous game because in doing so you give the government the the ability to let your fellow man force his wants and desires upon you.


I realize you have your own idealistic concept of how you think life should be.

But, not everyone agrees with you.

I've lost jobs because I don't speak Spanish. My fault. I should have learned Spanish.

There are very brilliant children born in poverty that should have the right to develop their brains and succeed in life.

Why should some dumb loser get a college education because his wealthy parents pay for it - - - over someone who really wants it?

Sometimes Fairness has to be created. That's just the way it is.


So the government should have forced the company to keep you hired even though you didn't speak Spanish because of discrimination? Because that's the salient point here.

How does anyone "create fairness" by being unfair to other people? In my medical school, asians were not a "poor minority" and did not get preferential treatment for admissions even though the individuals may have come from impoverished backgrounds whereas the AA minorites did, even though they drove BMWs to class. Race alone is a blind and ignorant measuring stick.







 
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join