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: 32
21
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you jesting?

Have you read this thread and all the links?

It is now legal for a religious buisness owner to refuse service to gay folk. In Cities and large towns this will probably not be a major issue. But..... In a small "town" where everyone is Christian, it's a possibility that all the businesses would refuse service to a gay member of their community.



edit on 31.3.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Oh, I see. The difference is that I signed a contract when I signed up and agreed to follow the rules and regulations therein.


What difference? When a person gets a business license, they also agree to follow the laws of the state, including non-discrimination laws...

Source



Business licenses are permits issued by government agencies that allow individuals or companies to conduct business within the government's geographical jurisdiction. It is the authorization to start a business issued by the local government.[1] A single jurisdiction often requires multiple licenses that are issued by multiple government departments and agencies. Business licenses vary between countries, states, and local municipalities. There are often many licenses, registrations and certifications required to conduct a business in a single location.


Well yes, one cannot deny that this is part of the current situation but, should one have to have a license from the government to do business and, if so, why should part of that license be the state telling you with whom you may do or do not do business with?

If this is your yardstick, then why get mad at businesses in Indiana, after all they would be in compliance with the law as pursuant to their business licenses, yes?

Everyone is angry with Indiana for this law, but everyone ignores the fact that permitting government to micromanage business is where the law comes from. It goes full circle. Like I said, if you demand that government makes laws to force people to do things as you want them to, you also enforce government to force businesses to do things you don't like. You make dislike this law, but you support the philosophy that empowers this law.

Rather than forcing one size fits all government mandating day to day business decisions that hurt or help you depending on which way the pendulum swings, a better solution is to stop passing stupid laws and support a sane tort system that can punish people for actual harm. Only gas station in town and someone suffered physical injury or economic loss due to not serving them? Then you have a lawsuit that is real and not just hurt feelings.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you jesting?

Have you read this thread and all the links?

It is now legal for a religious buisness owner to refuse service to gay folk. In Cities and large towns this will probably not be a major issue. But..... In a small "town" where everyone is Christian, it's a possibility that all the businesses would refuse service to a gay member of their community.




Possible but not likely, In fact, given the pushback, I'd say doubtful.

However, I don't see anybody forced to do anything in this law. If there is, can you point out the relevant section?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

And what about the single gay man living in a town within the bible belt where all the businesses refuse to serve him, as it their right by law?

By your logic it would be ok to discriminate against this individual as its the businesses rights to do so. This is no different to businesses back in the 1950's "only serve whites".

You keep saying you're against government involvement, but that is exactly what this Bill is, State Goverment legalising discrimination!






But is it? That's the claim, but I don't see anything in the law that makes anyone do anything.


Then why are they backing away from this law and trying to FIX it? If the bill is so innocuous...why back down?

Even FOX sees the BS of giving preferential treatment to Religion and religious businesses.

www.foxnews.com...

www.cnn.com...
edit on 31-3-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

And what about the single gay man living in a town within the bible belt where all the businesses refuse to serve him, as it their right by law?

By your logic it would be ok to discriminate against this individual as its the businesses rights to do so. This is no different to businesses back in the 1950's "only serve whites".

You keep saying you're against government involvement, but that is exactly what this Bill is, State Goverment legalising discrimination!






But is it? That's the claim, but I don't see anything in the law that makes anyone do anything.


Then why are they backing away from this law and trying to FIX it? If the bill is so innocuous...why back down?

Even FOX sees the BS of giving preferential treatment to Religion and religious businesses.

www.foxnews.com...

www.cnn.com...


I'm not saying it's innocuous. I'm saying that the hysteria is a bit over the top. They are backing down due to public backlash which is as it should be. If only all politicians would do the same, we wouldn't have the patriot act or the IRS morass we have.

I also disagree with the idea that the majority of my fellow citizens are slavering evil people that, absent the government boot on their necks, would run around doing evil and horrible things.

I do not believe in god or gods. I do not live my life by a book of myths. My moral compass is based on the simple principle of treating other as I myself would like to be treated. I would not like someone else forcing their own particular set of values and prejudices on me, so why would I do the same to others?
edit on 31-3-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

And what about the single gay man living in a town within the bible belt where all the businesses refuse to serve him, as it their right by law?

By your logic it would be ok to discriminate against this individual as its the businesses rights to do so. This is no different to businesses back in the 1950's "only serve whites".

You keep saying you're against government involvement, but that is exactly what this Bill is, State Goverment legalising discrimination!






But is it? That's the claim, but I don't see anything in the law that makes anyone do anything.


Then why are they backing away from this law and trying to FIX it? If the bill is so innocuous...why back down?

Even FOX sees the BS of giving preferential treatment to Religion and religious businesses.

www.foxnews.com...

www.cnn.com...




I also disagree with the idea that the majority of my fellow citizens are slavering evil people that, absent the government boot on their necks, would run around doing evil and horrible things.





I do not believe in god or gods. I do not live my life by a book of myths. My moral compass is based on the simple principle of treating other as I myself would like to be treated. I would not like someone else forcing their own particular set of values and prejudices on me, so why would I do the same to others?


And yet you supported the Indiana state government bill that could have given license for those claiming religious reasons to do exactly that.

You can't have it both ways...


edit on 31-3-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But is it? That's the claim, but I don't see anything in the law that makes anyone do anything.


There are no protections for LGBT people in the state of Indiana.
A "Christian" person can fire an LGBT person simply because they found out they are LGBT.

Lets forget the selling of wedding cakes for a moment and really look at what this law allows...

A person arriving at an emergency department in Indiana can now be turned away by the "Christian" staff because to treat that person might be against their personal ignorant beliefs. That goes for everyone, not just LGBT people.

A fire fighter arriving at a blazing house can now refuse to put out that fire if the owner is LGBT, or Muslim, or *insert victim of choice here*.

A person can be fired by their Christian employer when they find out they are LGBT, or Muslim, or anything else in supposed "conflict" with their religious ignorance.

This entire law is about handing Christians the right to use the excuse of religious beliefs to basically do what they want, as long as they can claim religious liberty they can refuse to do their job, they can fire people they don't like, they can refuse to serve people based on any kind of religious conviction they may have.

This goes a lot further than just someone being "forced" to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. This is the message this law is sending to the most ignorant people in the state, and to those who might find themselves being a victim of those ignorant Christians.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

And what about the single gay man living in a town within the bible belt where all the businesses refuse to serve him, as it their right by law?

By your logic it would be ok to discriminate against this individual as its the businesses rights to do so. This is no different to businesses back in the 1950's "only serve whites".

You keep saying you're against government involvement, but that is exactly what this Bill is, State Goverment legalising discrimination!






But is it? That's the claim, but I don't see anything in the law that makes anyone do anything.


Then why are they backing away from this law and trying to FIX it? If the bill is so innocuous...why back down?

Even FOX sees the BS of giving preferential treatment to Religion and religious businesses.

www.foxnews.com...

www.cnn.com...




I also disagree with the idea that the majority of my fellow citizens are slavering evil people that, absent the government boot on their necks, would run around doing evil and horrible things.





I do not believe in god or gods. I do not live my life by a book of myths. My moral compass is based on the simple principle of treating other as I myself would like to be treated. I would not like someone else forcing their own particular set of values and prejudices on me, so why would I do the same to others?


And yet you supported the Indiana state government bill that could have given license for those claiming religious reasons to do exactly that.

You can't have it both ways...



Where did I say I supported it?

It is not "having it both ways." I don't think the government should force people to do things against their moral compass. I don't see anything like that in this bill and to say it does is a bit disingenuous. Where does the bill mandate anything?

Is the bill unnecessary, ill thought out, pandering to a certain group (something that all politicians do--you honestly think that bills from the opposite side are done out of sincere desire to do the right thing or just pandering to the base?) and more trouble than it's worth? Certainly.

Is it coercive in nature or forcing anything upon anyone? I haven't seen that anywhere and nobody has been able to point that out.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But is it? That's the claim, but I don't see anything in the law that makes anyone do anything.


There are no protections for LGBT people in the state of Indiana.
A "Christian" person can fire an LGBT person simply because they found out they are LGBT.

Lets forget the selling of wedding cakes for a moment and really look at what this law allows...

A person arriving at an emergency department in Indiana can now be turned away by the "Christian" staff because to treat that person might be against their personal ignorant beliefs. That goes for everyone, not just LGBT people.

A fire fighter arriving at a blazing house can now refuse to put out that fire if the owner is LGBT, or Muslim, or *insert victim of choice here*.

A person can be fired by their Christian employer when they find out they are LGBT, or Muslim, or anything else in supposed "conflict" with their religious ignorance.

This entire law is about handing Christians the right to use the excuse of religious beliefs to basically do what they want, as long as they can claim religious liberty they can refuse to do their job, they can fire people they don't like, they can refuse to serve people based on any kind of religious conviction they may have.

This goes a lot further than just someone being "forced" to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. This is the message this law is sending to the most ignorant people in the state, and to those who might find themselves being a victim of those ignorant Christians.


How is not punishing someone for not doing something coercive? Where is the force from the state in this issue? How is my not forcing you to do something you don't want to do coercive? Certainly we may dislike what some people might do, but how is that "force" by any definition of the word?

Some of your hypotheticals are spurious and not part of the law. It applies to private businesses. A firefighter is a public servant paid by taxpayer dollars. An ER is already mandated by EMTLA to turn nobody away and also paid by taxpayer dollars in part, if not in whole. Both have employers who certainly can fire them if they do not provide the services they are contracted to do. This is what I mean when I mention hysteria.
edit on 31-3-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
can anyone imagine Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, the largest corporation in the world worth 700 billion....being thrown out of some pohdunk Indiana town café because he was gay?...which he is. how about gay people that go to NCAA finals this week being turned away at the gate?....are they going to check for gayness at the gate for the indy 500?...how about gay workers in the largest of corporations, down to the smallest mom and pop shops located in Indiana ? are they going to be fired?....



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
can anyone imagine Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, the largest corporation in the world worth 700 billion....being thrown out of some pohdunk Indiana town café because he was gay?...which he is. how about gay people that go to NCAA finals this week being turned away at the gate?....are they going to check for gayness at the gate for the indy 500?...how about gay workers in the largest of corporations, down to the smallest mom and pop shops located in Indiana ? are they going to be fired?....


Because they won't and nobody will even know their sexual orientation and the vast majority of people in those situations won't even care.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Can't help but think at this point all the arguing and hatred toward this bill has more to do with people insisting that everyone has to approve of the LGBT lifestyle, and less about the actual bill.

You can not force people to accept that lifestyle as being ok.

I was an unwed mother for my first two kids. Couldn't make people accept that was ok either.

People have the right to not approve. People have the right to their religious beliefs. I don't care if they don't think the other sins in the bible are ok. They don't HAVE to think being gay is ok.

Personally I have no issue with who people fall in love with. Just making sure that is clear.

I just believe that Freedom of Religion does not just mean you area allowed to be whatever denomination you want to be, but that you are allowed to conduct your life according to your religion.

This law states that the government is not allowed to make a law that would seriously burden a person according to their religious beliefs. I doubt serving a gay couple a cheese burger would seriously burden anyone's religious beliefs. Asking a priest to marry a gay couple would however. That priest should not be forced to do so. Shoot, a Catholic priest would not even marry a man and woman if they did not go to months of classes first.

This whole thing has turned into more of a Hate Party than anything else. Not going to hate religious folks because of their beliefs and Im not going to hate the LGBT community because of theirs. Just think everyone should accept each others differences and learn to not flaunt their choices around in an offensive way. That goes for both sides. Problem solved.

And that is all I'm going to say about that.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mrsdudara

The "hatred" towards this bill is against the "hatred" in the bill!




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: mrsdudara

I've been gay for 49 years and I can tell you, conclusively, that I don't give a good tinker's dam whether you or anyone else approves of the "LGBT lifestyle" (hello 1987). Who cares? I don't approve of most people's "lifestyles" particularly those who base their lives around imaginary beings. But that doesn't matter.

The only thing that Blacks, Women, Gays, any minority at any time wants or has a right to IS to be treated equitably. That means there are no special laws that are only used or enforced against me. There are no special rights that I don't as a citizen have equal access to. There are no special contracts that I cannot enter into with another adult citizen of my choice.

This law states that INDIVIDUALS can use this law as a "defense" against other INDIVIDUALS who they believe may have transgressed their ever expanding religious rights.

This law states that there doesn't even have to be a real burden on someone's beliefs but that a "LIKELY BURDEN" is sufficient to bring into play under this law.

That's the problems with the law, aside from the same thing that is wrong with the RFRA and everything patterned after it: Congress has no right to extend greater religious rights than is guaranteed under the Constitution, which is clear and simple: no religion will be established (which is itself the PRIMA FACIE reason these laws should fail) and that no one's free exercise of their religion will be prohibited. That's it, that's all that is or was or will be needed.

Anything else is a step away from the American Tradition toward a Theocracy. THAT, not whether gays and lesbians are happy per se, is the BIG PROBLEM WITH THIS LAW!
edit on 14Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:38:09 -050015p022015366 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
This law and others like it, is a attempt by the republican party to spark political interest in there base. The republicans won the mid terms and we are seeing the fruits of there labor.

Seems to me they are out of touch with the general population and it seems to me this attempt is blowing up in there face.

I find it interesting with all the issues we have in America, this is what the republicans have been working on. Christians are not being fired from there jobs for being Christian like gays are, there healthcare isn't being decided by a religious litmus test, oh wait yes it is, thanks to the supreme court.

It will be interesting to see what other surprises the republican state legislatures will offer up leading to the next elections and what fruits they may bear. Who are they motivating to come out to the polls come election day?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrsdudara
Just think everyone should accept each others differences and learn to not flaunt their choices around in an offensive way. That goes for both sides. Problem solved.

And that is all I'm going to say about that.

Hmmm...without even getting into the 'choice' debate...I often hold my 'life partner's' hand in public, perhaps even exchange a wee kiss. Is that flaunting?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Expect there to be tinkering with the Electoral College ... because there is really, REALLY nothing that says they have to vote along with the Popular Vote. State Governments can many times appoint Electors. Oh, and two other words, proportional distribution.

I wouldn't be surprised by a real effort to repeal the 17th Amendment.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrsdudara
Can't help but think at this point all the arguing and hatred toward this bill has more to do with people insisting that everyone has to approve of the LGBT lifestyle, and less about the actual bill.

You can not force people to accept that lifestyle as being ok.


People can believe what they want, just as I believe that Christians are on the whole ignorant fools who believe in an imaginary sky wizard because they are so weak they cannot contemplate the randomness of existence and need a nanny looking over them 24/7.

The difference is, LGBT people are not creating laws to strip Christians of their rights to be deemed equal citizens.

That's all is comes down to. You, as Christian, have no more rights than anyone else, you do not get to claim that it's your way or the highway. You do not get to "approve" of anyone else. You do not have any authority to "tolerate" people as though you are superior, or as though anyone owes you more respect than you owe others.

I do not give a damn what a Christian thinks, I give a damn what a "Christian" does to others.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

The part that bothers me most is that I know he's not (that) stupid. The fact that he (and more than a few others) is willing to play stupid to achieve his goals and camouflage his intentions is something I find seriously disturbing. At this point I'm beginning to believe that they thought they could make this into a law and nobody would read it. They'd pass it off as if it's just the same old ho-hum, run of the mill, backwards thinking lawmaking as has been done before and not the in your face, guess what we're going to do piece of crap that it actually is

On the other hand - maybe he really is just that stupid :-)

I feel better knowing that many businesses, people with some serious dough - and even a few fellow republicans - have told him where he can put his law

Anyhow - I'm having a pretty good laugh at the whole thing because it's been a while since we've seen something like this backfire so spectacularly



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
I do not give a damn what a Christian thinks, I give a damn what a "Christian" does to others.

Well, that seems to be emerging in the wake of Pence's 'clarification'...


True Intent Of Indiana’s ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill, According To The People Who Helped Write It
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) and state Republican leaders have been playing damage control this week, claiming that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not a law that enables anti-LGBT discrimination. Meanwhile, however, the conservatives who advocated for the bill have been spurning this attempted walkback, asserting in the process that the goal was ensuring discrimination all along.

At the forefront of the conservative reaction is Micah Clark, who serves as executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana and who stood right behind Pence as he signed the bill. Speaking Monday to Tim Wildmon, head of the national American Family Association, Clark explained that conservatives should oppose any effort to clarify that the law does not legalize discrimination. “That could totally destroy this bill,” he explained. Link

edit on 31-3-2015 by JohnnyCanuck because: link required




top topics



 
21
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join