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.

 

Why Indiana's RFRA Law is Different

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Yes, because wanting the exact same rights as everyone else is bad. Uh huh. Wouldn't have this problem if all those straight folks weren't out there, being straight in public, forcing us to accept them... Have they no decency?!?





posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
What I don't get is that there isn't anything in the Bible about not participating in commerce with a gay person or someone of another skin color.

Jesus himself would probably welcome anyone and everyone into a bakery he owned.

This whole thing smacks of "I don't like gay people, so I'm gonna discriminate against them". Religion has nothing to do with any of this, personal prejudice does.

Can someone show me some lines from the NEW TESTAMENT (since isn't that what Christians are supposed to go by?) where it says "thou shalt not conduct business or consort with homosexuals"?

*crickets*

I thought so. Christians, start being more Christ-like.

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



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Slightly off topic, remember in the 80s all businesses had "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" signs hanging behind their cash registers? I'm beginning to realize that claim was false.

Gay, straight, discriminatory, or not, I personally believe ANY non publicly traded, single or family owned business owner should retain 100% of his or her right to bluntly refuse service to anyone for any reason. It's their money and their reputation on the line and they should be fully permitted to risk both and run their business however they see fit. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an implicit right of always feeling welcomed or accommodated. There is, however, the First Amendment freedom of speech and a SCOTUS decision that declares money to be part of exercising that speech (thus a business owner's dollars are their freedom), a Forth Amendment which grants the right of ownership and security in said ownership, and the 9th amendment which states one individual's perceived rights do not trump another's enumerated rights.

If somebody doesn't want your business, get over it and take your money elsewhere. You're not special, nor should you be entitled to any special considerations. Just like if I was to walk into a Raider bar wearing Bronco gear and the bartender refused to serve me... wait a minute, I'd never walk into a Raider bar because I'm not an idiot and I don't like giving people that dislike me money.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
As I have had a little time to cool off a bit over this one, some thoughts have popped into my noggin :

1.) How are businesses planning on enforcing this? Are they going to ask every customer their orientation? If I visit Indiana ( not bloody likely any time soon mutter mutter) will; be forced to purchase a special ID card...one that says if I'm straight, gay or attracted to sheep, like I am beginning to assume Mr. Pence might? ( Yes, the snark is strong with this one.)

2.) What happens when a Muslim denies service to a Christian or Jew? (I have my popcorn ready). What about a Presbyterian and a Catholic? Sikh and Buddhist? Baptist and anyone not Baptist?

3.) For that matter, what happens when a gay businessman decides to not serve a straight person? More popcorn!

4.) Since Indianapolis has already given a resound Oh Hell No to this piece of drek, does this mean we can possibly see two states forming? Indianapolis and Bigotistan?

5.) At what point does your "religious freedom" to discriminate cease to interfere with my freedom from your thinly veiled bigotry masquerading as religion?

Sorry. This has been a hot button topic for me, felt a little snarky humour might be useful.


How would businesses "enforce" this or would even have to? This is simply the state saying they won't prosecute a private individual for a matter of religious conscience. It does not say that a business owner cannot fire an employee who refuses to provide service, it just limits the state.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Can someone show me some lines from the NEW TESTAMENT (since isn't that what Christians are supposed to go by?) where it says "thou shalt not conduct business or consort with homosexuals"?


Not required for Constitutional protection of First Amendment rights.

I'll use this recent scenario as an example of why the "but it isn't explicitly in the Bible" argument fails.
nypost.com...

The First Amendment would likely make a broad ban on the burqa in the United States unconstitutional, though some states have restricted its wearing for such activities as obtaining a driver’s license.


www.quran-islam.org...

The Islamic world is experiencing a rise in women wearing the burqa claiming it to be part of the Islamic dress code. Whether it is worn by choice or force is open to debate as very few women are able to, or prefer not to voice an opinion on the matter. Those who have, generally argue against the compulsory (by law as in Afghanistan) wearing of this garment with a minority claiming the right to wear it citing Quranic and prophetic instruction.


So I'm gonna say that religious texts take a backseat in the US court of law to religious practices and religious dogma. In that case, there's no reason this law should fail a SCOTUS challenge.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Greven

I despise the fact that people are even catagorized and then have to be specifically protected. Why "protected groups?" Why can't it just be protections that extend to every citizen without race, sexual orientation, or anything else being a qualifying factor in order to make them valid for legal protection?

Am I one of the few who remembers this verbiage from the fourteenth amendment?:


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


We should not need to specify catagories of people in laws--every person is constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under the laws.


Because making protected classes is how one panders for votes and enables more governmental control over the individual.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would agree that we shouldn't, but we also seem to forget the 1st Amendment too. People are free to practice their religion. What some people don't understand is that religious belief and practice for the deeply religious does not end at the church door. It goes into your daily life.

So with this we have issues of the 1st and 14th conflicting.



I don't see it that way. The 14th amendment ensures equal protection under the law, it does not ensure accommodation by private individuals. It restricts the government.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit


The "to the back of the bus" bullcrap, is no longer allowed in this day and age.


Actually it is--see racial preferences in governmental hiring, contracts, and university admissions. "Back of the bus" is perfectly acceptable in our society as long as it follow a particular politically correct narrative.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would agree that we shouldn't, but we also seem to forget the 1st Amendment too. People are free to practice their religion. What some people don't understand is that religious belief and practice for the deeply religious does not end at the church door. It goes into your daily life.

So with this we have issues of the 1st and 14th conflicting.



I don't see it that way. The 14th amendment ensures equal protection under the law, it does not ensure accommodation by private individuals. It restricts the government.


It should, but it doesn't.

The 14th is the new hammer under which government can do everything for you. Or haven't you noticed?

Well, everything for you unless you happen to belong to the perceived majority class, and then you're too equal.

Remember, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. -- You can interpret that in all kinds of ways these days.

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



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: johnwick

Yes, because wanting the exact same rights as everyone else is bad. Uh huh. Wouldn't have this problem if all those straight folks weren't out there, being straight in public, forcing us to accept them... Have they no decency?!?



Where does anyone have the right to force anyone else to serve them?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would agree that we shouldn't, but we also seem to forget the 1st Amendment too. People are free to practice their religion. What some people don't understand is that religious belief and practice for the deeply religious does not end at the church door. It goes into your daily life.

So with this we have issues of the 1st and 14th conflicting.



I don't see it that way. The 14th amendment ensures equal protection under the law, it does not ensure accommodation by private individuals. It restricts the government.


It should, but it doesn't.

The 14th is the new hammer under which government can do everything for you. Or haven't you noticed?

Well, everything for you unless you happen to belong to the perceived majority class, and then you're too equal.

Remember, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. -- You can interpret than in all kinds of ways these days.


Well, quite often what the law says and what Marxists want it to say are different things.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
What I don't get is that there isn't anything in the Bible about not participating in commerce with a gay person or someone of another skin color.

Jesus himself would probably welcome anyone and everyone into a bakery he owned.

This whole thing smacks of "I don't like gay people, so I'm gonna discriminate against them". Religion has nothing to do with any of this, personal prejudice does.

Can someone show me some lines from the NEW TESTAMENT (since isn't that what Christians are supposed to go by?) where it says "thou shalt not conduct business or consort with homosexuals"?

*crickets*

I thought so. Christians, start being more Christ-like.


IN case you hadn't noticed, and I will repeat it yet again, this has nothing to do with discriminating against gays.

The florist served that particular gay customer for YEARS prior to his asking her to arrange the flowers at his wedding. What she objected to was participating in the wedding itself, not him.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't disagree about Constitutional rights -- but this is being peddled as a "religious" thing. People's "Religious rights" ...

I want to know where in their religion it says not to give a specific person service? It sounds to me as if they are using their religion as an excuse to not serve someone because they "just don't like them".

If they don't like them for whatever reason -- they ought to admit to it and not hide behind their religion.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If arranging the flowers somehow made her part of the wedding, and because these people were gay -- it absolutely does have to do with discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation.

If she claims to be Christian, she ought to be "christ-like" and follow the example set by Jesus.

Jesus would arrange the flowers.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Here is the issue with this law:

1) The speed at which it went from introduction to the signing by the governor.
2) The vagueness of the language.
3) The writers of this law, the architects of such.
4) The timing. As this law was written and implemented when, in one month they US Supreme Court is going to hear the case on same sex marriage.
5) That this law was redundant and had no bearing on the state what so ever. Same sex couples and the LGBT community have no laws that protect them at all in the state.
6) That the only people who were there at the signing, with a pictures are all notorious anti LGBT community.

This is a bad law, of that there is no doubt. It opens doors that should have been kept closed and ultimately it is highly exploitable. This is not going to end well for the state of Indiana, and even when asked about the nature of the law, the governor gave the old 2 step rhetoric. I do not trust this at all, nor should anyone, as it is going to affect everyone in the state.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't disagree about Constitutional rights -- but this is being peddled as a "religious" thing. People's "Religious rights" ...

I want to know where in their religion it says not to give a specific person service? It sounds to me as if they are using their religion as an excuse to not serve someone because they "just don't like them".

If they don't like them for whatever reason -- they ought to admit to it and not hide behind their religion.


The thing about religious freedom in the US is that it is not up to the state to determine.


IMHO, it is stupid and there is no god and if there was, I doubt he'd care who sold cakes to whom, however, in a free society people should have that right to make such decisions themselves.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't disagree about Constitutional rights -- but this is being peddled as a "religious" thing. People's "Religious rights" ...

I want to know where in their religion it says not to give a specific person service? It sounds to me as if they are using their religion as an excuse to not serve someone because they "just don't like them".

If they don't like them for whatever reason -- they ought to admit to it and not hide behind their religion.


But much of Christianity draws from sources other than the New Testament, MM. This is why there are hundreds of different denominations and even schisms within denominations. Catholicism, for instance, relies as much on dogma as it does on the Bible.

As to the New Testament directly commenting, be careful. I understand what you are actually asking is "Did Jesus ever say anything against it?" I warn you here because the overall New Testament absolutely disdains homosexuality. Paul's first epistle to the Romans discusses natural relations between a man and a woman and decried the veering away from such a pairing. Paul told the Corinthians to not be unrighteous and included fornication, unsanctified, and effeminate males among the those who God views as unrighteous. Paul's letter to Timothy also calls homosexuality "contrary to sound doctrine."

To argue that there is no defensible religious basis for rejection of homosexuality is simply not accurate.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Jesus would arrange the flowers.


Jesus was also crucified for his beliefs and flat refusal to veer from his course. Seems like Jesus would consider "she refused to sell a cake to me" to be a pretty minor first world problem... but I'm not arrogant enough to presume to know the mind of God or speak to what He would or would not do in any given situation, so I stress "seems".



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

John 4
Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

6 Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.

7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.


So, let me get this straight. It's okay for Christians to be served by sinners and outcasts, but it's NOT okay to be of service to sinners and outcasts?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Absolutely, religion is protected from discrimination at the federal level, things like sexual orientation are not.



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



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join