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.

 

NLBS #44: Taking a Look at Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration BS

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
IMO it would just be simpler to let sole proprietors decide who they chose to do business with


If they're a business that offers public accommodation, they are still a business and are subject to the laws of the state, including discrimination laws.
edit on 4/6/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Why do you keep talking about sole proprietorships vs corporations ?

Do you think that corporations are automatically publicly traded companies or something ?

A corporation can also be a sole proprietorship (one owner) with the only difference being the sole owner is now no longer personally at risk for the liabilities of the incorporated company. Most sole proprietors end up incorporating their business at some point, usually when their annual revenues start getting into the $200,000+ range... at that point the personal risk becomes too high to continue operating as a non-incorporated sole proprietorship.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

This is were things get weird

The separation of church and state really only applies to the federal government in that Congress shall make no law. So religion is the providence of either the separate states or the individual as far as the Constitution goes when it comes to rights and free exercise. Espousing of ideas falls under speech or press depending. Both of which are protected as individual rights and of singular organizations. A local newspaper or a union rally for example. By extention, churches would be covered as well. Neither you nor I like WBC's doctrine, but we both can begrudgingly agree they have the right to exist. Neither of us would freely associate with them period. I think that I know you well enough over the years to say we are on the same page there.

I can honestly say that I would provide no goods nor service to WBC wedding if asked to do so. Should that stance jeopardize my business license? Especially if you consider that business licenses are granted by filling with the IRS who in turn informs the state that you are a business. The exception being a special license or professional that the state must grant like food vender, cosmetology, mortician, etc.

Religion definitions should be individual (group) rights out of the domain and control of both the federal and state governments. Otherwise you run the risk of government established/endorsed religion.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

That's a very interesting view that I'd never considered. However, I did some research and found this.

Why the First Amendment Applies to the States



CONGRESS shall pass no law. Not “The States.” Congress.

So why does it now apply to the states? The 14th amendment.
...
This law was passed during reconstruction, when many states were passing laws prohibiting the former slaves from applying their natural and civil rights, such as the right to speak as they wished or associate with others they wanted to.
...
The 14th Amendment, particularly the above so called “privileges and immunities” clause, is what gives the Federal Courts the powers to enforce most of the bill of rights upon the states, such as the very important right to a fair trial by a jury, right against unreasonable search and seizure, and, recently, a right to keep and bear arms.



originally posted by: Ahabstar
I can honestly say that I would provide no goods nor service to WBC wedding if asked to do so.


That's a tough one. But no, I don't think it should jeopardize your license. I think you and I would both deny them, not because of their religion (supposedly Christianity), but because of the fact that they're a hate group. I would deny KKK for the same reason.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

I would deny KKK for the same reason.


Agreed. Without a doubt.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Prejudice is part of the human condition. Doesn't make it right no matter what excuse is made. But legislating morality never ever works.


Are you sure about that?
What you're ignoring here, and rather conveniently, is law.
As a society we use laws to prevent criminal behavior, abuse, violence... all of these things are prevented through legislation, and this then transfers to social evolution.

A few hundred years ago it was entirely legal for a Monarch to murder without fear of punishment, it was considered proper to publicly hang people in the town square, it was considered acceptable to deny basic rights to the most impoverished in society...

In the USA, it was considered perfectly fine to OWN other people as slaves.

Do you really claim that nothing should have been done to change society and that black people in the US should still be considered second class citizens, able to be owned by white people?

Obviously, your claims about such changes doing more damage than good are complete bs, if that were the case then the entire civil rights movement would not have happened and you would not now have Obama as president. Do you think all of this has come about through the goodness of individuals rather than legislation?


edit on 7-4-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: peskyhumans

Why do you keep talking about sole proprietorships vs corporations ?

Do you think that corporations are automatically publicly traded companies or something ?

A corporation can also be a sole proprietorship (one owner) with the only difference being the sole owner is now no longer personally at risk for the liabilities of the incorporated company. Most sole proprietors end up incorporating their business at some point, usually when their annual revenues start getting into the $200,000+ range... at that point the personal risk becomes too high to continue operating as a non-incorporated sole proprietorship.


Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. When some people get a certain amount of rich they incorporate and play by different rules than everyone else. Small business owners should be able to pick and choose their customers. However this should not be the case for corporations.
edit on 4/7/15 by peskyhumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

But you're being hypocritical. How can you claim in one breath that stores need to serve everyone because it's discrimination otherwise, but in another breath say that you wouldn't wed someone from the KKK? So it's okay to discriminate against groups of people you don't like, but not against groups of people you do like?

This type of thing will only continue to inflate and get worse unless someone comes up with a sensible clear-cut law that everyone can at least tolerate. I think allowing small businesses (sole proprietors) to pick and choose their customers, and requiring all corporations to serve everyone, would be a clear-cut law that would at least be tolerable for everyone.

If the little old christian lady running a local bake shop won't bake your wedding cake, that's okay. You can go to a big-name bakery and get it there. If the mom and pop grocery near main street doesn't want to serve you, you can drive up to Wal-Mart and take your business there. This is capitalism 101 - you support your preferred businesses with your money.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   
So...if a KKK member went to a Jewish bakery and demanded that the baker make him a cake in the shape of an Auschwitz oven for his next rally, evidently in America the baker would just have to make it for him or he would be in the wrong. Because everything is ok here anymore...except believing in God. Very disappointed in America right now, especially since Clinton passed a federal version of this law which is still on the books and since TWENTY States already have a similar law in effect. SMH...



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
How can you claim in one breath that stores need to serve everyone because it's discrimination otherwise,


I didn't claim that. I'm not saying stores need to serve everyone. Of course a business has the right to refuse to serve an INDIVIDUAL that doesn't have a shirt or shoes, or someone who is drunk and disorderly or causing a scene. But LEGAL discrimination is defined as refusing service based on one's "group" (race, religion, ethnic or national origin, color, or sex). Many state laws also add sexual orientation and gender identity to that list. But "hate group" is not listed in any anti-discrimination law.


but in another breath say that you wouldn't wed someone from the KKK?


I didn't say that either. I said I wouldn't sell them a cake. They are a hate group, just like WBC, and are not protected against discrimination. They don't have the HISTORY that the other groups have of being discriminated against.



So it's okay to discriminate against groups of people you don't like, but not against groups of people you do like?


It depends on the state law. In Texas and Michigan, for example, any business can refuse to serve anyone because they're gay. That's the law. It's legally permissible to refuse a gay person, even to eat in a restaurant. That's why the "Muslim bakery" threads are bs. Michigan law doesn't require the Muslim bakery to serve gays. They're completely within the law.



I think allowing small businesses (sole proprietors) to pick and choose their customers, and requiring all corporations to serve everyone, would be a clear-cut law that would at least be tolerable for everyone.


More than 70% of small businesses are sole proprietorships. (I read that yesterday but don't have the source handy). I live in a small town. We have one of most stores (bakery, shoe store, flower shop, etc.) I'm guessing that most of them are sole proprietorships, so most could discriminate under your plan.

Also, there's a federal anti-discrimination law that applies to sole proprietorships. They can't break federal law.



If the little old christian lady running a local bake shop won't bake your wedding cake, that's okay. You can go to a big-name bakery and get it there.


A gay person here would have to drive for 2-3 hours to go to the larger bakery. Not everyone lives in a metropolis.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

That's a tough one. But no, I don't think it should jeopardize your license. I think you and I would both deny them, not because of their religion (supposedly Christianity), but because of the fact that they're a hate group. I would deny KKK for the same reason.


You did claim that. Right there.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
So...if a KKK member went to a Jewish bakery and demanded that the baker make him a cake in the shape of an Auschwitz oven for his next rally, evidently in America the baker would just have to make it for him or he would be in the wrong.


This question gets asked and answered over and over.

1. The baker wouldn't be forced to make a PRODUCT that he doesn't already make for other customers. Does he make Auschwitz oven cakes for others?

2. The KKK is not a protected group, because they don't have a HISTORY of being discriminated against.

3. Discrimination (legal) is based on the PERSON, not the PRODUCT. A baker cannot be forced to put two grooms on a wedding cake if he doesn't already do that for others. He can't be forced to decorate the cake with ANYTHING that he doesn't already do for other customers. If he doesn't want to make a cake that he deems offensive, he doesn't have to. But if, as in the Colorado baker's case, he is asked by two gay guys to make a wedding cake for them JUST LIKE other cake's he's made, then he is legally required to do it, even though he doesn't approve of gay marriage.

Straight wedding cake:


Gay wedding cake:


Got that? A baker cannot be forced to make a PRODUCT he doesn't already make. But he can be forced to serve a PERSON the exact same cake.


especially since Clinton passed a federal version of this law which is still on the books and since TWENTY States already have a similar law in effect.


The federal law is VERY different from the RFRAs in the states. It's been discussed many times, so I'm not going to go through it all.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
You did claim that. Right there.


I said I wouldn't provide any goods or service to WBC or the KKK, not that I wouldn't "wed" them. I didn't say anything about marrying anyone. In the scenario, we were talking about being in a BUSINESS, not a church. That's a totally different set of laws. But just to be clear, if I were clergy, I would be free to pick and choose whom I marry and I wouldn't marry KKK members. NOW I've said it.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: jaffo
So...if a KKK member went to a Jewish bakery and demanded that the baker make him a cake in the shape of an Auschwitz oven for his next rally, evidently in America the baker would just have to make it for him or he would be in the wrong.


This question gets asked and answered over and over.

1. The baker wouldn't be forced to make a PRODUCT that he doesn't already make for other customers. Does he make Auschwitz oven cakes for others?

2. The KKK is not a protected group, because they don't have a HISTORY of being discriminated against.

3. Discrimination (legal) is based on the PERSON, not the PRODUCT. A baker cannot be forced to put two grooms on a wedding cake if he doesn't already do that for others. He can't be forced to decorate the cake with ANYTHING that he doesn't already do for other customers. If he doesn't want to make a cake that he deems offensive, he doesn't have to. But if, as in the Colorado baker's case, he is asked by two gay guys to make a wedding cake for them JUST LIKE other cake's he's made, then he is legally required to do it, even though he doesn't approve of gay marriage.

Straight wedding cake:


Gay wedding cake:


Got that? A baker cannot be forced to make a PRODUCT he doesn't already make. But he can be forced to serve a PERSON the exact same cake.


especially since Clinton passed a federal version of this law which is still on the books and since TWENTY States already have a similar law in effect.


The federal law is VERY different from the RFRAs in the states. It's been discussed many times, so I'm not going to go through it all.


FORCING a private business to do ANYTHING is ridiculous. As the consumer, people should speak with their dollars instead of demanding with their tears.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Please exercise some forum etiquette and only quote the relevant piece instead of quoting the whole post.


originally posted by: jaffo
FORCING a private business to do ANYTHING is ridiculous.


So, a restaurant or grocery store shouldn't be forced to operate to certain health standards? Should they be permitted to be as germy and unhealthy as they want? Should they be allowed to use meat with diseases, etc.?

I think you're not thinking through your positions.


As the consumer, people should speak with their dollars instead of demanding with their tears.


I actually somewhat agree. See my posts in response to that statement:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: peskyhumans

Why do you keep talking about sole proprietorships vs corporations ?

Do you think that corporations are automatically publicly traded companies or something ?

A corporation can also be a sole proprietorship (one owner) with the only difference being the sole owner is now no longer personally at risk for the liabilities of the incorporated company. Most sole proprietors end up incorporating their business at some point, usually when their annual revenues start getting into the $200,000+ range... at that point the personal risk becomes too high to continue operating as a non-incorporated sole proprietorship.


Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. When some people get a certain amount of rich they incorporate and play by different rules than everyone else. Small business owners should be able to pick and choose their customers. However this should not be the case for corporations.


You do realize that a large percentage of the small mom and pop stores you see on street corners are incorporated businesses, right ?

If they purchased the land and building their store is operating out of, chances are they've set up at least one corporation to protect the land and building (commonly known as a leasehold corporation) from any liability of the operating business.

It's standard business practice to do this and has nothing to do with "riches"... it's just simply liability protection for any tangible assets they own.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Aargh!! Does no one use critical thinking anymore??????


I see the same stupid arguments that keep getting answered over and over and over and over and over and.........

Need to leave these threads for a while. They are starting to get me really angry and disappointed in a large section of the human race.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
If the point of this law is to allow for the religious to "practice their faith without undue burden to their ability to do so" I would like to see where in their scripture does it show that refusing services to homosexuals (or anyone) is a part of practicing their faith.
Where is this a tenet?
Until they can explain that (and prove it) and also explain why they are not refusing services to people who "break" other laws in their book such as divorce, this law (and the people who support it) will continue to be labelled as bigots and I hope that the "gay mafia" continues to protest them at all corners of social media and "IRL"
It is nothing more than a diversion to say "this law doesn't say it's ok to refuse services to anyone.....but rather you will be protected from being sued for doing it"
THAT right there means it ok! What kind of a fool doesn't see that. It's "out the side of the neck" double talk.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT!
(but psstt....you'll suffer no consequence if you do)
edit on 7-4-2015 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MrPlow

Seriously, do they check to see if the other newlyweds have had sexual relations outside a marriage? That's one of the 10 commandments. (And they would be baking NO cakes, he)

Freaking bigots.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: jaffo
So...if a KKK member went to a Jewish bakery and demanded that the baker make him a cake in the shape of an Auschwitz oven for his next rally, evidently in America the baker would just have to make it for him or he would be in the wrong.


This question gets asked and answered over and over.

1. The baker wouldn't be forced to make a PRODUCT that he doesn't already make for other customers. Does he make Auschwitz oven cakes for others?

2. The KKK is not a protected group, because they don't have a HISTORY of being discriminated against.

3. Discrimination (legal) is based on the PERSON, not the PRODUCT. A baker cannot be forced to put two grooms on a wedding cake if he doesn't already do that for others. He can't be forced to decorate the cake with ANYTHING that he doesn't already do for other customers. If he doesn't want to make a cake that he deems offensive, he doesn't have to. But if, as in the Colorado baker's case, he is asked by two gay guys to make a wedding cake for them JUST LIKE other cake's he's made, then he is legally required to do it, even though he doesn't approve of gay marriage.

Straight wedding cake:


Gay wedding cake:


Got that? A baker cannot be forced to make a PRODUCT he doesn't already make. But he can be forced to serve a PERSON the exact same cake.


especially since Clinton passed a federal version of this law which is still on the books and since TWENTY States already have a similar law in effect.


The federal law is VERY different from the RFRAs in the states. It's been discussed many times, so I'm not going to go through it all.


FORCING a private business to do ANYTHING is ridiculous. As the consumer, people should speak with their dollars instead of demanding with their tears.


If said private business does not like that- they are free to go elsewhere, right? That's the same argument you're making.
If said private business wants to enjoy any benefits provided to them by the local, state, and federal governments for owning and operating a business, then they need to abide by the rules as well.







 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join