Looks like NC and its 50k tech jobs is next. Interested to see how many on the board would support this legislation despite the impact to the state economy.
NC is next
NC is next
OT - Religious Freedom Laws
- Thread starter longcreektiger
- Start date
... both laws are beyond ... disturbing. I could at least rationalize a wedding photographer or caterer not wanting to be apart of same-sex marriage ceremony. I get it......but your everyday run of the mill businesses that serve the public?
Its pure bigotry plain and simple.
Its pure bigotry plain and simple.
From the pulpit to the legislator. Republicans having been throwing away conservatism so that they can push deregulation of business and regulation of social issues. It's disturbing.
I work in IT in Charlotte, the bill is stupid. Protestants just want to impress themselves by passing laws to defend themselves against 'Teh War on Teh Christianity'. Most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. This country is filled to the brim with fake victims.
Good thing McCory is suddenly trying to be a moderate again, as he has said he will veto it.
I work in IT in Charlotte, the bill is stupid. Protestants just want to impress themselves by passing laws to defend themselves against 'Teh War on Teh Christianity'. Most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. This country is filled to the brim with fake victims.
Good thing McCory is suddenly trying to be a moderate again, as he has said he will veto it.
My favorite is the pizza place in Indiana that announced that thanks to the law, they would not cater any gay weddings. LMAO. What kind of self-respecting gay person would have pizza for their wedding? Its like Gamecock football announcing they are boycotting the playoffs.
All of these new "laws", though I agree with them in principle, are quite disturbing. Not because I disagree with their intent, but rather the implications: we need new laws to protect what is already protected by the Constitution.
The First Amendment is quite clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
These businesses have the RIGHT to discriminate. Call it bigotry all you want to. If I disagree with their practices or views, I will not do business with them. I WON'T, however, demand that they be forced to go against their convictions.
If Massachusetts wants to legalize gay marriage, they can go right ahead and do so. But don't ram their choice down the throats of South Carolina, Georgia, and California.. a few of the vast majority of states whose citizens wanted man-women marriage as the sole standard.
I agree with this to an extent. Buuuut using that rationality, the south would still be segregated. There comes a time where civil rights for a people are more important than the bigotry of the majority.
Look at the civil rights act of 1964: Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]
If sexuality was in that list there would be no argument. But its not and it should be. Notice, how the photographer still has the right to be racist, sexist POS. No problem there just don't hire them.
The issue is two fold; bigotry and extreme victimhood. Nobody should be suing a photographer just because they told them something that hurt their feelings. JMO. I don't have an issue with gay people trying to act like normal citizens. If you want to think they burn in hell fire forever, then talk about it on Sundays, don't oppress them at the voting booth on Tuesdays.
It would be interesting to see the reaction to a restaurant saying they will only serve atheists.
Sure does seem like common sense, but a couple questions for you.
1. Are corporations people? The constitution applies to people. (or at least it used to)
2. How would you handle a Baptist church in GA that mandates 12 year-olds dance with rattlesnakes as a right of passage in their religion?
3. How would you handle animal sacrifice of some religions?
I think the issue is, and has been when it was addressed by the court, how do you balance the interests in religious freedom and the interests in public safety and/or health when they are in conflict.
It is against the law for a restaurant to refuse to serve anyone based on race, sexual orientation, etc and none of these religious freedom bills change that.
The issue is treating all business interactions equally.
Somebody comes in your establishment to eat? Orders a cake? Shops at your store? You aren't personally having any extended interaction...so there's really no leg to stand on here.
I can see the case for a photographer. That involves several hours worth of time on the site of an event that makes you uncomfortable and you personally should have every right to opt out of that. It really shouldn't matter if there's a religious objection or a personal objection.
If you had a marketing agency owned by a vegan who wanted to opt out of developing a campaign for a people selling veal they should be able to opt out for the same reason. It's a non-trivial time commitment that forces you to interact with something you're not comfortable with. Printing business cards for that same business though? No, that's trivial.
If you're talking personal time commitment and participation, there's reason for objection. The Indiana law absolutely oversteps though as it does open the door for business refusal on any grounds for any reason...which is akin to the problems that came from Jim Crowe Laws (technicalities aside).
Somebody comes in your establishment to eat? Orders a cake? Shops at your store? You aren't personally having any extended interaction...so there's really no leg to stand on here.
I can see the case for a photographer. That involves several hours worth of time on the site of an event that makes you uncomfortable and you personally should have every right to opt out of that. It really shouldn't matter if there's a religious objection or a personal objection.
If you had a marketing agency owned by a vegan who wanted to opt out of developing a campaign for a people selling veal they should be able to opt out for the same reason. It's a non-trivial time commitment that forces you to interact with something you're not comfortable with. Printing business cards for that same business though? No, that's trivial.
If you're talking personal time commitment and participation, there's reason for objection. The Indiana law absolutely oversteps though as it does open the door for business refusal on any grounds for any reason...which is akin to the problems that came from Jim Crowe Laws (technicalities aside).
The real religion in this country is money. When businesses move headquarters to other states or even threaten to do so, these laws will change quickly. The states are free to pass whatever laws they want. The businesses who pay them taxes and employ their residents are also free to move to other states.
They are doing that. I know that Jacksonville has missed out on two major HQ relocations because we lack a human rights ordinance. The GOP hierarchy does not care. They have made catering to the religious right a priority over business and the economy.
I don't think you understand the quote you highlighted. You highlighted "no law" and skipped ahead to "prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)". The part you skipped over is just as important. That part basically means that you can't establish laws and enforce them based on a particular religious belief either. In other words, unlike ISIS who wants to create a government based strictly on Muslim religious laws, in the US we do not force laws on the people based on the religious beliefs of only some people. There is a reason that separation of church and state is the corner stone of our democracy. Any law that allows one group of people to infringe upon another groups rights in the name of religion does not fit both sides of the intent of your quote above. To allow discrimination and removal of basic civil rights of one group in the name of the religious views of another group goes against everything in the constitution. What the constitution guarantees is religious freedom to practice whatever religion you choose so long as it doesn't infringe on the basic constitutional rights of others who may have a different opinion. The constitution does not give religious groups a blank check to operate in whatever way they see fit contrary to your assertion.
I am a religious person. I am a Christian. I fully believe in religious freedom to worship as I choose. However, I also do not believe that one should be able to legislate others into conforming their lives to meet my religious views. To be able to do so would jeopardize my own religious freedom. The problem with too many religious groups, including many Christians, these days is that they want to use government and legislation to drive the moral behavior and social practices of others. They want to force others, through legislation, to conform to their religious views. That's not how I want to drive people to conform to my religious beliefs. Is someone who is forced to convert through law really a convert? No. That's not how Jesus evangelized either. The jews wanted him to be their political leader and lead a political revolution and he refused. You can not lead someone to God through legislation and politics.
I fully support laws that allow people to excersice their religious freedom. However, any law that also allows one to use their religion to deny the basic civil rights of another individual is a flawed law. If a florist doesn't want to serve everyone and participate in a gay wedding, I fully respect that decision. However, if they feel their religion doesnt allow them to participate in a gay wedding, they need to find another career that doesn't put them in a position to have to participate in that ceremony. The constitution gives them the freedom to choose a career that doesn't jeopardize their beliefs, it doesn't guarantee them the freedom to choose a career and assert their religious views as a way to strip others of their basic rights. Any law that allows some of us to discriminate against others is no constitutionally based law in my mind. What if a doctor refused to deliver the baby of an unwed mother because he doesn't believe in sex outside of marriage? Should that doctor be able to deny basic medical care to someone they feel is participating in a practice their religion does not condone? No. Why? There is no U.S. law that prevents sex outside of marriage or child birth outside of marriage. If that doctor feels he can't participate in a child birth outside of wedlock because his religion doesnt condone it, that is fine and that is his perogative, but he needs to find another career that doesn't put him in a position to make that choice if it is that important to him. Because if he remains a doctor and denies medical care to that woman based on his religious belief he may be doing right in the name of his religion, but he has also broken the law of the land and must live with the consequence.
This post was edited on 4/2 11:14 AM by 1Clemzunfan
Wouldn't it be great if we treated both gay marriage and bakery purchases as voluntary transactions between people.?? jk, april fools
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/
Such ignorance...about these laws, read them before you comment.
They do not allow discrimination in any way shape or form and are in 30 states already either as law or as part of the constitution.
The roar of the crowd... idiots with a bull horn.
They do not allow discrimination in any way shape or form and are in 30 states already either as law or as part of the constitution.
The roar of the crowd... idiots with a bull horn.
Dare I say that we all discriminate every day. Sure the bed wetters have kidded themselves into believing that they treat everyone equally. However, they must remove their treatment of fundamentalist Christians from the pool of test subjects. #irony #hypocrisy
Doesn't my previous link where someone is FORCED to participate in interstate commerce make you realize why these laws were passed??? And then FORCED to attend sensitivity training. Is there a curriculum for sensitivity training for anti religious bigots???
This whole thing is a mess. Ideologues on both sides are shouting at each other and no one is actually listening. It's an unfortunate mess. If we'd all put down our pitchforks and start to come to some understand and acceptance of each other we could avoid these messes.
It's so sad to see what we've become in this country. There are valid points on both sides of this issue. Just a little cooperation would go such a long way. Instead, people are choosing to be tools in a much wider conflict that does nothing but product bitterness.
It's so sad to see what we've become in this country. There are valid points on both sides of this issue. Just a little cooperation would go such a long way. Instead, people are choosing to be tools in a much wider conflict that does nothing but product bitterness.
Not really forced to participate in interstate commerce. They buy supplies from vendors that procure out of state goods, and I believe some out of state vendors are used also. Interstate commerce is broadly interpreted, particularly for discrimination issues.
That said, I'm also pretty sure that interstate commerce didn't really have anything to do with that case, since it was a state law that was being asserted. (somebody can fact check this part though)
McCrory said earlier this week that he has no interest in signing that bill and sees no need for it.
Believe NC Senete isn't interested in it either.
These laws are situations were Repulbicans should be pragmatic and not side with what will prove to be the losing side of history. Nothing to gain with these laws. They are a way to announce you are anti-gay when their is no upside from taking that position and lots of downside.
Believe NC Senete isn't interested in it either.
These laws are situations were Repulbicans should be pragmatic and not side with what will prove to be the losing side of history. Nothing to gain with these laws. They are a way to announce you are anti-gay when their is no upside from taking that position and lots of downside.
Excuse my ignorance on this matter, but why does there need to be a law for this in the first place? Were gay people filing lawsuits against companies for discrimination?
FWIW, I don't consider my self far right or left, but if anything, I'd say I lean more to the right. I have a wife and kids, and consider myself a Christian, but I'm not immune to looking at a situation from a different point of view. Call me crazy or too focused on my business, but if someone comes to me and he has 10 penises for fingers and wants to do business and pay me money, then we're shaking hands and signing on the dotted line. Turning away business based off sexual orientation is a bad business move IMO.
This post was edited on 4/2 11:35 AM by CU1TruTiger4Life
FWIW, I don't consider my self far right or left, but if anything, I'd say I lean more to the right. I have a wife and kids, and consider myself a Christian, but I'm not immune to looking at a situation from a different point of view. Call me crazy or too focused on my business, but if someone comes to me and he has 10 penises for fingers and wants to do business and pay me money, then we're shaking hands and signing on the dotted line. Turning away business based off sexual orientation is a bad business move IMO.
This post was edited on 4/2 11:35 AM by CU1TruTiger4Life
That's kind of where I am. I look at it like this. Take the pizza place. Again, ignore the laughable idea that anyone (gay or straight) would want a pizza place to "cater" their wedding. Let's say a gay couple did ask them to cater. All they have to say is, "I'm sorry, we're booked that weekend," and the issue is over. The problem comes because they want to be able to say, "I'm sorry, you're gay and that is against my religion so I'm refusing." That's why they need a law- not to refuse the business but to be self-righteous about it.
I say if they want to keep these antiquated laws, let them , but require businesses that won't serve people they find objectionable to post notices on their businesses and websites of who they won't serve. Then let the chips fall where they may...
your statement is factually incorrect, which is funny, because you are calling everyone else ignorant. The indiana law is substantially different than the over laws, and the federal government's law. it is more broad, and contains different language.
soooooo.... now you're the idiot with the bull horn
. law professor's analysis. also, you can just READ them, butttttt... roar of the crowd and all that right?
EPPS: There's a couple of key differences. The law in Indiana explicitly applies to private lawsuits. So, for example, a discrimination lawsuit between two individuals would be covered by the terms of the Indiana law. And there's still disagreement in the federal courts about whether the federal law does cover that and the text is silent.
SIEGEL: By what you mean, if somebody sues me and says I discriminated against her...
EPPS: Correct.
SIEGEL: ...And I say no, under my religious beliefs, I can't do business with or hire that kind of person, in that private lawsuit, the Indiana law - I might be able to use that as a shield.
EPPS: Yes, you could use it as a defense.
SIEGEL: In other states you can't do that?
EPPS: No. The leading case on this is a case called Elane Photography v. Willock out of New Mexico. And that was a case where a commercial photo studio wouldn't shoot a gay wedding. And when the couple sued the studio, the New Mexico Supreme Court said no, our law only applies against the government 'cause it had the standard language. And so the studio lost, and then this language found its way into the Indiana statute.
I agree with Blue. There shouldn't be a need for a law when the Constitution is clear. The only reason I can think of that a state would want to create this type of legislation, is to get a jump on an impending "anti-bigotry" legislation that they perceive as a future possibility.
since when does the Constitution define a "basic right" as being able to get what you want, whenever you want, from whomever you want and over their objections? This pizza place won't cater your reception because you are gay...;then go find one who will. but no, you want to stir up a stink, file a lawsuit and get on CNN. Andy Wartwhole. If I don't want to serve you a sammich because you have gross tats and have not bathed since Christmas, and you are a disgusting sight that causes other patrons to leave.....I cant do that? But do it to a person of color.....I don't think so. And then you imply some moral equivalence between someone refusing to sell you a piece of pizza and to a doctor refusing to deliver a baby.....Good grief.
I totally agree with this^. We go out of our way to cater to the gay community. A seperate issue is the freedom to do/not to do so. People should be allowed to do business with whoever they want. Let their business live or die in the marketplace. In essence, we should be a country where being an idiot is protected. I personally would bake the cake/arrange the flowers/deliver the pizza. However, if Thelma who goes to the independent baptist church thinks she's sinning by doing so, she shouldn't be sued or fined or forced.
No, 1Clemzunfan. That's not what it means AT ALL.
The Constitution says that CONGRESS can't pass a law establishing a NATIONAL RELIGION (and at the time, they meant denomination).
That does NOT keep states or even counties from doing it, even though the Supreme (sic) court says they can't.
As a matter of historical fact, when the Constitution was ratified, 3 states had laws establishing tax-supported State denominations, and NO ONE EVER said that was unconstitutional. If it had been, those state probably would NEVER have joined the Union.
You started out strong, then completely crapped the bed.
First, you argue that businesses should have the right to discriminate and that the market will work all that out. And here, you are correct.
Then, you state that Massachusetts shouldn't "ram their choice down the throats" of southern states regarding legalization of gay marriage. Why do businesses have the right to do what they want, but southern gay citizens don't? Why make legislation that prevents gays from being able to marry? That's bigotry. If you don't like gay marriage, then protest against it. Pay for billboards that denounce it. But DON"T LEGISLATE. It's an injustice. It's unfair. It's bigotry.
You misunderstood my point. The citizens of the State of Massachusetts approved Gay Marriage. Fine. My point was that their choice, in essence the laws they CHOSE to change should not thus apply to the other States.
I simply mentioned said States of California, South Carolina, and Georgia because their citizens were overwhelmingly against gay marriage, but due to legislation from the bench, they had Massachusetts values rammed down their throats.
Unless the people CHOOSE to allow gay marriage in their respective States, the status quo( ie. no new Legislation) is ongoing......in other words, until the people overwhelmingly approve, marriage remains the traditional model of one man/one woman.
Similar threads
