DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Gov. Mike Pence signs 'religious freedom' bill in private

I tend to, personally, agree with you that all sin is sin. That is how the Bible says that God views it, so I do my best to also try to see it that way. I fail, though. I see certain things as more horrible than others. As a human I cannot, for example, see murder as the same as telling a lie. That is what the Bible says though .... that all sin offends God, and all sin leads to death for us.

However, as human beings, we all make decisions based upon what we personally see as more, or less offensive. I see homosexuality as on a par with adultery, or other sexual sins. I have come to this view through what I have read in the Bible. Living together outside of marriage is a sexual sin, as is premarital sex. I do not see any as better, or worse than the others. I would not want to take actions that would encourage any such actions that the Bible says are sinful. I do agree with you that we should speak out against all sinful lifestyles, and do our best to help people escape from them.

We all discriminate about the actions of other people, based on what we see as moral, or right. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. Is it always "fair"? Of course not. We each have our own moral code, and sometimes we overlap with others around us, and other times we don't. Does that make one person right, and the other wrong? If so, then who decides? Who decides what people are allowed to believe, and what they are not allowed to believe?

A judge in Washington state ruled this week that a 70-year-old florist who declined to make flower arrangements for a gay couple’s wedding violated the state’s anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws.

In a phone interview with The Daily Signal, Barronelle Stutzman said the decision—and its accompanying fines—will put her flower shop out of business, or worse.

After the fines and legal fees, “There won’t be anything left,” Stutzman said.

“They want my home, they want my business, they want my personal finances as an example for other people to be quiet.”

Stutzman owns Arlene’s Flowers, which is a small flower shop in Richland, Wash. She has been in the industry for over 40 years, for the most part serving customers regardless of their sexual orientation.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/20/state-...eres-responded/

Because the Supreme Court doesn't have to look over its shoulders every few years and worry about getting fired because of unpopular decisions.

Historically, the SC is usually the branch that makes the 'right' or 'just' decision, because they don't have to worry about getting fired for their verdicts.

It's a double-edged sword, but the result is usually positive rather than negative.

Access to someone elses property is NOT a right.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Here is an explanation on consent:

If you want someone to do a job for you, but they do not want to and are forced to anyways - Slavery.

If you want someone to have sex with you, but they do not want to and are forced to anyways - Rape.

If you want to someones money/property, but they do not want to give/trade it with you but are forced to anyways - Theft

For every person forced serve people they do not wish to serve, they are a slave for that period of time.

Refute this. Think about this and try to refute it.

And if we are having a debate and not just sharing our opinions back and forth...explain to me how you are arguing for the validity of slavery because people are religious. Explain to me how forcing a person to do something they don't want to do is anything but slavery/rape/theft.

A judge, aka the government, decided that a citizen of the USA does not have her Constitutional rights because he/she ruled the politicians, read "government", decided they would pass a law taking a person's Constitutional rights from them. The judge is not fit to serve as a judge. Their whole purpose is to protect the citizen's rights from the government. Any anti-discrimination law is unconstitutional in my opinion because they act not to uphold rights but to restrict them. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin, and I paraphrase, "He who gives up liberty for temporary security, deserves neither."

He who gives up their liberty for a gay wedding cake or florist arrangement deserves neither liberty or the freedom to have cake and flowers.

That is incorrect PDR. The Supreme Court does not have any special powers to keep their biases from their decisions anymore than a politician. Who is it that oversees the judicial overseers? The Constitution bounds all branches of government. If the Supreme Court takes it upon itself to rule you have no freedom of speech, would you accept that ruling? What would keep them from doing so? You cannot pick and choose. You have the rights or you do not. The lifetime appointment of Supreme Court may have been an attempt to take politics from the decisions of the court. It cannot make the Supreme Court any wiser. The Supreme Court should rule only on cases that challenge the Constitutionality of laws. It should not determine new Rights or restrict other Rights. I do not leave my right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion to 9 members in black robes. Usurping of power by the judiciary is nothing I want. Star Chamber anyone?

1) They do, in fact, have the 'special power' of a lifetime appointment.

2) If this is incorrect, why do you feel that the Supreme Court, far, far, far, far, far more than any other branch of government consistently sees justices making decisions that are antithetical to the ideologies they portrayed when they had to face elections?



You very much do, whether you like it or not.

For better or worse, they're the final arbiters of Constituionality.

It is not a power. It is the term of sitting on the Supreme Court. This can be changed through an amendment.



First, I do not know what you mean by "why do you feel"? Secondly, I can only speculate on the motives of the justices. Thirdly, I am certain no Supreme Court judge has to face election. They face a confirmation process by the Senate.



The Supreme Court does not have the final say. The states can override Supreme Court rulings. The states can amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court has lost it's way in my opinion. Any time a Supreme Court case accepts case law as a basis for ruling instead of the Constitution, they have lost their authority. It is not about what I like or do not like. It is about my rights. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past, things we would never accept today to be Constitutional. No ruling from the Supreme Court can take my rights from me. The government can only do what the people submit to. If the Supreme Court rules that I must bake a cake or make a floral arrangement against my will, I will not make a floral arrangement or bake a cake. My rights are still intact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

For example, in a few weeks, the Supreme Court is going to rule banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

And that's ball game.

States won't be able to say 'nuh-uh'.



It sounds like you're describing how you wish things to be as you view them from your personal ideology, and not how things work in actual, practical reality.

If the Supreme Court rules on something, it becomes the law of the land, which your rights are indeed tied to.

I have zero problem comprehending your opinion. It's been entirely obvious. No problem.

The point I keep making, and some refuse to accept, is that this legislation is religious based and I'm waiting to see what will happen when the courts get involved because I see it as legalized discrimination.

I get it. You don't think it's wrong at all.

I understand that many people are OK with the law, but it's pretty obvious there's a lot who are concerned about Indiana and other states who have created religious freedom legislation.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said Sunday that a new state law that attempts to protect long-standing religious freedoms “is not about discrimination” and that he and other state lawmakers do not intend to change the legislation.

Pence, a Republican, said the legislation that he signed last week prohibits Indiana laws that "substantially burden" a person's ability to follow his or her religious beliefs.

The definition of "person" includes religious institutions, businesses and associations, which is being interpreted as allowing a cake maker, for example, to legally refuse an order for a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Pence told ABC's "This Week” the original federal law is more than 20 years old and that the purpose of the new Indiana one is to expand individual rights for those who feel government has impinged on their personal rights.

“This is not about discrimination,” he said. “This is about empowering people to confront government overreach.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/...oing-to-change/

This was written by the staffs of FOX News and the Associated Press. These are not your words.

It would have taken you - quite literally - no more than three seconds at most to copy and paste a citation to avoid plagarism and a violation of board rules.

Bingo.

This is wildly incorrect by any definition.

'Serfdom' could work, loosely, if you're looking to make it a one word drive home.

'Living in a totalitarian state' would be the best description for the particular point you're attempting to make.

But if you're compensated monetarily at a set rate that conforms to state or federal standards, it's not slavery.

Of all the places on the planet, America is the last place that should trivialize the word.

Slavery is being someone else's property.

Let's not forget that.

Indiana's "religious freedom" law has been misunderstood and is an example of everything that is wrong in politics, former Hewlett-Packard Chairman and CEO Carly Fiorina told CNBC on Monday.

The legislation, signed last week, has sparked an outcry from critics who say it could give businesses the right to refuse service to gay people.

"I think everybody needs to sort of step back and cool off here and look at the facts, on both sides," said Fiorina, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination.

She told "Closing Bell" the bill, which is based on a national law President Bill Clinton signed, is not about protecting discrimination, but safeguarding religious liberty.

"Basically what this law says is that someone can have a remedy against the federal government for imposing on their religious beliefs."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102546993

Thank you.

Citation of things that you did not write is a board policy that 99% of us have abided by for a decade plus.

I know I can be be condescending, but I'm being serious in this instance - you should have no reason to feel that these rules don't apply to you as well. You're not above them.

Please cite things that you didn't write. Someone took the time to think about what they said, prepared it, wrote it, edited it etc.

If you agree with their point, the least you can do is acknowledge that they wrote it. They took the time to do the work.

This isn't an opinion of mine. I'm presenting a philosophical truth and asking to see if you can dismantle it logically.

This is a 1 + 1 = 2 situation, not an opinion situation.

You are arguing it is okay to use force against non-violent people. Defend your position.

You are using words like religion and discrimination. I personally am not religious nor do I discriminate. I don't think these are good things. But I think they are lesser evils than you trying to arrest people for acting on their beliefs non-violently.

Don't go waving guns around at people just because you dislike their actions and beliefs.

And I agree this is a religiously motivated law. Because religious people are the ones being persecuted here. The fact that we disagree with their beliefs doesn't mean we can go around arresting them for being non-violent.

I don't have a better word for it beyond temporary slavery.

Extortion?

The compensation issue really doesn't matter. You could pay slaves all you like, but if they aren't free to leave and make their own choices they are still slaves. Paying someone you raped doesn't turn them into a prostitute.

I agree slavery is being polemic but I don't have a better word for it. We have words for rape, kidnapping, theft, but nothing comes to mind to me for this situation. I am trying to point out to people what is happening here falls into the same category as rape, slavery, and theft.

I would prefer to leave the philosophy debate to those who will most effect the situation.

As far as discrimination?

Of course it's discrimination. A specific type of religiously offensive person will be denied service where others wont.

No matter your philosophy that's discrimination.

You do better when explaining why a specific type of religious person doesn't want to serve a specific type of American, but it doesn't change the meaning of discrimination.

"Basically what this law says is that someone can have a remedy against the federal government for imposing on their religious beliefs."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102546993

No, they aren't. Not in the slightest.

If I owned a restaurant, and decided I didn't want to serve Italians, and I got sued or put out of business because of that fact, I wouldn't be 'persecuted' when I was told to knock it off, I would be told that my clownish viewpoint doesn't matter in the face of reason.

I've read your thoughts on this thread, and in my opinion, I see a whole lot of rational thought spiked with the occasional 'what the hell is he talking about?'

There are plenty of ways to legally discriminate. Don't want bikers in your bar? Create a space that's antithetical to bikers. Don't hang a sign that says 'no bikers'.

Want to not serve gays? Make up a lie that says your business can't do it. Overbooked. Broken machine. Whatever.

But when you just blurt out 'I's don't likes gays/blacks/whatever 'cause I said so!', without anything backed by logic or reason, expect the society to say 'nah, can't do that'.

If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for gays, there's a million plausible outs. What they are choosing to do is make an ideological statement against someone for something that person cannot control, and that doesn't fly in enlightenment.

It doesn't fly if I don't serve Muslims or blacks or gays because of that sole fact in a civilized society. It flies less and less every day, and the people defending this are not on the side that's winning.

There's a difference between freedom and being a dick.

I'm not arguing this isn't discrimination.

I am arguing that discrimination is non-violent and should not be an arrestable offense. Arresting non-violent people is indefensible philosophically. It is totalitarian.

If we want to go down the rabbit hole of why people discriminate against others that opens up a whole field of psychology.

If we want to go down the rabbit hole of why people want to arrest non-violent people that also opens up a whole field of psychology.

Defending bigots is no different from defending pot smokers and open homosexuals of the 50's (or whenever that was illegal).

It is about the principle of the matter, not what we prefer socially.

By using a state government to actually, physically, not spiritually impose religious beliefs on a certain segment of Americans.

The huge twisting tail spins to deny that this is state enforced total, obvious discrimination is troubling.

What will it take, a gay sit in at the chik-fila counter?

So which part of the Bill of Rights needs to be changed so that we can claim this discrimination is OK with Americans?

So your logic seems to be that the actions don't matter so long as people are willing to lie. As long as people lie about their beliefs and reasons for behavior they can act as they want. You are arguing against the virtues of honesty and integrity and pretending cowardice and manipulation are moral goods.

If you had the anti-italian restaurant... people aren't telling you to "knock it off". They are arresting you. If you defend yourself against an unjust arrest they can legally murder you. These laws are an excuse to murder bigots. And most people aren't willing to violently defend themselves, so it all just turns into lawsuits and fines. But the base of it is murdering bigots for their irrational beliefs.

Being a jerk is cured in a civilized society through moral condemnation, shunning, horrible yelp reviews, and the vast majority of people refusing to associate with them for their disgusting bigotry. Theoretically you can cure it by murdering everyone who holds a belief. I believe they've tried that before in a few places.

orsa

Where are the arrests here?

It's pretty much financially punishment.

As I've said...by all rational and constitutional accounts, you shouldn't be able to see or say 'no coloreds allowed'.

But you sure as hell can make a jukebox full of David Allan Coe and hang NASCAR posters everywhere.

What happens if you refuse to pay the fine?

You lose your business because you were the yokel who blurted out 'No gays!'.

For all of her flaws, America is decidedly anti-debtors prison if your only crime was inability to pay.

If you refuse to pay, your checks get docked. You don't go to jail.

(Unless you're black or there's priors).

Indeed, Apple itself has exercised this freedom (or is the proper word, according to Cook, “discrimination”?). After all, Apple removed the Manhattan Declaration app from its App Store. Apple decided that a Christian app bearing witness to the dignity of unborn life, the nature of marriage as the union of husband and wife and the centrality of religious liberty was incompatible with its mission. So they “discriminated” against the Manhattan Declaration.

No one suggested that this should be made illegal. Even if we thought it a misguided decision, we thought Apple should be free to decide its own values and live according to them.

Cook, however, sees no tension when he writes “Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love.” Apparently unless they are traditional Catholics, Evangelicals and Orthodox Christians who support the Manhattan Declaration. Then Apple’s message is “Apple is closed. Closed to those with beliefs we disapprove of.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/30/apple-...igious-freedom/

What if they can't get access to your bank account to take the money?

You're asking me a hypothetical in which the federal government cannot gain access my bank account?

My bank texts me when I fly to new states to ask if I'm buying things in California. If a government agent wanted to find you - Kingcob - he could narrow your whereabouts just based on the question you just posed to me.

Get real with yourself.

If the government wants your money, you lose.

And I'm not saying that's just, but don't paint it like a gulag.

Unless my money is in Switzerland, or I live a life of under-the-table, they got access to my paycheck.

What if your bank account is a bitcoin wallet?

For all the fun of pointing this out with hypotheticals.. you're advocating murdering bigots. You're willing to scrub out bigotry by any means possible. You're willing to crush someones business and unwilling to ponder what might happen if the government couldn't get its hands on their money. They would be arrested. If they resisted arrest they'd be shot.

I think it should be scrubbed out non-violently through education and social ostracism.

There really isn't much reason to debate the subject anymore. I'm never really sure if there is any justifyable reason to debate in the first place. People rarely change their opinions.

jc

I thought Christianity was following the teaching of God and Jesus?

Jesus accepted anybody regardless of sin.

So now you guys are better than Jesus?

Cool.

First Church of Cannabis takes advantage of Indiana’s new ‘religious freedom’ law
March 30, 2015
by Michael Stone 10 Comments

Indiana’s new anti-gay “religious freedom” law is already having unintended consequences: The First Church of Cannabis will soon be a sanctuary for pot smokers in Indiana who want to avoid the long arm of the law.

Marijuana is currently illegal in Indiana for both medical and recreational use. However, the new Religious Freedom Restoration Act prevents state government from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion, and The First Church of Cannabis has just been officially recognized by Indiana’s Secretary of State.

First Church of Cannabis founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that the church’s registration has been approved, writing:

Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana – “Congratulations your registration has been approved!” Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health.

Raw Story reports Indiana legislators, in their haste to protect the religious values and practices of their constituents, may have unwittingly put the state in an awkward position with those who profess to smoke pot as a religious sacrament.
According to attorney Abdul-Hakim Shabazz “as long as you can show that reefer is part of your religious practices” you should be legally protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

What ‘compelling interest’ would the state of Indiana have to prohibit me from using marijuana as part of my religious practice? I would argue marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and wine used in religious ceremonies. Marijuana isn’t anymore ‘addictive’ than alcohol and wine is used in some religious ceremonies. And marijuana isn’t any more of a ‘gateway’ drug than the wine used in a religious ceremony will make you go out any buy hard liquor. (At least not on Sunday.)

While it is amusing to think of the irony of mean-spirited conservative Christians paving the way for peace-loving pot-smokers to legally partake of the weed, Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is no laughing matter.

The new law is ugly, and is designed to permit conservative Christians to discriminate against LGBT people and others when such discrimination aligns with their “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Theoretically, the law would allow restaurants to refuse to serve gay or interracial couples, hotels could refuse to provide lodging for Jews, landlords could refuse to rent to African Americans, pharmacies could refuse to dispense birth control to women, and employers could fire anyone, so long as such behavior was justified by “sincerely held religious belief.”

As for the First Church of Cannabis: People should be free to smoke marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes without the need of joining a church to skirt the law.

The religious counter to that will be the analogy of enabling a drug user.

Shhhhh Don't let people know this is what I've been talking about

There is actually another Church that has been doing this for years legally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Daime#United_States

United States[edit]
In the United States, court battles over ritual use of ayahuasca have mostly been fought by the UDV, and practitioners of the Santo Daime doctrine are watching these events closely. So far, UDV has been able to continue practicing legally thanks to Supreme Court decisions that soundly rejected attempts by the government to prohibit it. As of September 2008, UDV is in negotiations with the Drug Enforcement Administration regarding regulation of their use of ayahuasca.[14][15]

In September 2008, the three Oregon Santo Daime churches filed suit in federal court to gain legal status.[16] Their trial ended January 23, 2009. The case, Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, presided over by Judge Owen M. Panner, is ruled in favor of the Santo Daime church.

In March 2009, Panner found that the use of hallucinogenic tea by members of such churches was legal, issuing an injunction barring the government from penalizing them for its consumption.

Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton are squinting to see your hyperbole that flies over the clouds above.

Like a beautiful unicorn it soars atop rainbows pooping on internet forums

Let's be serious though. People despise bigots and want to limit their freedoms. Every attempt to limit freedom through government is a death threat if other means to do so are avoided.

Shunning and ostracism... Did you see what the NCAA did? Have you seen the economic result of this law? People are discriminating against Indiana! What a beautiful thing non-violence can achieve.

You can skirt the law and be a bigot.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Indian is decidedly Christian, and deduce what they think about gays from there.

To use your NCAA analogy loosely, there's a difference between Calipari showering a recruit with money and yelling 'we paid him!' and pretending like you didn't.