I fear you may be correct. I still strive to change your mind. If nothing more, I would hope that you would think about what is actually going on. One side is advocating freedom and choice. The other side is advocating restrictions to freedoms and choice because it is the right thing to do.
I like to think of it this way.
Should someone who has strongly held feelings and beliefs be allowed to take action by refusing service to specific type of American.
I've lived in this country for all of my life and to accept the idea that the constitution is for every single individual in this country, except gays, sounds so abhorrently fascist and wrong.
To accept that those who want take that action against gays (please don't deny that isn't exactly what these laws are) while crying it's they who are being oppressed and only need the government off of there backs so they can practice their prejudice with ease is like something out of Orwell or Bizzaro dlrow.
One side is advocating freedom and choice. The other side is advocating restrictions to freedoms and choice because it is the right thing to do.
No one is stripping anyone's freedom to choose to be a bigot. One is free to yell 'Bible done say gays bad!' from the mountaintop. They can have anti-gay parades, the whole nine.
But you don't have the freedom to refuse service to someone because of something they have no control over, or any other protected status such as religion.
When we have an entire city nicknamed Chiraq, you know it's a problem.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Here's a good stir the pot question; Are all men and women truly created equal? If so the debate ends, if not... Lucy you have some splaining to do.
physically? no.
mentality? yes...some might say they're better.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The free market certainly is efficient in handling social problems.
We don't have much the resembles a free market, but I would argue that traditionally private enterprise and commerce fail to handle social problems (though shouldn't be their responsibility to).
That's what makes this refreshing.
And I think the impact of social media can't be ignored, if only as means to drive home the fact that the majority of the population rejects this kind of nonsense this bill opened the door to.
A good discussion on this topic can be found here.
In it, we get to hear some of the thinking behind the bill, some good pro/con discussion about how/why it came to pass, with some feedback from real-time listeners as well.
I really like this show, and check it out often. Why? Because it's always civil, controlled and fairly executed. The host is one of the best moderators I've encountered. He even treats the call-in listeners with the same respect as the invited guests.
In this installment, Ashbrook's guests are:
Stephanie Wang, reporter for the Indianapolis Star Steve Sanders, law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington. Ryan McCann, director of operations and public policy at the Indiana Family Institute, a public policy advocacy organization. Dominic Holden, national LGBT reporter for BuzzFreed News.
__________________
It's worth your time to listen to this broadcast. It spells out many things that haven't been touched on in the standard media outlets. A good resource for a more detailed discussion.
Here we have Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business stating at the 1:55 mark of this video, this law clearly is a license to discriminate because it says you can refuse to do business with anyone you want as long as you have a religious basis for that refusal.
I fear you may be correct. I still strive to change your mind. If nothing more, I would hope that you would think about what is actually going on. One side is advocating freedom and choice. The other side is advocating restrictions to freedoms and choice because it is the right thing to do.
I like to think of it this way.
Should someone who has strongly held feelings and beliefs be allowed to take action by refusing service to specific type of American.
I've lived in this country for all of my life and to accept the idea that the constitution is for every single individual in this country, except gays, sounds so abhorrently fascist and wrong.
I never advocated for gays to not have the same rights everyone else does. I hope you are not transferring you fears onto anything I have said. I hope there is never any discrimination at all. I am only advocating that in order to stop discrimination you advocate restricting all people's Constitutional rights. I am not willing nor am I able to give up my Constitutional rights so that discrimination can be righted. No sir I am not willing to do that.
Quote:
To accept that those who want take that action against gays (please don't deny that isn't exactly what these laws are) while crying it's they who are being oppressed and only need the government off of there backs so they can practice their prejudice with ease is like something out of Orwell or Bizzaro dlrow.
I think you mean to say to take inaction because that is what is being discussed, to take NO action in support of anything that violates a citizens Constitutional Right to religious freedom. The view you seem to take is that action is needed to be taken by the government to force a citizen to support a violation of their religious freedoms.
[quote=Voleur] One side is advocating freedom and choice. The other side is advocating restrictions to freedoms and choice because it is the right thing to do.
Quote:
No one is stripping anyone's freedom to choose to be a bigot. One is free to yell 'Bible done say gays bad!' from the mountaintop. They can have anti-gay parades, the whole nine.
But you don't have the freedom to refuse service to someone because of something they have no control over, or any other protected status such as religion.
We pretty much settled that in the 60's.
PDR, I am not sure are you calling me a bigot because I do not agree with your point of view? I think that when the government gets into the interpersonal relationships of its citizens and then chooses one side over the other on the basis of a perceived or real injustice, by restricting one citizen's right to religious freedom does not solve anything. In fact, it does harm to not only the side the government chooses to be against, it harms the side it chooses to be on. When one liberty and freedom is violated by the government, all freedoms are violated even those of the person siding with the government.
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'. . . . If the Supreme Court rules on something, it becomes the law of the land, which your rights are indeed tied to.
Not that it could happen, but I believe the States can say 'nuh-uh as a group. Constitutional Convention and Amending. Not that it will happen, but I believe it could in theory.
PDR, I am not sure are you calling me a bigot because I do not agree with your point of view?
I don't know who you are or what our viewpoint is.
What I'm saying is that a citizen is not entitled to have their moral beliefs catered to in a public forum, more specifically in business transactions.
If you run a hamburger shop that's open to the public, then you can't refuse service to someone because they're black or gay.
This was decided a long time ago. That's how it works. Pretty much end of story. One may not like that, but that's how we do things in America.
This whole situation has been a pleasure to watch unfold in the last few days, and in the end, it may be a death knell for the anti-gay movement's power.
That power had been harnessed in the past by the GOP as a tool to attract voters. They don't truly believe in Christian values - it just had political capital. And now that the corporate world is rejecting such bigotry, and it's a hinderance to profit margins, the GOP will be slowly backing away even more than they've begun to.
It won't happen overnight, but mark my words, the anti-gay movement in American politics is wheezing right now. It's on its way out.
I think you mean to say to take inaction because that is what is being discussed, to take NO action in support of anything that violates a citizens Constitutional Right to religious freedom. The view you seem to take is that action is needed to be taken by the government to force a citizen to support a violation of their religious freedoms.
Well this law takes the action of guaranteeing legal discrimination based on sexual orientation.
No matter how many times you try to claim those who have religious beliefs are being oppressed by the government the truth is the government has just acted to provide a right for religion based discrimination.
We differ in our perception of truth.
I believe the truth is there is no constitutional right to Religious Freedom that allows discrimination, but this law wants to create one.
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'. . . . If the Supreme Court rules on something, it becomes the law of the land, which your rights are indeed tied to.
Not that it could happen, but I believe the States can say 'nuh-uh as a group. Constitutional Convention and Amending. Not that it will happen, but I believe it could in theory.
I agree.
I was speaking more in terms of practical reality.
A religious person refusing to sell food to a homosexual in a public restaurant isn't a religious freedom. It's being a bigot, and restricting the rights of others, and the highest court will most certainly uphold that.
You may disagree with that philosophically, I'm just explaining how things work in practical reality.
So pretend I'm a white bar-n-grill owner in Indy. My religious convictions are that races should not co-mingle and interracial relationships of any kind are against my beliefs. Could I hang a sign that says "Whites Only"?
Washington (CNN)Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he does not plan to sign the religious freedom bill that sits on his desk right now, instead asking state lawmakers to make changes so the bill mirrors federal law.
The first-term Republican governor said he wants his state "to be known as a state that does not discriminate but understands tolerance."
His decision comes in the wake of an uproar in Indiana, where Gov. Mike Pence has faced pressure from businesses, sports associations like the NCAA and popular culture figures to backtrack on a similar religious freedom law he signed last week. In Arkansas, it's been Walmart applying the most pressure.
Hutchinson asked lawmakers to recall the law that the Arkansas House had given final approval on Tuesday -- or to send him follow-up legislation that makes the changes he requested.
Meanwhile, Hutchinson said, he's considering signing an executive order that bars discrimination among the state's workforce.
"The issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions," Hutchinson said. "It has divided families, and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue."
READ: Who is Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson?
Case in point, Hutchinson said: His son Seth signed a petition asking him to veto the bill -- and also gave his father permission to tell reporters he'd done so.
Hutchinson said he supports Arkansas adding a religious freedom law to its books -- but he wants it to directly mirror the federal version that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993.
"We wanted to have it crafted similar to what is at the federal level," Hutchinson said. "To do that, though, changes need to be made. The bill that is on my desk at the present time does not precisely mirror the federal law."
Hutchinson is the latest Republican governor to back away from religious freedom measures in the wake of Indiana's controversy. North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said earlier this week that such a law "makes no sense."
That leaves Pence alone as the public face of the issue -- and it complicates the issue for 2016 Republican candidates, too, who'd backed Pence but now will face questions about Hutchinson's position.
Likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton seized on the issue, urging Hutchinson to veto the bill.
The perils Arkansas faces were made clear Tuesday morning when Pence insisted he'd "fix" Indiana's law to make sure it doesn't allow businesses like Christian florists or bakers to turn away gay and lesbian customers -- which the bill's conservative supporters had said was one of their chief goals.
"Was I expecting this kind of backlash? Heavens no," Pence said.
Following Indiana, Arkansas has become the second of what could be a spate of states to add religious freedom laws to their books this year. There are 14 other states considering similar proposals this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Advocates of the measures insist they're simply mimicking what the federal government did under Clinton, and what 19 other states had already done.
But the context has changed. The Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling that could legalize same-sex marriage across the United States -- and social conservatives have come to view religious freedom laws as the next frontier in the culture clash over gay rights.
And Indiana's fight exposed another problem: Gays and lesbians lack the shield that a state anti-discrimination law that includes protections based on sexual orientation would offer -- and Pence has said he's not interested in changing that.
Making social conservatives' case harder is the intense opposition from business communities. In Arkansas, home-state giant Walmart was a leading critic of the religious freedom bill.
The other states where religious freedom bills have been introduced are Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Those efforts have stalled, though, in North Carolina and Georgia.
A Georgia bill hit a roadblock when a House member successfully amended anti-discrimination language into it.
So pretend I'm a white bar-n-grill owner in Indy. My religious convictions are that races should not co-mingle and interracial relationships of any kind are against my beliefs. Could I hang a sign that says "Whites Only"?
Slippery slope this one...
Or somebody who won't rent to a couple that are living together and not married or one of them were divorced or a doctor who won't treat a child that was conceived out of wedlock. Depending which belief someone would want to cherry pick this could be a very slippery slope
So pretend I'm a white bar-n-grill owner in Indy. My religious convictions are that races should not co-mingle and interracial relationships of any kind are against my beliefs. Could I hang a sign that says "Whites Only"?
Slippery slope this one...
It is a very slippery slope (not because gays should or shouldn't be treated fairly, obviously they should) but because the flip side to it is, how much do you want the government to be able to dictate how you run a business?
Step by step ending and preventing Viewpoint discrinmination against Christians and others who respectfully disagree with certain types of lifestyles, I would hope, (but I doubt it)!
[quote=Voleur]PDR, I am not sure are you calling me a bigot because I do not agree with your point of view?
I don't know who you are or what our viewpoint is.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that a citizen is not entitled to have their moral beliefs catered to in a public forum, more specifically in business transactions.
I did not realize that having the public do nothing is now catering to a citizen's religious freedom. The public does not have to do anything at all. Please explain to me what the public must do that amounts to catering?
Quote:
If you run a hamburger shop that's open to the public, then you can't refuse service to someone because they're black or gay.
This was decided a long time ago. That's how it works. Pretty much end of story. One may not like that, but that's how we do things in America.
I believe the problem began when the government tried to fix past discrimination against part of its citizenry by awarding post-Constitutional rights to them that do nothing more than to diminish their rights as citizens of the USA and diminishes the rights of all American citizens by advancing the idea that the government is the power behind its citizens rights. Even if you do not agree with my assessment, apparently it is not the end of the story or this would not be an issue now.
Quote:
This whole situation has been a pleasure to watch unfold in the last few days, and in the end, it may be a death knell for the anti-gay movement's power.
I believe you do not understand the basis for which I support the law. You have attempted to place upon me a nasty and scandalous motive of being anti-gay. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is I am pro-liberty for all my fellow Americans. Instead of accepting my motives as honorable or misguided even, you state them as hateful and bigoted. I am offended that you feel no need to grant unto your fellow citizen the courtesy of respectfully disagreeing with your point of view.
Quote:
That power had been harnessed in the past by the GOP as a tool to attract voters. They don't truly believe in Christian values - it just had political capital. And now that the corporate world is rejecting such bigotry, and it's a hinderance to profit margins, the GOP will be slowly backing away even more than they've begun to.
It won't happen overnight, but mark my words, the anti-gay movement in American politics is wheezing right now. It's on its way out.
Yet another attack on my integrity, morality, and intelligence by saying I am really a tool of the GOP. I feel now that you are calling me a ignorant, self righteous, Bible thumping, neanderthal bigot. I thought it was a intelligent debate about different view points.
"Viewpoint discrimination" is a great way to describe this.
And, yes, that's what's happening, and you're not protected from it.
You have the right to express your views. You do not have the right for them to be taken seriously, or for society to accommodate them to the point of denying equal rights to other members of the population.
Nonsensical and/or ancient Christian viewpoints are being taken less and less seriously everyday. And it's not persecution. It's enlightenment.
Nowhere does it say that society has to humor your nonsense,
Religious freedom and economic freedom should be different or should we end tax exemption for churches?
They are equally important and should never be separated. If I do not have the freedom to possess property, both tangible and intangible, other than by the consent of the State, I do not own anything. I am only a caretaker of what is essentially the government's. If I am unable to have the freedom to own property, to create my own way in the world without the consent of the government, I cannot freely practice my religious beliefs without the consent of the government either because the government could take from me the ability to make a living. One cannot exist without the other. Tyrants know this. They wish to seize your liberties and in return you have no freedom. You are in essence property of the state.
In the end, your denial of service has to have a logical or legitimate reason behind it.
Is obesity and personal health a legitimate reason for the government to mandate that I can't sell a Snickers bar and a Coke to a 400 lb dude?
or is concern for your financial future a legitimate reason to mandate that I can't sell multiple lottery tickets to somebody who looks poor?
is concern for the common health a legitimate reason to mandate that I can't sell sodas over 16 ounces? Oh wait...
is concern for the common good a legitimate reason to mandate that a guy has to move his family business to make room for a bigger "better" store that will generate more tax revenue? Wait again...
The more latitude we give government to dictate how we run our businesses the more mandates they will make. Eventually they will start creating mandates that you don't like.. but they will seem like common sense to others...
Step by step ending and preventing Viewpoint discrinmination against Christians and others who respectfully disagree with certain types of lifestyles, I would hope, (but I doubt it)!
Christians who have studied and learned the ways of our Lord have an understanding that God is love and He is slow to anger. This great Nation of ours has had God's blessing from the beginning as we overcame the worlds superpowers and created a great land where we were free to worshiped His name freely. As time went by, our Nation has turned away from God's teachings and has become less moral. Sin is now a right, life and death of our children has become an economic decision and good people are punished for trying to keep our most favored Nation status with our Lord.
Christians know there is a tipping point with God. When he has had enough and angers. We will know when the tipping point has been reached by the signs of the times. The fabric of our society will fray, sin will become the norm and our great Nation will decline. Nothing we do will be able to stop that decline. I am wondering if we will be dominated by the Muslim Religion as we become unable to stop their radicals from taking power. Our great might will fail us as we fight a people who devote their hearts, minds and lives to the very same God we worship. Perhaps they have already gained His favor and we have earned His wrath. Only time will tell. God is Greater! God is Greater! Allahu Akbar!
You may want to brush up on the NAP (Non-aggression principle) That is basically what I am reiterating over and over again.
Property is property. For example we can all agree no one has a right to your kidney right? You are free to give it away to someone. I believe you should be free to sell it as well but that is another discussion entirely. (It would be a pretty risky idea)
A person's house is their property as well. We can all agree to that right? No one can just come into your house. You are free to invite people in as you choose. There is no law forcing religious people to let homosexuals into their houses.
Time is a person's property. We can all agree you are free to spend your time as you wish right? (so long as you don't violate others property) There is no law forcing religious people to spend their time advocating for LGBT rights or talking about LGBT theories.
Money is a person's property. You can spend it as you wish, give it away, but no one can take it from you without your consent right? (Assuming it's not like, you hit them with your car and don't want to pay kind of thing) There are no laws forcing religious people to spend their money supporting LGBT advocacy groups or buy LGBT supportive products.
So the question then becomes, is a business your property? Certainly a lot of time and money go into it from the owner. We know those are their property. We know the building of the business is a building just like a house. But the key difference is the intention of a business is selling goods. Honestly let me scrap that. A building is not essential, you could be a freelance caterer or cake designer etc with no public access to any building.
So if we agree that no one has a legal right to your time or your money. Why is it that in the business realm a person can not refuse to spend their time and money with people they dislike or disapprove of?
The morality becomes very very different if the person is an EMT, a surgeon, or the person they disapprove of is drowning or starving. In situations of life or death things are different from what we are describing. This is also where things like grocery stores get tricky, and i'm more flexible on that topic than I am on smaller things like florists etc.
But how can we possibly argue that someone should be fined or arrested (and possibly shot if they resist arrest) for discrimination, when we already agree their time and their money is theirs to spend as they please? Why do we find discrimination so abhorrent that we are willing to punish these people with violence?
The alternative to violence is discrimination.
We discriminate against people we don't like. We don't go to these businesses. We give them horrible yelp reviews. The NCAA pulls out of Indiana. Ironically yelp pulled out of Indiana. We can have immense social power through ostracism and discrimination without ever needing to violate anyones property rights. We protest, we turn public opinion so strongly against irrational people that they can not flourish that they think to themselves "well a lot of people are really really mad at me, they hate me, is what I am doing wrong?"
It doesn't always work on the adults. But it sure as hell can have a powerful impact over the course of a generation. My grandmother is semi-bigoted, as were many of our grandmothers. But that stopped because it became socially disapproved.
We are fighting against discrimination by using the power of discrimination. Outside of violence it is the most powerful tool humanity has ever developed. Discrimination is what determines where money goes. Discrimination deciding is where social approval and love go.
Violence isn't an answer here. If we accept people's time and money are their property to spend non-violently...we can not just take it from them morally. We can protest and try to change their minds like MLK and all other pacifists we venerate as heroes. We do not venerate the people who have used violence.
MLK's dream was not one of caring about political power and business practices. “I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls.” It was about changing social opinion peacefully through protest, through the use of language, through powerful arguments, and by repeatedly pointing out the truth. It was all language and discriminating against irrational and bigoted beliefs that said we weren't equal and didn't have the same humanity.
