Makes sense.
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Arizona passes bill protecting religious freedom of business owners
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThis indemnifies business owners from any state lawsuits that arise from their discriminatory actions, just as long as they say they are acting upon a sincere religious belief.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostCan you show where SB1063 actually indemnifies business owners simply on the basis of their "claim" that they are acting upon a sincere religious belief?"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
I really think you're oversimplifying this, Sam.... in D, I think you're overlooking the clause "in a judicial proceeding".... "Noun 1. judicial proceeding - a legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal..."
Both sides will file briefs, and it would stand to reason that that the complainant's counsel will seek to establish whether the defendant's religious beliefs are legitimate.
I really don't think you can claim that a defendant can simply say "it was my religious belief", and the law suit will be automatically dismissed.Last edited by Cow Poke; 02-22-2014, 09:47 PM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostSo, unless the plaintiff can sufficiently demonstrate those three clauses I mentioned before, all the defendant need do is assert that they were acting upon a sincere religious belief and they are protected from legal action.
In addition, section E clearly states...
E. For the purposes of this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
There is no difference, or at the very least no operative difference between discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and discrimination on the basis of race. On this I agree with Outis.
Originally posted by Probably Sparkohomosexuality is a behavior, not a race. So don't compare the two.
Neither courts nor businessmen, however, can reliably make that distinction, so banning any form of discrimination outside of federal hiring is stupid.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI really think you're oversimplifying this, Sam.... in D, I think you're overlooking the clause "in a judicial proceeding".... "Noun 1. judicial proceeding - a legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal..."
Both sides will file briefs, and it would stand to reason that that the complainant's counsel will seek to establish whether the defendant's religious beliefs are legitimate.
I really don't think you can claim that a defendant can simply say "it was my religious belief", and the law suit will be automatically dismissed."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostI never said that. I said days ago that the government or another party would have to prove in court those three clauses. Nevertheless, the discriminating party is"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostI never said that. I said days ago that the government or another party would have to prove in court those three clauses. Nevertheless, the discriminating party is
Anyway, I was just curious about your very narrow and determined reading of this law. No biggie.
Carry on!Last edited by Cow Poke; 02-22-2014, 10:19 PM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostHow many times have you actually been in court, Sam? Once again, it's talking "a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding", which would indicate that the "suing" had already taken place.
Anyway, I was just curious about your very narrow and determined reading of this law. No biggie.
Carry on!"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostIt's not a narrow reading. It's pretty much explicitly stated right there in the text.
I've been in court enough times to know the difficultly in proving that evidence reaches the bar of being "compelling." That's just a shade under "beyond reasonable doubt."
Anyone can sue. Indemnification doesn't mean that you can't be sued. In this case, it means that you're protected from damages stemming from the expression of your religious beliefs. So if someone -does- sue you for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding and you claim a sincere religious belief, you are protected from damages stemming from the expression of that belief, even if it is discriminatory.
Baking a cake for a gay wedding is a far cry from serving a meal in a restaurant. I'd be 100% FOR defending somebody's religious beliefs in not baking the wedding cake for a gay wedding, because there's pretty much the implicit approval of the gay wedding.
I would be AGAINST a restaurant refusing to serve somebody a meal solely because they're gay.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWell, NOW we're GETTING somewhere! All the furor isn't over "baking a cake" for somebody, Sam. The hyperventilation seems to be some wild hare fear that this means that restaurants are going to refuse to serve a meal to a gay person, just because they're gay.
Baking a cake for a gay wedding is a far cry from serving a meal in a restaurant. I'd be 100% FOR defending somebody's religious beliefs in not baking the wedding cake for a gay wedding, because there's pretty much the implicit approval of the gay wedding.
I would be AGAINST a restaurant refusing to serve somebody a meal solely because they're gay."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
to the fearmongerer, sure.
Whether any of us would be against a restaurant refusing to serve gay individuals isn't really relevant
Yeah, and how long do you think that would really last? How long do you think such an establishment would stay in business?
So if you're very much against a restaurant refusing to serve a meal to a gay individual, you're very much against the implications of this bill.
Yes, and I think you grossly misrepresented the teachings of Paul on the "weaker brother" concept.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 08:13 PM
|
5 responses
28 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 09:35 PM
|
||
Started by eider, Yesterday, 12:12 AM
|
8 responses
70 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Yesterday, 11:25 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-15-2024, 12:53 PM
|
35 responses
169 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 10:43 PM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 06-14-2024, 08:57 PM
|
60 responses
314 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 03:19 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 06-14-2024, 11:25 AM
|
53 responses
313 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 11:27 AM
|
Comment