I still don't understand the reasoning behind loopholes in a law for conflicting religious beliefs. If the law can afford these allowances, then is the law really needed?
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
Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostStarlight, I gather by your logic that you would be ok with, and defend, a business posting a sign saying "No Whites Allowed"?That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostI still don't understand the reasoning behind loopholes in a law for conflicting religious beliefs. If the law can afford these allowances, then is the law really needed?"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 Starlight View PostIt is right that all people should be able to live in a civilized society
Therefore it is right that all people should be free from being forced to to work for other people.
I'll be waiting with popcorn for when a Muslim business owner in Indiana refuses to serve a Christian customer. Presumably all hell will break lose, because, let's be very clear: the people supporting this legislation do not actually believe in freedom of religion, they believe in Christian superiority and the importance of Christians being able to enforce their religion on others.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why, specifically, you think this law is bad. (At most you are making an ad hominem fallacy here, attacking certain "people" supporting this legislation.)
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostI still don't understand the reasoning behind loopholes in a law for conflicting religious beliefs. If the law can afford these allowances, then is the law really needed?
However, the Indiana law that this thread is about does not carve out any loophole/allowance/exception to any particular law. It is a general protection of the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. How, specifically, is this law a bad law?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostStarlight, I gather by your logic that you would be ok with, and defend, a business posting a sign saying "No Whites Allowed"?
Here, in fact, the law goes a bit further and simply bans a long long list of any personal thing that might be the basis for discrimination. Business owners can still operate their businesses according to their beliefs and values: eg they can strive to be particularly environmentally friendly; or they can have particularly high standards for the humane treatment of animals etc. But when it comes to dealing with the public and their employees, they've got to treat people fairly and aren't allowed to be nasty on the basis of race or gender or any other personal attribute. I think that's good - I think the law should encourage fairness and good treatment of others, and I see no reason to try and maximize people's freedom to be personally nasty to others.
To deal directly with your example, a sign saying 'no whites allowed' is obviously vastly less harmful than 'no blacks allowed', because it doesn't play into an existing problem of cumulative harm caused by discrimination. Ample empirical evidence in the US shows that blacks are suffering significant harms - earlier this month the Department of Justice's report on Ferguson shows a pattern of systemic racial bias in the policing there. And in the general black American population the effects of minority stress are well documented. By contrast, an individual incident of discrimination against White people, would simply be unwarranted discrimination but would not play into any existing cumulative problem."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostI found the actual text of the law. It can be read here: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/...ument-f6915f8f
It says
"Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability, unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is:
(1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest."
The rest of the text is definitions of terms and a statement that violation of Sec. 6 can be used as a claim or defense in court.
You would think that would be uncontroversial, since the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And this has been extended as a limitation on all governments in the U.S, via the 14th Amendment. If anything the Indiana law seems to concede too much. After all, the Constitution doesn't add, "unless it's really in Congress' interest to do so."
With this loophole, you know that anyone who wants to violate any rights will claim that the government has a compelling interest in doing so.
RFRA has never, to my knowledge, been used as a legal justification by a business to refuse to provide services to any person purely on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostI generally agree with you: the laws in question are usually bad ones, and everyone should be exempt, not just those with a religious objection.
However, the Indiana law that this thread is about does not carve out any loophole/allowance/exception to any particular law. It is a general protection of the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. How, specifically, is this law a bad law?
Comment
-
Psst, it appears to be a version of the Lemon test. Hmmm, wording is familiar; could be a different decision. I'll get back to you on that. At any rate, it codifies existing Fed precedent."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostPsst, it appears to be a version of the Lemon test. Hmmm, wording is familiar; could be a different decision. I'll get back to you on that. At any rate, it codifies existing Fed precedent.
RFRA was initially introduced in Congress to codify Sherbert after the SCOTUS decision in Employment Division v. Smith.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostLemon is establishment, not free exercise. You're thinking of the Sherbert test.
RFRA was initially introduced in Congress to codify Sherbert after the SCOTUS decision in Employment Division v. Smith.
L"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostThe proper response to the news story is: Wow, some people really hate the 1st Amendment!
I see nothing in the text of the law that references gay people or being nasty to them. It seems to only reaffirm (weakly) the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. What error do you see in it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThat's right. Sherbert has some similarities with Lemon and I did get them confused. Thanks.
LThat's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostIf a business owner refused service to me because I'm a Christian, I would shrug and go elsewhere.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 04:03 AM
|
23 responses
111 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 12:19 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 12:51 PM
|
96 responses
511 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
Today, 07:47 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:47 AM
|
5 responses
45 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by mossrose
Yesterday, 12:18 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:36 AM
|
5 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 07:37 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-11-2024, 07:25 AM
|
57 responses
261 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 04:28 PM
|
Comment