Nothing.
The law doesn't allow for the kind of meddling in religion by the courts you'd need to answer that.
The law doesn't allow for the kind of meddling in religion by the courts you'd need to answer that.
Questions for Lawyers and Folk
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
There's a new book out . . .
by a Princeton historian tracing how evangelical Christianity became part and parcel of the conservative/libertarian political spectrum. And the irony of your post is that the business community intentionally used evangelical preachers to preach a brand of libertarian Christianity in an effort to blunt the popularity of the New Deal . . .
. . . the ball really got rolling under Eisenhower, what with the National Prayer Breakfast and all . . . Nixon used it a bit to maintain his electoral majorities in 68 and 72 . . . and then Reagan made the evangelical/social conservative agenda major planks in the GOP's national platform. Big business is now the victim of its own successful campaign . . .
. . . and the GOP is stuck with the tone-deafness of the evangelical movement's political influence.
See the link to the NPR story about the book . . . there's also a very interesting, longer interview with the author on the FreshAir.npr.org webpage.
One Nation Under God
by a Princeton historian tracing how evangelical Christianity became part and parcel of the conservative/libertarian political spectrum. And the irony of your post is that the business community intentionally used evangelical preachers to preach a brand of libertarian Christianity in an effort to blunt the popularity of the New Deal . . .
. . . the ball really got rolling under Eisenhower, what with the National Prayer Breakfast and all . . . Nixon used it a bit to maintain his electoral majorities in 68 and 72 . . . and then Reagan made the evangelical/social conservative agenda major planks in the GOP's national platform. Big business is now the victim of its own successful campaign . . .
. . . and the GOP is stuck with the tone-deafness of the evangelical movement's political influence.
See the link to the NPR story about the book . . . there's also a very interesting, longer interview with the author on the FreshAir.npr.org webpage.
One Nation Under God
it happened in new mexico
With photographers. They did not want to photo men kissing. They were ordered they had to and the lost their business. Liberals can accomplish anything. New Mexico has the same law as Indiana. Look at gun laws in Chicago. If a liberal doesn't like a law they just ignore it.
With photographers. They did not want to photo men kissing. They were ordered they had to and the lost their business. Liberals can accomplish anything. New Mexico has the same law as Indiana. Look at gun laws in Chicago. If a liberal doesn't like a law they just ignore it.
Obviously the threats are very wrong
And all of it is really stupid. If the pizza place wasn't just trying to make a point, why in the world did they speak out about it? I find it hard to believe the media contacted an obscure pizza joint in a small town to ask if they would serve a gay wedding reception.
And all of it is really stupid. If the pizza place wasn't just trying to make a point, why in the world did they speak out about it? I find it hard to believe the media contacted an obscure pizza joint in a small town to ask if they would serve a gay wedding reception.
New Mexico does not have the same law that Indiana has . . .
your intentional ignorance is counterproductive on this board, IU3.
The irony of your post is that you're the guy who ignores reading/understanding this or any other law, as you clearly demonstrated on the free board. I look forward to you getting skewered here . . . .
your intentional ignorance is counterproductive on this board, IU3.
The irony of your post is that you're the guy who ignores reading/understanding this or any other law, as you clearly demonstrated on the free board. I look forward to you getting skewered here . . . .
The media did
just that. Search and find someone to quote. Attack them under the guise of journalism, pursue the media agenda on behalf of leftist causes, It should turn your stomach. I fear, however, that it has your total approval.
But now its time for you and folks here on the left to acknowledge/admit that this isn't about the issue at all. Its about an extremist agenda from the left,, funded by the same old leftists with the media as a willing accomplice to falsehoods.
just that. Search and find someone to quote. Attack them under the guise of journalism, pursue the media agenda on behalf of leftist causes, It should turn your stomach. I fear, however, that it has your total approval.
But now its time for you and folks here on the left to acknowledge/admit that this isn't about the issue at all. Its about an extremist agenda from the left,, funded by the same old leftists with the media as a willing accomplice to falsehoods.
No, they said they'd take their money as long as they didn't. . .
Have to participate in any gayness the couple may be involved in outside the restaurant.
Have to participate in any gayness the couple may be involved in outside the restaurant.
How much do I owe for the consultation?
Let's face it, when it becomes wrong to poke fun at lawyers this country just won't be fun.
But in seriousness, I'm confused about this whole class action suit thing. The people impacted usually end up with, well, very little. The lawyers end up with, well, a whole lot. A friend who isn't very internet savvy asked me to look at a lawsuit involving Community Bank of Northern Virginia. He received a card years ago that they were a member of the suit, had never heard anything more.
Looking through the internet shows a suit that looks like it will never end. Heck, the trial judge has even passed away. There was an agreement, an appeal, a rejection, a new agreement, a new appeal, a new rejection and now more bargaining. The one thing I thought was funny was that I found some business site talking about the second agreement as being one of the best class action deals for plaintiffs ever. But of course there is always some group that seemed to want more.
Community Bank of NV went out of business long ago. There assets were bought by more banks, a big purchaser was Irwin Union. Many of those banks went out of business in 2008. Heck, even the banks that bought those banks may now be out of business.
I don't know how much more the objectors want. But losing 12 years or so (so far) of use on that money makes me think it is either an unrealistic amount, or they are being poorly advised by lawyers who, well, stand to make a lot (or both). I told my friend to have a will as by the time this gets settled who knows what generation of his will be receiving the money.
I've never really paid much attention to class action suits. If they all are this way (about 12 years and counting), I can't see what value they serve. Whatever lesson Community Bank of NV was supposed to learn will be lost on a non-existent company.
Let's face it, when it becomes wrong to poke fun at lawyers this country just won't be fun.
But in seriousness, I'm confused about this whole class action suit thing. The people impacted usually end up with, well, very little. The lawyers end up with, well, a whole lot. A friend who isn't very internet savvy asked me to look at a lawsuit involving Community Bank of Northern Virginia. He received a card years ago that they were a member of the suit, had never heard anything more.
Looking through the internet shows a suit that looks like it will never end. Heck, the trial judge has even passed away. There was an agreement, an appeal, a rejection, a new agreement, a new appeal, a new rejection and now more bargaining. The one thing I thought was funny was that I found some business site talking about the second agreement as being one of the best class action deals for plaintiffs ever. But of course there is always some group that seemed to want more.
Community Bank of NV went out of business long ago. There assets were bought by more banks, a big purchaser was Irwin Union. Many of those banks went out of business in 2008. Heck, even the banks that bought those banks may now be out of business.
I don't know how much more the objectors want. But losing 12 years or so (so far) of use on that money makes me think it is either an unrealistic amount, or they are being poorly advised by lawyers who, well, stand to make a lot (or both). I told my friend to have a will as by the time this gets settled who knows what generation of his will be receiving the money.
I've never really paid much attention to class action suits. If they all are this way (about 12 years and counting), I can't see what value they serve. Whatever lesson Community Bank of NV was supposed to learn will be lost on a non-existent company.
I was just being agreeable . . .
for a change.
I don't want to know about the CBNV class action . . . that portfolio might've included some loans that I managed litigation over back in the 90s . . .
. . . so I will answer your objection with a question: do you think that BoA has learned anything from its purchase of the Countrywide loan portfolio? If not, we have been wasting the last 7 years in litigation . . . but I suspect that BoA has learned a lot and as a result its practices - and the practices of other huge banks - are better than they were before the justice department's enforcement action and private class actions were filed.
for a change.
I don't want to know about the CBNV class action . . . that portfolio might've included some loans that I managed litigation over back in the 90s . . .
. . . so I will answer your objection with a question: do you think that BoA has learned anything from its purchase of the Countrywide loan portfolio? If not, we have been wasting the last 7 years in litigation . . . but I suspect that BoA has learned a lot and as a result its practices - and the practices of other huge banks - are better than they were before the justice department's enforcement action and private class actions were filed.
I think he's claiming . . .
that his arguments on the merits are logical, and the (alleged) emotional, non-logical responsive arguments from others infuriates him.
I think he's mis-characterized the responsive arguments, at least from several posters . . . and to me that's based on his emotional response rather than any logical argument.
that his arguments on the merits are logical, and the (alleged) emotional, non-logical responsive arguments from others infuriates him.
I think he's mis-characterized the responsive arguments, at least from several posters . . . and to me that's based on his emotional response rather than any logical argument.
any story
that is top news on the liberal media is done for political gain. You know this or don't you? I'll stop now of you don't know this. All those networks lose tons of money. How does a cable program stay afloat when they lose money every day? State run media. You discriminate you will lose your business regardless in this day and age. Forcing people to photograph gay people is bizarre to me.
that is top news on the liberal media is done for political gain. You know this or don't you? I'll stop now of you don't know this. All those networks lose tons of money. How does a cable program stay afloat when they lose money every day? State run media. You discriminate you will lose your business regardless in this day and age. Forcing people to photograph gay people is bizarre to me.
If you weighed in with a logical lawyer explanation of the statute
which supports the obviously emotional cry that IRFRA allows discrimination against gay people, I missed it. Perhaps you can link your opinion or write one now.
I made a posts about how the law will work in the real world. Goat has made some responses, based only raw language and omitting any real case context. I responded to that and then the conversation ended. I'd love to read your take.
Oh, another lawyer weighed in with citations to "those who publicly support the act" as a basis for his deliberately wrong interpretation. Not much there.
which supports the obviously emotional cry that IRFRA allows discrimination against gay people, I missed it. Perhaps you can link your opinion or write one now.
I made a posts about how the law will work in the real world. Goat has made some responses, based only raw language and omitting any real case context. I responded to that and then the conversation ended. I'd love to read your take.
Oh, another lawyer weighed in with citations to "those who publicly support the act" as a basis for his deliberately wrong interpretation. Not much there.
I see a tweet from the reporter
She just went to some shops and asked them their opinion of RFRA. So I'll discount any notion they had some plan. Why they weren't aware of the firestorm, that I don't know.
Again, any threats are ridiculous and should be prosecuted. I don't even agree with going onto yelp and other places and giving them 1 star (one should eat somewhere before rating it). But if people choose not to go eat there based on what they said, then how is that different than people/stations refusing to buy/play Dixie Chick music because of their comments?
She just went to some shops and asked them their opinion of RFRA. So I'll discount any notion they had some plan. Why they weren't aware of the firestorm, that I don't know.
Again, any threats are ridiculous and should be prosecuted. I don't even agree with going onto yelp and other places and giving them 1 star (one should eat somewhere before rating it). But if people choose not to go eat there based on what they said, then how is that different than people/stations refusing to buy/play Dixie Chick music because of their comments?
You're drunk on the kool-aid . . .
the right wing propaganda machine has issued . . . good luck with that.
the right wing propaganda machine has issued . . . good luck with that.
Heh, good catch but easily explained
I AM angry at the emotional reaction to the law. And I have no problem with those who are angry at the law. I have a big problem with those who strip away their logic and common sense for the sole purpose fanning the flames and with no intention of meaningful contributions to the public discourse about RFRA. This includes Tim Cook who willingly does business with countries where being gay will get you 20 years to life if not executed, Governor Malloy who gets on his high horse and preaches about Indiana when the Connecticut law allows an easier path to discrimination, and the scores of business people and public officials who echo those two. They are 100% emotional about this. The press is stirring the pot too, some for ratings, and some deliberately mislead the public because they don't like what they think the law means. There are several on the Cooler too, but I've already talked about them.
The sad part of all this: RFRA laws were originally passed to address situations having nothing to do with same sex weddings. Because same sex marriage has become the context of the discussion is ALL emotional. For that I blame both sides of the issue.
I AM angry at the emotional reaction to the law. And I have no problem with those who are angry at the law. I have a big problem with those who strip away their logic and common sense for the sole purpose fanning the flames and with no intention of meaningful contributions to the public discourse about RFRA. This includes Tim Cook who willingly does business with countries where being gay will get you 20 years to life if not executed, Governor Malloy who gets on his high horse and preaches about Indiana when the Connecticut law allows an easier path to discrimination, and the scores of business people and public officials who echo those two. They are 100% emotional about this. The press is stirring the pot too, some for ratings, and some deliberately mislead the public because they don't like what they think the law means. There are several on the Cooler too, but I've already talked about them.
The sad part of all this: RFRA laws were originally passed to address situations having nothing to do with same sex weddings. Because same sex marriage has become the context of the discussion is ALL emotional. For that I blame both sides of the issue.
Meh . . .
I read those posts, didn't think all that much of them, and as a matter of comity to the board, I moved on.
If I were asked to summarize your post in a few words, it would be "basically, it's not a big deal", and then you merely provided some personal gloss regarding why no one should react adversely to the bill.
There's been a lot of pretty good statutory interpretation of the text of the law, particularly in the context of Indiana not having a sexual-orientation protected class statute, that has pretty well debunked your arguments, and IMHO you've chosen to ignore or mis-characterize those posts.
So at this point I have a choice whether to get into an unproductive rehash conversation with you or do something more productive, and I'm choosing to go do some work and bill for it.
I did respond to what I thought might be a slightly more promising post of yours, and would like to engage you on the questions I asked - I think they're teed up as objective issues and would appreciate your take on the topics they raise. Please see the link.
"Exercise of religion" concept . . .
I read those posts, didn't think all that much of them, and as a matter of comity to the board, I moved on.
If I were asked to summarize your post in a few words, it would be "basically, it's not a big deal", and then you merely provided some personal gloss regarding why no one should react adversely to the bill.
There's been a lot of pretty good statutory interpretation of the text of the law, particularly in the context of Indiana not having a sexual-orientation protected class statute, that has pretty well debunked your arguments, and IMHO you've chosen to ignore or mis-characterize those posts.
So at this point I have a choice whether to get into an unproductive rehash conversation with you or do something more productive, and I'm choosing to go do some work and bill for it.
I did respond to what I thought might be a slightly more promising post of yours, and would like to engage you on the questions I asked - I think they're teed up as objective issues and would appreciate your take on the topics they raise. Please see the link.
"Exercise of religion" concept . . .
Exactly
It's worth remembering where the Hobby Lobby issue stands. The Court held that the contraception mandate impermissibly burdened Hobby Lobby's free exercise rights, because it didn't allow Hobby Lobby to employ the workaround that's available to religious organizations. That workaround allows any non-profit religious organization to opt out of the mandate by (1) signing a form certifying that it's a religious nonprofit that objects to the provision of contraceptive services, and (2) providing a copy of that form to its insurance carrier or third-party administrator.
In It's unclear what exactly the Wheaton majority was thinking, but this notion of "complicity" in the actions of another would be an exceptionally broad reading of the exercise of religion.
So under Hobby Lobby a closely held corporation exercises religion when it provides health insurance to its employees, and under Wheaton College a religious nonprofit might exercise religion when it submits a form. I'd like it if the courts viewed the "exercise of religion" as CO. insists that they must, but unfortunately that isn't what the Supreme Court is telling them to do.
It's worth remembering where the Hobby Lobby issue stands. The Court held that the contraception mandate impermissibly burdened Hobby Lobby's free exercise rights, because it didn't allow Hobby Lobby to employ the workaround that's available to religious organizations. That workaround allows any non-profit religious organization to opt out of the mandate by (1) signing a form certifying that it's a religious nonprofit that objects to the provision of contraceptive services, and (2) providing a copy of that form to its insurance carrier or third-party administrator.
In It's unclear what exactly the Wheaton majority was thinking, but this notion of "complicity" in the actions of another would be an exceptionally broad reading of the exercise of religion.
So under Hobby Lobby a closely held corporation exercises religion when it provides health insurance to its employees, and under Wheaton College a religious nonprofit might exercise religion when it submits a form. I'd like it if the courts viewed the "exercise of religion" as CO. insists that they must, but unfortunately that isn't what the Supreme Court is telling them to do.
From a practical standpoint
When faced with a General Assembly which was stacked against them, the only logical choice to change the IFRA legislation by those opposing it was to make an emotional appeal to the body politic which might also gain the attention of elected mayors and businesses dealing with Indiana consumers.
This emotional appeal may have worked. Sure this is troubling and maybe even infuriating to legislators and some legal experts who think the bill is being misrepresented. Nevertheless, this isn't the first time, and it will not be the last time that emotions carried the day given our version of democracy.
Finally, like it or not, how Americans feel about gays has changed dramatically in the past decade. I put "feel" in bold letters because like politics and religion this subject can be highly emotional.
When faced with a General Assembly which was stacked against them, the only logical choice to change the IFRA legislation by those opposing it was to make an emotional appeal to the body politic which might also gain the attention of elected mayors and businesses dealing with Indiana consumers.
This emotional appeal may have worked. Sure this is troubling and maybe even infuriating to legislators and some legal experts who think the bill is being misrepresented. Nevertheless, this isn't the first time, and it will not be the last time that emotions carried the day given our version of democracy.
Finally, like it or not, how Americans feel about gays has changed dramatically in the past decade. I put "feel" in bold letters because like politics and religion this subject can be highly emotional.
I asked a group yesterday if IFRA was being overblown,...
...and a black elderly minister who happened to be gay, who was new to the group, gave me a half hour lecture about how important the black and gay freedom movement had been to him.
When the meeting ended and because of my question about IFRA being overblown the kind old gentleman refused to shake my hand. I completely understood. I can only hope he will get to know me better in the future. However, I have the feeling I'll never see him again.
...and a black elderly minister who happened to be gay, who was new to the group, gave me a half hour lecture about how important the black and gay freedom movement had been to him.
When the meeting ended and because of my question about IFRA being overblown the kind old gentleman refused to shake my hand. I completely understood. I can only hope he will get to know me better in the future. However, I have the feeling I'll never see him again.
Responses
Hobby Lobby did not involve protected classes legislation. That is a huge distinction in my mind and weighs heavily on the "least intrusive" statutory factor.
I have a problem with anybody who would say that the act selling goods to a customer is "an exercise of religion". As I said a couple of times now, I think any party who testified that it is against his religion to sell a widget to a gay person will quickly look like a fool on cross examination. I understand goat's argument that this argument could be made "in theory". He is right about the theoretical argument, and I think any judge would reject it short order. This is the difference between looking at RFRA laws in the real world context and looking at it "in theory" where emotions can rule the day. If you think I am of the opinion that selling something can be an exercise of religion, I'll take responsibility for being unclear. Lets be clear. Sales of good is not a religious experience.
That said, I suppose you might argue that a Christian Bookstore claims its sales of Christian literature is an exercise of religion. I don't think so. I don't think such a bookstore could refuse service to gay people, Muslims, or atheists without running afoul of religious discrimination laws. But such a store should have absolute and total control over its inventory.
Finally, I said somewhere along the line that the public policy of religious discrimination in public accommodations being unlawful while RFRA allows one to claim free exercise in certain situations creates an odd legal analysis. A better result would be to allow, say, a baker, to say he or she will only provide cakes to weddings in Christian churches, but that is against the law. So we must follow a tortured RFRA path to achieve a similar result.
Hobby Lobby did not involve protected classes legislation. That is a huge distinction in my mind and weighs heavily on the "least intrusive" statutory factor.
I have a problem with anybody who would say that the act selling goods to a customer is "an exercise of religion". As I said a couple of times now, I think any party who testified that it is against his religion to sell a widget to a gay person will quickly look like a fool on cross examination. I understand goat's argument that this argument could be made "in theory". He is right about the theoretical argument, and I think any judge would reject it short order. This is the difference between looking at RFRA laws in the real world context and looking at it "in theory" where emotions can rule the day. If you think I am of the opinion that selling something can be an exercise of religion, I'll take responsibility for being unclear. Lets be clear. Sales of good is not a religious experience.
That said, I suppose you might argue that a Christian Bookstore claims its sales of Christian literature is an exercise of religion. I don't think so. I don't think such a bookstore could refuse service to gay people, Muslims, or atheists without running afoul of religious discrimination laws. But such a store should have absolute and total control over its inventory.
Finally, I said somewhere along the line that the public policy of religious discrimination in public accommodations being unlawful while RFRA allows one to claim free exercise in certain situations creates an odd legal analysis. A better result would be to allow, say, a baker, to say he or she will only provide cakes to weddings in Christian churches, but that is against the law. So we must follow a tortured RFRA path to achieve a similar result.
That's sounds like . . .
the gay ordination fight that the little church we used to belong to had. Some folks objected to that thought, and I called them out on it publicy, basically asking whether they and folks who were OK with gay ordination could be in the same church. Finally got them to come around . . .
. . . only to have the pro-gay ordination folks (and pastor) in effect usher those who were opposed to the door. Some of those taken to the curb were founding members, long-time elders and major contributors. Even though the gay ordination issue went my preferred way, I no longer felt comfortable in that church either . . . folks take sides and that's that these days.
Reconciliation is risky . . . most folks give it lip service rather than really working at it.
the gay ordination fight that the little church we used to belong to had. Some folks objected to that thought, and I called them out on it publicy, basically asking whether they and folks who were OK with gay ordination could be in the same church. Finally got them to come around . . .
. . . only to have the pro-gay ordination folks (and pastor) in effect usher those who were opposed to the door. Some of those taken to the curb were founding members, long-time elders and major contributors. Even though the gay ordination issue went my preferred way, I no longer felt comfortable in that church either . . . folks take sides and that's that these days.
Reconciliation is risky . . . most folks give it lip service rather than really working at it.
They were, actually . . .
The station contacted them and told them they were doing a story and wanted to find a restaurant to discuss the new law. Coincidentally, the station just happened to find a pizza restaurant in a small town some 30 miles away from the station that had a sign that said something like "We pray" and had a few Easter decorations inside. And then when they said they wouldn't turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation, the reporter asked the owner's daughter about catering a gay wedding with a bunch of pizzas, which is one of the most implausible scenarios in human history.
This is pretty much par for the course for this station. They sensationalize every issue and hardly ever get things right, and its less political than it is the fact that their audience is the smallest among the major networks in this market for local news, which is a huge money maker for stations.
The station contacted them and told them they were doing a story and wanted to find a restaurant to discuss the new law. Coincidentally, the station just happened to find a pizza restaurant in a small town some 30 miles away from the station that had a sign that said something like "We pray" and had a few Easter decorations inside. And then when they said they wouldn't turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation, the reporter asked the owner's daughter about catering a gay wedding with a bunch of pizzas, which is one of the most implausible scenarios in human history.
This is pretty much par for the course for this station. They sensationalize every issue and hardly ever get things right, and its less political than it is the fact that their audience is the smallest among the major networks in this market for local news, which is a huge money maker for stations.
It depends on what's meant by "overblown"
I doubt that the pre-amendment IRFRA would have authorized much more discrimination than already occurs, but anti-gay bigotry was an important political driver here, and Republicans voted down a prior amendment that would have done what the new amendment has belatedly done. It only got worse when our governor went on national television and conspicuously couldn't say that the law wouldn't authorize businesses to deny services to LGBT people. The proponents deserve all the grief they're getting.
I doubt that the pre-amendment IRFRA would have authorized much more discrimination than already occurs, but anti-gay bigotry was an important political driver here, and Republicans voted down a prior amendment that would have done what the new amendment has belatedly done. It only got worse when our governor went on national television and conspicuously couldn't say that the law wouldn't authorize businesses to deny services to LGBT people. The proponents deserve all the grief they're getting.
what are you talking about?
I've been consistently very clear about the ramiifactions of the presense or absense of other gay people protected class legislation. I have said in the absense of such legislation the alleged private right of action created by IRFRA is without meaning. IRFRA recognizes and contemplates such actions created by other laws, but it does not create one in and of itself. The simple reason is that IRFRA specifies no relief. My question about what the claim for relief might be if IRFRA created private rights of action was met with silence.
I've been consistently very clear about the ramiifactions of the presense or absense of other gay people protected class legislation. I have said in the absense of such legislation the alleged private right of action created by IRFRA is without meaning. IRFRA recognizes and contemplates such actions created by other laws, but it does not create one in and of itself. The simple reason is that IRFRA specifies no relief. My question about what the claim for relief might be if IRFRA created private rights of action was met with silence.
He obviously had a personal emotional response.
Too bad you couldn't talk further with him. As we see here and in many other situations, emotionalism tends to shut down discussion.
Too bad you couldn't talk further with him. As we see here and in many other situations, emotionalism tends to shut down discussion.
Thank you . . .
. . . regarding your first point, sex/gender are protected classes under federal employment law, and those apply to benefits . . . maybe the Hobby Lobby decision would have benefited from a protected class analysis.
Regarding the selling something = exercise of religion concept, I think you were clear about that, but I don't think you were clear about the refusal to sell to a sinner = exercise of religion concept.
I agree with you regarding a book store's inventory . . . .
Regarding your last paragraph . . . that right to refuse service was available in most of Indiana without RFRA. RFRA created the torture! GRIN
. . . regarding your first point, sex/gender are protected classes under federal employment law, and those apply to benefits . . . maybe the Hobby Lobby decision would have benefited from a protected class analysis.
Regarding the selling something = exercise of religion concept, I think you were clear about that, but I don't think you were clear about the refusal to sell to a sinner = exercise of religion concept.
I agree with you regarding a book store's inventory . . . .
Regarding your last paragraph . . . that right to refuse service was available in most of Indiana without RFRA. RFRA created the torture! GRIN
Thinking a bit more about this . . .
the IRFRA fact patterns don't involve protected class legislation either . . . except to the extent that the clarifying legislation makes clear that protected class ordinances in a few municipalities now will not be subject to IRFRA defenses/claims.
I guess it really doesn't matter in one sense, since other than in those municipalities one doesn't need a religious reason to discriminate against gays in Indiana . . .
. . . what a bunch of hoorah (passing IRFRA) about nothing. Politically, this just seems to have been a really stupid thing to do . . . it was just poking a sleeping bear in the eye with a stick and no real benefit to gain.
This post was edited on 4/2 2:06 PM by Sope Creek
the IRFRA fact patterns don't involve protected class legislation either . . . except to the extent that the clarifying legislation makes clear that protected class ordinances in a few municipalities now will not be subject to IRFRA defenses/claims.
I guess it really doesn't matter in one sense, since other than in those municipalities one doesn't need a religious reason to discriminate against gays in Indiana . . .
. . . what a bunch of hoorah (passing IRFRA) about nothing. Politically, this just seems to have been a really stupid thing to do . . . it was just poking a sleeping bear in the eye with a stick and no real benefit to gain.
This post was edited on 4/2 2:06 PM by Sope Creek
It's crappy journalism . . .
From a network that is prone to trying to gin up controversy. I doubt there was anything more to their agenda to that. They provide equally bad coverage of the city's democratic mayor, Pete Buttigieg. I'm assuming they went to Walkerton because they were more likely to find someone that would take the bait of an implausible hypothetical there. There is no gay marriage in Indiana, the restaurant doesn't "cater," and I've never seen pizza delivered to a wedding. If you've seen images of this woman that was interviewed, she looks quite young, and its very possible she was just niave. The restaurant did have a sign saying something like "We pray" and a small Easter display on an upright piano according to the owner
Interestingly, Rush was just saying he threw a bunch of money into researching who was driving boycotts of his advertisers on social media and elsewhere and he found that 85% of the posts were by a handful of people (who they were able to personally identify) that are using technology to blast out tweets and other social media that appear to be from hundreds of distinct people. He claims that these people are funded by Soros and they are sort of "first responders" not only to Rush, but these hot button issues that get people all riled up. If that's true, it's sort of disappointing that this sort of cottage industry exists, but it actually restores my faith in humanity a bit. We should be able to debate issues without getting out the pitchforks. As you said, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to provide any business to an establishment, but some of the affirmative acts go too far.
From a network that is prone to trying to gin up controversy. I doubt there was anything more to their agenda to that. They provide equally bad coverage of the city's democratic mayor, Pete Buttigieg. I'm assuming they went to Walkerton because they were more likely to find someone that would take the bait of an implausible hypothetical there. There is no gay marriage in Indiana, the restaurant doesn't "cater," and I've never seen pizza delivered to a wedding. If you've seen images of this woman that was interviewed, she looks quite young, and its very possible she was just niave. The restaurant did have a sign saying something like "We pray" and a small Easter display on an upright piano according to the owner
Interestingly, Rush was just saying he threw a bunch of money into researching who was driving boycotts of his advertisers on social media and elsewhere and he found that 85% of the posts were by a handful of people (who they were able to personally identify) that are using technology to blast out tweets and other social media that appear to be from hundreds of distinct people. He claims that these people are funded by Soros and they are sort of "first responders" not only to Rush, but these hot button issues that get people all riled up. If that's true, it's sort of disappointing that this sort of cottage industry exists, but it actually restores my faith in humanity a bit. We should be able to debate issues without getting out the pitchforks. As you said, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to provide any business to an establishment, but some of the affirmative acts go too far.
Do you take Rush at face value?
Do you ascribe to him journalistic credence? Full credence? If not, but some, how much? None at all?
I'm not justifying the journalism practiced by the network . . . but citing Rush as a source for credible information about the sources of social media messaging? If that's your intent, then your post belies every protestation here that Rush is only an "entertainer" and in no way represents credible leadership of conservatives . . . .
Do you ascribe to him journalistic credence? Full credence? If not, but some, how much? None at all?
I'm not justifying the journalism practiced by the network . . . but citing Rush as a source for credible information about the sources of social media messaging? If that's your intent, then your post belies every protestation here that Rush is only an "entertainer" and in no way represents credible leadership of conservatives . . . .
Thee was a plan
It was the media's plan in support of the opponents of RFRA.
They hunted down a Christian to get a chance to bait them. It worked. The pizza folks fell into the evil clutches of the media - acting in a subterfuge as if they were reporting the news - by telling the truth about their Christian values. The media seized the chance to ridicule them for their beliefs.
It was the media's plan in support of the opponents of RFRA.
They hunted down a Christian to get a chance to bait them. It worked. The pizza folks fell into the evil clutches of the media - acting in a subterfuge as if they were reporting the news - by telling the truth about their Christian values. The media seized the chance to ridicule them for their beliefs.
