ADVERTISEMENT

Thoughts on what the RFRA uproar is all about...

Obama care is poor example


Even Obama has delayed effective dates, issued waivers, extended deadlines, adjusted the mandate, and more so that the law would "work". The amazing thing is that Obama did by executive order what he said he would veto if the GOP house bill was passed.
 
I expect your next post to be:


"97% of scientists agree IRFRA discriminates against same sex couples".

You are so wrapped up in "tea party," "ultra conservative," and more you can't make a sensible post. The fact of the matter is that the federal RFRA was passed by democrats and signed by a democrat POTUS. The Connecticut RFRA can hardly be seen as a "tea party" party. Have you done anything to compare those laws? Didn't think so. All you do is parrot the moonbat view of IRFRA.

You made more sense when you said you made up your mind about Eric Garner without having heard what the eye witnesses had to say. At least your emotional reaction was clear and conspicuous there. Here it is muddled with misinformation and willful ignorance.
 
"old white guys "

That pretty much says all that needs to be said about your views.
 
Re: Here's what I don't get . . . .

I'm not judging the merits of the law or its meaning based on the views of its supporters. Frankly, I think IRFRA is largely irrelevant in terms of its actual use in court. But what the state of Indiana has found out the hard way, it doesn't really matter all that much whether the law will be of much significance in terms of people using it in court. What does matter is the message that has been sent.

And you hypothetical is proves my point. If am the florist asked to provide flowers to an arranged marriage of a 16yo girl, I would politely refuse. I would also explain why I could not, in good conscience, provide flowers for something that I believe is wrong--regardless of the religion of the participants. I would hope that the father (or whoever is ordering the flowers) would understand, but I would not care about the legal consequences of my actions if did not.

We all have our own sense of morality, and right and wrong, including how far we are willing to stray from our beliefs when we are faced with a choice between what we believe is right and what we believe is wrong. At the same time, however, we also must be willing to accept the consequences when the law disagrees with the line that we draw for ourselves. My conscience (including the need to follow the law, as society has determined) dictates my own behavior, but the law dictates if I am to be punished for that behavior.
 
I find it amazing.

That we can have such detailed conversations about this, wherein multiple posters explain our disagreement with you in detailed, objective, coldly logical terms, and you can simply hit the little reset button in your brain and pretend we never said any of it.

Serious question: why do you still post here? You clearly don't intend to listen to anything anyone else says, which precludes the possibility of you learning anything. Are you here simply to share your wisdom with us? I'd like to know for sure so I can stop reading your posts if that's the case. Thanks.
 
I bet this happens in your professional career

I know it does for me. Client sees something that looks wrong to them and they are completely crazy. One has a couple choices. Now your profession is different than mine and maybe that may make us different. But for my position, customer service requires me to make them feel their point was understood and addressed.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems obvious someone intended for the section saying this law has supremacy over local ordinances is designed to get past city/county laws. A judge may see that as completely irrelevant, but it is in the law. The section on civil cases seems obvious it was an effort to get past what NM ran into. Again, a civil judge may find that outlandish. But it is in the law. There is a broad attempt to let a judge hang their hat on something. Maybe it is all for naught.

I'm not a lawyer or a politician, but if the national RFRA is a goal, why can't we just pass a law that says "Indiana accepts the national RFRA that was passed on "X" date (in case it ever gets amended) to be in effect in Indiana". Maybe there better wording somewhere for you lawyers, but for us laymen it seems pretty easy.

The entire Bill of Rights was something like 450 words. It shouldn't take more than that to pass a RFRA substantively the same as the federal version.

As to Hobby Lobby, the more I think about them offering plan B, and stopping just before filing; the more I wonder how on earth the court ignored that. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem to pass common sense. Of course, I guess the law isn't common sense.
 
I think we mostly agree about how unimportant IFRA is


and this goes back to my point I made a thousand posts ago. In the larger picture, this doesn't matter.

The "message has been sent" point is a different matter. I am unsure of what message has been sent because I wasn't paying attention to Indiana politics as this act made its way through the legislature. Regardless of what message has been sent, though, the return message sent by the objectors is a huge issue for me. That is where most of my criticism has been focused. That return message was born in ignorance and nurtured in emotionalism. I understand the penalty Indiana is paying. I think that penalty is 100% undeserved. Sadly, emotionally based temper tantrums come from those who don't know better and made up worst case scenarios come from those who do or should.

Politics has become a food fight. In this case, the first toss came from the left side.
 
Maybe he just disagrees? I don't think any person should have to do

something that is against their religious conscience. The government should not be in the business of telling people what they have to believe and thus do when it comes to their religious convictions. Does this make me a bigot? No, because I am for freedom to live the way we want to. If a gay couple can't get a wedding cake from a certain baker then they can go to one who will work on their behalf. You can't force people to do something that they consider to be immoral. It's not right.
 
Here's what is amazing


I've actively posted in threads about this issue, often in response to you. Yet you believe I think you never said any of it? What do you think I am saying?

You are once again playing an emotional card. You say "you don't listen to me" and I say "I don't agree with you". I am correct.

Yeah, I am here to share my wisdom with you. It would be a boring place indeed if I simply and mindlessly agreed with goat and never responded to you. Moreover, I think you would find that insulting. I know I would.

BTW, nice physics post. I enjoyed thinking about all the ramifications of how things operate in the spaces inside of an atom and its nucleus.
 
I'll be relatively happy if that's the language added

Would love to see a law passed also to make gays & lesbians be a protected class of citizens, but that's probably not realistic considering the Republican super-majorities right now.
 
See, now, here is the problem.

I don't hear you saying, "I disagree with you." I hear you saying, "I've listened to your posts, and I still think it's all emotional nonsense." And I take issue with that, because I've been anything but emotional below.

We've actually had some great discussions below. By that, I mean the two of us, as well as several others. My response here was an emotional (!) reaction to this one specific post you made, and it was probably unfair. Apologies for that.

goat
 
Obama care is poor example . . .

because it perfectly makes Marv's point, which is inconvenient for your "GOP good/Liberal-commies bad" posting.
 
Often


But when the difference of opinion is with the court, it is like arguing balls and strikes. "State your position counsel then sit down".
 
All you have to do is look

At the people that passed this bill...and that should tell you all you need to know.
 
You're funny

I'm the one that is emotional and wrapped up in tea party ( isn't that the name they chose for themselves?) I am responding to you calling the left moon bats and you tell me I can't make a sensible post. I'm not the one using emotion and calling names, you are. Try looking at a mirror occasionally.
 
They do want to take your guns.....

Whether it's trying to ban bullets, limit magazine capacity, importing of different guns etc etc. Slowly but surely they want to take the guns.

But basically I agree with your post.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT