Indiana Religious Freedom Law

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sucks for the black baker but yes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK, I respect the fact that you are consistent.

But what about the Bill Of Rights? Why doesn't the Bill Of Rights, absolutely, irrefutably, prevent the government from forcing these people into violating their beliefs?

When we have had military drafts, for example, people with religious objections, were not forced to go to war. People who didn't want to go to war for other reasons (let's say they didn't want to go because they didn't believe in the cause), were forced to go.

If these pizzeria owners tell you that the Bill Of Rights guarantees them the right to make this decision, what's your response?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That doesn't seem very ambiguous to me. Like it or not, the Constitution gives them this right.

Do you deny the Bill Of Rights gives them this right? Based on what? How can you read that text, and draw any other conclusion?

[justplugit]

Amazing, American Christians and Christians around the world are having
their heads cut off because of their believes while the Libs are concerned
about whether a couple can get a pizza pie for their wedding.
Just goes ta show ya.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You mean bc they they said that they would discriminate?

That is hilarious.

No because their business was all but shut down , they have had death threats all because of a fabricated story . They never denied any gay couples anything .

What happened to " live and let live"??
Now you , because you're the epitomy of tolerance , have now decided they are bigots ... You do that a lot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

No because their business was all but shut down , they have had death threats all because of a fabricated story . They never denied any gay couples anything .

What happened to " live and let live"??
Now you , because you're the epitomy of tolerance , have now decided they are bigots ... You do that a lot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Live and let live". You mean if they're gay?😬


I think I have a heck of a lot more tolerance than you. They certainly are bigots whether they want to claim it is their religious right or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

I thought welfare was bad?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I thought welfare was bad?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Welfare??

It's welfare when the government gives you other people's $$ for nothing in return. Private citizens, helping one of their own through a miserable and challenging time, isn't "welfare". It's an example of "American exceptionalism". Unless Obama has outlawed that phrase...


.

[Nebe]

True. And I was joking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fishpart]

All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others....

As in some animals (gays), are more entitled to "discriminate" than others (Christians).

[spence]

Snicker…

Fort Schritt, Indiana — Dr. Michael Freiheit is a general practitioner in the small town of Fort Schritt, Indiana. He describes himself as both an atheist and gay. Dr. Freiheit estimates that he sees a few hundred people a month for various maladies. In the wake of his state’s governor signing a highly-contentious bill that would allow any business in Indiana to discriminate against Freiheit, who last week volunteered to provide no-cost health care at a homeless shelter, based solely on the business owners’ religiously-based discriminatory feelings toward homosexuals. This has Dr. Freiheit curious about something, and he plans to ask Indiana Governor Mike Pence and the Republicans in the state legislature directly, via email.

“Dear Governor Pence and the Republicans in the state legistlature,” Freiheit’s letter begins, “As a gay atheist doctor in a small town in Indiana, I want to applaud your bravery and standing up for your principles, because it would seem that you have given me a chance to finally stop having to treat #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&, bigoted Christians at my practice, based on my own deeply held religious views, and not anything more sinister or petty, of course.” Freiheit then goes on to ask Pence and the Republicans, “Is that not the intent of your letter, to give everyone a chance to discriminate against someone they don’t like? I am assuming that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies here, meaning that as a gay atheist I am permitted to not give judgmental bigots the medicine they need to get over the infections in their bodies, right?”

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Snicker…

Spence, why doesn't the Bill Of Rights give these people the right to decide what weddings they will cater or not, depending on their religious beliefs. Hint...MSNBC won't tell you how to answer that question, they'll just give you plenty of synonyms for "hatemonger".

[Nebe]

All this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& does is distract people from the serious issues in the economy, like the national deficit, the 1%'s run away profits and the shrinking middle class.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Found this funny...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Snicker…

Quote:
Fort Schritt, Indiana — Dr. Michael Freiheit is a general practitioner in the small town of Fort Schritt, Indiana. He describes himself as both an atheist and gay. Dr. Freiheit estimates that he sees a few hundred people a month for various maladies. In the wake of his state’s governor signing a highly-contentious bill that would allow any business in Indiana to discriminate against Freiheit, who last week volunteered to provide no-cost health care at a homeless shelter, based solely on the business owners’ religiously-based discriminatory feelings toward homosexuals. This has Dr. Freiheit curious about something, and he plans to ask Indiana Governor Mike Pence and the Republicans in the state legislature directly, via email.

“Dear Governor Pence and the Republicans in the state legistlature,” Freiheit’s letter begins, “As a gay atheist doctor in a small town in Indiana, I want to applaud your bravery and standing up for your principles, because it would seem that you have given me a chance to finally stop having to treat #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&, bigoted Christians at my practice, based on my own deeply held religious views, and not anything more sinister or petty, of course.” Freiheit then goes on to ask Pence and the Republicans, “Is that not the intent of your letter, to give everyone a chance to discriminate against someone they don’t like? I am assuming that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies here, meaning that as a gay atheist I am permitted to not give judgmental bigots the medicine they need to get over the infections in their bodies, right?”

Constitutionally, I would say that he has a right to "discriminate" in that way. Don't know if that would cause a problem with his professional ethics regarding the hippocratic oath, if he swore to it. Might be a problem with legalities of medical practice, Obama care and all. And don't know if there are enough gay and atheistic bigots in his area to support his business at the level he desires. That may not matter. It sure would provide a service to all the gay and atheist bigots who are being turned away by Christian doctors.

Oh, wait . . . when the doctors give medical attention to gay and atheist bigots, they are not participating in or practicing their life style. No matter. Small potatoes.

Anyway, if the good doctor was able to discriminate in the matter he proposes, then it would actually make the Indiana bill even more acceptable and even more discriminatory (it's not) than it is. I don't think he wants to open up that can of worms.

Anyway, if Pence answers his letter, and if the doctor is capable of understanding and willing to listen, the Governor will explain that the bill is not discriminatory. It does not take away gay's or atheists'"rights." It does not take away their right to legal action if called for.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Quote:
Fort Schritt, Indiana — Dr. Michael Freiheit is a general practitioner in the small town of Fort Schritt, Indiana. He describes himself as both an atheist and gay. Dr. Freiheit estimates that he sees a few hundred people a month for various maladies. In the wake of his state’s governor signing a highly-contentious bill that would allow any business in Indiana to discriminate against Freiheit, who last week volunteered to provide no-cost health care at a homeless shelter, based solely on the business owners’ religiously-based discriminatory feelings toward homosexuals. This has Dr. Freiheit curious about something, and he plans to ask Indiana Governor Mike Pence and the Republicans in the state legislature directly, via email.

“Dear Governor Pence and the Republicans in the state legistlature,” Freiheit’s letter begins, “As a gay atheist doctor in a small town in Indiana, I want to applaud your bravery and standing up for your principles, because it would seem that you have given me a chance to finally stop having to treat #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&, bigoted Christians at my practice, based on my own deeply held religious views, and not anything more sinister or petty, of course.” Freiheit then goes on to ask Pence and the Republicans, “Is that not the intent of your letter, to give everyone a chance to discriminate against someone they don’t like? I am assuming that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies here, meaning that as a gay atheist I am permitted to not give judgmental bigots the medicine they need to get over the infections in their bodies, right?”

Constitutionally, I would say that he has a right to "discriminate" in that way. Don't know if that would cause a problem with his professional ethics regarding the hippocratic oath, if he swore to it. Might be a problem with legalities of medical practice, Obama care and all. And don't know if there are enough gay and atheistic bigots in his area to support his business at the level he desires. That may not matter. It sure would provide a service to all the gay and atheist bigots who are being turned away by Christian doctors.

Oh, wait . . . when the doctors give medical attention to gay and atheist bigots, they are not participating in or practicing their life style. No matter. Small potatoes.

Anyway, if the good doctor was able to discriminate in the matter he proposes, then it would actually make the Indiana bill even more acceptable and even more discriminatory (it's not) than it is. I don't think he wants to open up that can of worms.

Anyway, if Pence answers his letter, and if the doctor is capable of understanding and willing to listen, the Governor will explain that the bill is not discriminatory. It does not take away gay's or atheists'"rights." It does not take away their right to legal action if called for.

Once again I'm not sure I would want him practicing medicine on me! I would rather him be open about his bias then be forced to give medical care to people he does not like.
People only believe in what they believe. You cannot force them into believing something with laws. It actually works to further the divide not heal it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

I looked up the definition of bigot. This is the most succinct one I found:

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion"

Spence and PaulS are bigots.

[scottw]

these words don't have real meaning any more, they are thrown around so frequently and used as weapons to stifle opposition or disagreement as a replacement for thought...makes them meaningless .....hate, racism, bigot, and on........someone spoke of certain truths being "self evident" once upon a time......if you use these words often enough though, you start to exude their 'real meaning' yourself

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

these words don't have real meaning any more, they are thrown around so frequently and used as weapons to stifle opposition or disagreement as a replacement for thought...makes them meaningless .....hate, racism, bigot, and on........someone spoke of certain truths being "self evident" once upon a time......if you use these words often enough though, you start to exude their 'real meaning' yourself

Yes. And the meaningless words are the codes that distinguish the "superior" or "smart" group from those presumably too stupid to understand or tolerate, ergo too bigoted. There is a progressive lexicon of such words, bigot being one, but others such as fair, or equal, discrimination, and hate or racism as you mentioned. Words which have specific, concrete, or discernible meaning when spoken in appropriate contexts. But when hurled as weapons against opponents of progressive group-think, especially in political accusation, they indeed are meant to stifle thought by the nature of their imprecise but significant sounding emanations--"penumbras and emanations" as an activist progressive Supreme Court Justice once coined in order to transfigure constitutional law into something it wasn't--some shadowy middle which could mean whatever you want it to mean.

The shadowy remnant of the original meanings become the "moral" shibboleths by which the flock are persuaded in the righteousness of the cause.

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
"I didn't know being gay was a religion."

Reply by Sea Dangles:
"The church has demonstrated otherwise."

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Hate to inject facts into your Catholic-bashing, but maybe we should say that a tiny fraction o fthe church has demonstrated otherwise...and that a similar percentage of teachers have demonstrated otherwise, and doctors, etc...

Kudos to whoever indoctrinated you...was it Bill Maher?

Jim, you have to understand that Dangles is a sort of Zen contrarian. If he thinks you are in need of elevation into a higher form of consciousness, he will respond to what he considers your unenlightened statements with his peculiar type of koan. You know . . . his version of what is the sound of one hand clapping thingy. When you rationally respond to it, he again gives you back nonsense. And the more you try to rationalize his nonsense, the more you repeat, and the more nonsense is thrown back at you. Eventually rationalization and nonsense meld into comedic senselessness, the hope being that since there is no rational answer to the koan, you will achieve the deeper understanding--the gray area that Dangles refers to. Not unlike the Zen wisdom of Rumi in this quote by him:

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing
and rightdoing there is a field.
I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass
the world is too full to talk about.”
― Rumi

I know this personally, as I learned when he Zen beat my weary brain not long ago in another thread so that I now wander with bliss in the gray area. I now see what was once invisible. I now understand what was once unknowable. Once, having learned all this, you will know how to respond to his koans. Speak back to him in the fullness of the unknown--with even more nonsense. Try it. It's fun. It's enlightenment. And will probably end the string of Zen provocation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
"I didn't know being gay was a religion."

Reply by Sea Dangles:
"The church has demonstrated otherwise."




Jim, you have to understand that Dangles is a sort of Zen contrarian. If he thinks you are in need of elevation into a higher form of consciousness, he will respond to what he considers your unenlightened statements with his peculiar type of koan. You know . . . his version of what is the sound of one hand clapping thingy. When you rationally respond to it, he again gives you back nonsense. And the more you try to rationalize his nonsense, the more you repeat, and the more nonsense is thrown back at you. Eventually rationalization and nonsense meld into comedic senselessness, the hope being that since there is no rational answer to the koan, you will achieve the deeper understanding--the gray area that Dangles refers to. Not unlike the Zen wisdom of Rumi in this quote by him:

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing
and rightdoing there is a field.
I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass
the world is too full to talk about.”
― Rumi

I know this personally, as I learned when he Zen beat my weary brain not long ago in another thread so that I now wander with bliss in the gray area. I now see what was once invisible. I now understand what was once unknowable. Once, having learned all this, you will know how to respond to his koans. Speak back to him in the fullness of the unknown--with even more nonsense. Try it. It's fun. It's enlightenment. And will probably end the string of Zen provocation.

I'm scared to try it...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, I respect the fact that you are consistent.

But what about the Bill Of Rights? Why doesn't the Bill Of Rights, absolutely, irrefutably, prevent the government from forcing these people into violating their beliefs?

I don't know Paul's understanding of the Constitution. From what he has said before, it sounds like he doesn't have one. That it's too complicated and better left to "experts." But he usually does agree with the progressive interpretations of it. So his answer, if he ventures one other than "the Court has decided" type of stuff, might be in line with the Progressive Living Constitution theory. That is, the Bill of Rights means whatever the current Court says it means.

So, then, by that interpretation, if the Court says you must violate your beliefs or face a penalty, then that is the choice you are left with.

You, apparently, hold to the original understanding that the Constitution is, as progressives like to say, a charter of negative liberties. You understand that it is irrefutable that it will "prevent the government from forcing these people into violating their beliefs". But progressive belief, that the Constitution is a living, evolving (on its own, without necessity of amendment) thing, holds that it has evolved into a charter of positive rights. That is, rather than being a document which limits government, it has become one which more fully empowers government.

The conflict lies between originalist and progressive definition of rights pertaining to the Constitution. In the main, originalists view rights as belonging to the people and as such, as you say, are not to be violated by government. And whatever "rights" the government has, are those granted to it by the people as expressed by constitutional enumerations. On the other hand, progressives view rights, in the main, as belonging to the government which, in turn, can dole out rights to the people, and so can, therefor, make defunct original, "outdated," so-called unalienable rights.

How does this apply to the question at hand--what are the "rights" of the bakers, et. al., and of the gays, et. al.?

The originalist view only partially holds at this time since full rights have already been re-interpreted by anti-discrimination laws to apply to various select groups rather than being universal. But, even so, a quasi-originialist view would hold that the bakers, et. al., must sell whatever they have in stock if requested by any buyer who belongs to a select group. And would certainly allow a successful suit against a proprietor who refused to sell his stock to any buyer, espescially to a protected group. But it would not consider it a right of any buyer to demand what the proprietor does not have in stock, or would never have, due to personal belief or prerogative.

The Progressive view, on the other hand, would hold that the proprietor, must fill the demand of a buyer, especially of a protected group, for the generic type of the proprietor's product, even if that version of his product violates his personal or religious beliefs and he has never made such a version.

One might say, other than the blatant transfer of power from the people to the government, that a major distinction between the originalist and progressive Constitutions is that the former allows those with conflicting bigotries to live together with equal "rights," but that the latter allows one bigotry to trump another.

[PaulS]

Goes to show you what? That the evangelicals wanted the ability to discriminate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Goes to show you what? That the evangelicals wanted the ability to discriminate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...2&d=1428096750

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...2&d=1428096750

Stupid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...2&d=1428096750

That's hilarious, except I don't see right-wingers reacting the way the guy in your cartoon is recating. When I see feral anarchy, looting, violent protests, guess which side is doing the bithcing?

Bryan, the protesters here threatened to burn down the pizzeria (and that was a schoolteacher who did that), and th eowners felt sufficiently threatened that they went into hiding. Whoi goes into hiding because of evangelicals? Good luck answering that...

Yes, we should all learn how to debate, by taking our cues from the Occupy Wall Street group, they were quite civilized...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Goes to show you what? That the evangelicals wanted the ability to discriminate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, I have asked you a few times to address the constitutional issue, and I don't see that you have.

How much more clear could the Bill Of Rights be? If enough people agree with you, we can amend the constitution to say that the government cannot prevent the free exercise of religion, except in cases to prevent discrimination. As it stands today, it doesn't say that. So it's pretty clear.

The ability of one to exercise their religion, does not end, where someone else's feelings are hurt. If we want the Constitution to say that, we can change it.

Why can't the happy couple just find another baker who is thrilled for the business? Isn't that what the liberal principle of "live and let live" would suggest?

[PaulS]

Jim, So what was the reason that the evangelicals in Indiana NEEDED a law passed that specifically allowed them to discriminate?

Can't we say the same thing about the baker - live and let live?

Nothing I have written changes the fact that the evangelicals want to discriminate in public (as opposed to doing it in a private setting such as church). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constituion.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, So what was the reason that the evangelicals in Indiana NEEDED a law passed that specifically allowed them to discriminate?

Can't we say the same thing about the baker - live and let live?

Nothing I have written changes the fact that the evangelicals want to discriminate in public (as opposed to doing it in a private setting such as church). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constituion.

"Jim, So what was the reason that the evangelicals in Indiana NEEDED a law passed that specifically allowed them to discriminate?"

well, let's see. Oh yeay...those on your side of the issue, immediately descended into violent anarchy in th enext nanosecond afetr hearing that someone had the chutzpah to disagree with them. I agree the state law shouldn't be needed, as the constitution is very clear.

"Can't we say the same thing about the baker - live and let live?"

And how is th ebaker iinterfering with the ability of the hapy couple to "live"? Is the baker threatening to firebomb the hall where th ewedding takes place? Or is he simply asking that he not be forced to attend that which he feels is immoral? I hate to break it to you, but the happy couple can easily find bakers, photographers, etc who would be glad for the business.

"{the evangelicals want to discriminate in public "

First, I'm not sure that's true. They want to discriminate in their business pursuits. If you own a bakery, the bakery isn't public property. It's a private business, Obama hasn't seized it all - yet.

Second, where in the constitution does it say that freedom of religion ceases to exist on public grounds?

"I don't claim to be an expert on the Constituion"

That doesn't mean you have to pretend it doesn't exist, every time it suits you...

Here it is...you tell me how this doesn't guarantee the right of a Christian baker to say "no thanks, but good luck" to the offer of working at a gay wedding...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Paul, the Klan is allowed to hold non-violent rallies at public parks (freedom of speech guarantees them that right). So if the Klan has a constitutionally-protected right to discriminate in public, so does a born-again Christian baker.

The Bill Of Rights guaranytees these freedoms, even if someone else's feelings get hurt. That's the way our country works.

[PaulS]

I haven't addressed the issue of the constition bc I'm more concerned with the fact that Evangelicals are a bunch of bigots and wanted the specific right to discriminate whether they think they have a constitutional right or not. You haven't answered the question why they needed a law passed that allowed them discriminate? Now that they no longer have that law (bc the largest employees in Ind. -Eli Lilly, Anthem/Wellpoint, NCAA, etc. argued they didn't want their employees potentially exposed to that discrimation) why aren't they going to claim that their constitually given right to practice their religion is being hurt?

I laugh at your posts which mention vitriol, yet you clearly have more "vitriol" than anyone else on this site.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I haven't addressed the issue of the constition bc I'm more concerned with the fact that Evangelicals are a bunch of bigots and wanted the specific right to discriminate whether they think they have a constitutional right or not. You haven't answered the question why they needed a law passed that allowed them discriminate? Now that they no longer have that law (bc the largest employees in Ind. -Eli Lilly, Anthem/Wellpoint, NCAA, etc. argued they didn't want their employees potentially exposed to that discrimation) why aren't they going to claim that their constitually given right to practice their religion is being hurt?

I laugh at your posts which mention vitriol, yet you clearly have more "vitriol" than anyone else on this site.

"I haven't addressed the issue of the constition bc "

bc you cannot respond to that, because there is no response...

"Evangelicals are a bunch of bigots "

First, it was the Christians in this country who led the fight against slavery and segregation. So if they are bigots, they aren't very good at bigotry. Second, having made that blanket statement, you forfeit any and all right to accuse anyone of painting everyone with the same broad brush. You often criticize me for doing that, yet somehow, it's OK when you do it.

"You haven't answered the question why they needed a law passed that allowed them discriminate?"

Yes, I did. You yourself are living, breathing (mouth-breathing) proof that there are people who would deny them their constitutional rights.