Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Merrith

Merrith

Golden Baronet of the Realm
18,591
7,223
Furry_sl said:
Except... The choice of the people in these examples was to not do the work. I think you are the alien, sir.
Click to expand...
The choice of these people...while at their jobs where they do work...was not to work. Such a terrible thing to have to adhere to fair business practices. If all they're being asked to do is bake a cake, it violates nothing in their religious beliefs, it's just an excuse to show their hate.
 
D

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
Tuco_sl said:
I've said what I want. The argument for gay marriage stands on its own two feet. Basing the conversation on whether we can leverage the civil rights war from the 60s is sophomoric. I don't like opening a thread about gays and seeing people throw blacks around like a football, just like I don't want to open a thread about whether a given animation canceling DPS rotation is an exploit and seeing people trying to use literally hitler as a bat to beat people with.

I think you can only call individual freedom and rights dead if you are forced to bake cakes or not to bake cakes period. If you want to bake cakes you have to bake cakes for everyone who pays good money and acts appropriately to you and in your store.
Click to expand...
Tuco legal arguments are always based on precedent if existing law does not explicitly state what to do. If there is no law regarding gay marriage it has to be based on precedent which is civil rights.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
I have extreme sympathy for you, Draegan, if you continued reading this thread past when Tuco made that post, because the thread devolves into some real grade A inanity after that for close to 10 pages.
 
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,942
52,715
hodj_sl said:
I have extreme sympathy for you, Draegan, if you continued reading this thread past when Tuco made that post, because the thread devolves into some real grade A inanity after that for close to 10 pages.
Click to expand...
Yeah that happens in many threads where you post a lot.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
I can't stop other people from having stupid opinions, all I can do it point out to them how stupid those opinions are until they are willing to see the light and change them.

Maybe one day you'll be less of a sad lonely human being, too, but I can't fix that for you either.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,951
82,692
Draegan_sl said:
Tuco legal arguments are always based on precedent if existing law does not explicitly state what to do. If there is no law regarding gay marriage it has to be based on precedent which is civil rights.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,526
43,831
Maybe instead of drawing direct parallels involving in some cases the same people, let's assume things will be different this time!
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,477
29,647
Palum_sl said:
Maybe instead of drawing direct parallels involving in some cases the same people, let's assume things will be different this time!
Click to expand...
The hobby lobby case is the most famous case in recent memory about this, and the supreme court found that business do have the right to express their beliefs over law- so long as they are closely held.

I'd really like to see how they'd rule on one of these cakegate cases. My guess is they would find in favor of the person's freedom.
 
Royal

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
I don't think it's very easy to extrapolate from the Hobby Lobby decision a prediction of how the court might rule on an anti-discrimination case. Remember that the stumbling block for the government in that case was failing the least restrictive means test of the federal RFRA due to the fact that the government has multiple means at it's disposal to provide coverage for contraceptives. I'm not sure that state governments have as many avenues through which to provide redress for discrimination. Unless sexual orientation is made a protected classification at the federal level (not likely anytime soon imo) it will be a state RFRA and there are some differences that could matter in specific circumstances. It's hard to say really what the result would be.
 
K

Kedwyn

Silver Squire
3,915
80
I think you'd see people involved directly with the offending event, say the gay wedding, as being allowed to pass and deny service so long as it didn't violate any other laws or contracts (cancel at the last minute as an example). This would apply to churches, priests, caterers, Dj's, florists etc..

People that are not directly involved in the offending event would not get such a pass. Doctor refusing to care for a child solely because the parents were of the same sex would likely not come down in their favor. Caring for the child would in no way support the parents homosexuality nor would it be out of the normal course and scope of their regular activities. Same with insurance people or mechanics etc.

Regardless its a stupid thing to discriminate on unless you're a church or conducting the wedding yourself.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,526
43,831
Also Hobby Lobby is wrong. I have full faith it will be undone. It may take centuries of course.
 
Royal

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
Hobby Lobby could be undone as to it's federal implications by amending the RFRA to exclude non-profit along with for profit enterprises. It was the assertion by the court that there could be no reasonable distinction between the two as it pertains to that law which was most remarkable to begin with.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
spronk

spronk

FPS noob
23,519
27,503
so on reddit and neogaf someone posted this cartoon and everyone said it basically tries to equate being gay with being in the KKK. to me the cartoon just pokes fun of trying to force businesses into accepting everyone, i don't get the KKK=teh gayz thing that all

nLkQ9iz.jpg


i dunno where the line is though and who decides. if i walk into a jewish bakery and ask them to bake a "Hamas 4Ever" cake (or "Fuck Jews"), they should have the right to refuse, right? If I just ask for a plain cake with "Happy Birthday Mohammed" though that seems like something they should do. but who decides that line...
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Yeah, that cartoon is pretty fucking stupid.

The KKK is a hate-group that used to lynch blacks. The group doing the hating is the person trying to buy the cake in the cartoon.

In the actual thing we are talking about, the gay person tries to buy a cake from a group that hates him, so the group doing the hating is the bakery.

It is the opposite of what happened in this story and anyone looking at it should be offended at its stupidity.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,805
99,993
hodj_sl said:
Although its pretty different from discriminating based on race/sex, I'm certainly against this.

But I'm definitely pro second amendment, so that shouldn't be much of a surprise that I find this ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is the SC said firearms ownership is a civil right.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Yeah I agree with that. But firearms are a product/tool one can purchase, rather than a fundamental characteristic of the individual.

Like, the right to own firearms is a civil right and a fundamental characteristic of being human (right to self defense if we want to get really nit picky is the fundamental characteristic of being a human in question), but the actual product themselves aren't, if that makes sense.

But yeah I think trying to restrict firearms ownership is a violation of civil rights, and banks refusing to do business with firearms dealerships in some way infringes on that right, definitely.

Like I said in another thread about gun ownership a few weeks back, I don't see how anyone can watch the Ukrainian Maiden sniper shootings during the Ukraine revolution and not reach a conclusion that yes, even in this day and age, the right to bear arms should remain uninfringeable.

Fucking police snipers sitting in towers shooting down Ukrainian citizens armed with billy clubs and alumunimum shields was just an abomination in my eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.