Freedom to Discriminate

[hitch0403]

JMC if what you say is correct how do you know they may have done good with the money,like help the poor?

Because the greater percent dont give a <bleep> for what Gods laws are thats why this discussion goes back and forth.In this case this owner cared NOT to celebrate a sin in Gods eyes.Examples are made by the apostle Peter when Gods laws are compromised by mans.Again i know that means NOTHING to most of you but in owners case here it did.

Lets not forget the pressure thats put on 37 states to marry gays even tho this country is so hypocritical in using "In God we trust"

What a JOKE!!!

[hitch0403]

I also forgot to add,"one nation,under god"

HILARIOUS!!!

[paints]

Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines. 

The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. 
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.

Obviously, you don't. You haven't come close to being able to articulate an understanding of the RFRA, let alone explain how it makes it legal for businesses to discriminate. You are regurgitating headlines, similar to claim you made a few weeks ago that the minimum wage would have been $23+ if adjusted for inflation. It's propaganda, not facts.

If you look want to look at origins of the RFRA, it was passed (97 to 3 in the senate) after a business owner legally fired an employee for using peyote, which peyote is central part of his Native American religious ceremonies. It protected employees against the "evil" business owners. None of this was seen as controversial, and was almost universally trumpeted as a great thing recently.

So what changed? It really started with the Hobby Lobby decision. Which is little odd, because there was nothing controversial about the Obama Administration stated that Wheaton College could not be sued by an employee for failing to provide contraceptive coverage because it imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That's right, even a corporation has it's own religious rights. The "controversial" Indiana law did nothing more than write into code that the private enforcement of public laws, such as discrimination claims, can be defended if it posed a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion. It's still a matter then for the courts to decide if the substantial burden actually exists. It's simply not a license to discriminate as the headlines suggest. In no way does the RFRA provide immunity from discrimination suits.

The comedy of it all has been the rush to appease all the decenters of the law, which has caused numerous politicians to stick their foot in their mouth. Most notably, the Connecticut Governor who condemned the Indiana law while failing to realize his own a state had a much more restrictive RFRA law on the books. The Connecticut law only needs to show that a "burden" exists in ones right to free exercise of religion. His response to the people pointing that out should have given anyone capable of free-thought to realize that the RFRA wasn't the issue. He claimed that unlike Indiana, his state had more anti-discrimination laws on the books. If the RFRA is "acceptable" in one state because of other anti-discrimination laws, the RFRA isn't actually the real issue. You don't need knowledge of the laws to see that.

Finally, you claim that the RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. In reality, no RFRA law has ever been used to successfully defend anti-gay discrimination. Not once. There's been cases where businesses have tried to use the RFRA in defense of anti-gay discrimination suits, but have failed. If the RFRA hasn't been used for anti-gay purposes in the past 20+ years, why is there so much concern now and for the future? As is the case most times in politics, you're likely answer is another group trying to get rid of the RFRA and is simply "playing" people into believing this somehow has something to do with anti-gay discrimination.

Hawkeye, it's really very simple.  My rights end where yours begin.

A person has a right to their religious views, but when the practice of their religion interferes with another persons rights, that's not allowed. 

And thank you for calling me stupid.  I'm not, but at least it lets me know I'm wasting my time with you. 

[hawkeye3210]

Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines. 

The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. 
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.

Obviously, you don't. You haven't come close to being able to articulate an understanding of the RFRA, let alone explain how it makes it legal for businesses to discriminate. You are regurgitating headlines, similar to claim you made a few weeks ago that the minimum wage would have been $23+ if adjusted for inflation. It's propaganda, not facts.

If you look want to look at origins of the RFRA, it was passed (97 to 3 in the senate) after a business owner legally fired an employee for using peyote, which peyote is central part of his Native American religious ceremonies. It protected employees against the "evil" business owners. None of this was seen as controversial, and was almost universally trumpeted as a great thing recently.

So what changed? It really started with the Hobby Lobby decision. Which is little odd, because there was nothing controversial about the Obama Administration stated that Wheaton College could not be sued by an employee for failing to provide contraceptive coverage because it imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That's right, even a corporation has it's own religious rights. The "controversial" Indiana law did nothing more than write into code that the private enforcement of public laws, such as discrimination claims, can be defended if it posed a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion. It's still a matter then for the courts to decide if the substantial burden actually exists. It's simply not a license to discriminate as the headlines suggest. In no way does the RFRA provide immunity from discrimination suits.

The comedy of it all has been the rush to appease all the decenters of the law, which has caused numerous politicians to stick their foot in their mouth. Most notably, the Connecticut Governor who condemned the Indiana law while failing to realize his own a state had a much more restrictive RFRA law on the books. The Connecticut law only needs to show that a "burden" exists in ones right to free exercise of religion. His response to the people pointing that out should have given anyone capable of free-thought to realize that the RFRA wasn't the issue. He claimed that unlike Indiana, his state had more anti-discrimination laws on the books. If the RFRA is "acceptable" in one state because of other anti-discrimination laws, the RFRA isn't actually the real issue. You don't need knowledge of the laws to see that.

Finally, you claim that the RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. In reality, no RFRA law has ever been used to successfully defend anti-gay discrimination. Not once. There's been cases where businesses have tried to use the RFRA in defense of anti-gay discrimination suits, but have failed. If the RFRA hasn't been used for anti-gay purposes in the past 20+ years, why is there so much concern now and for the future? As is the case most times in politics, you're likely answer is another group trying to get rid of the RFRA and is simply "playing" people into believing this somehow has something to do with anti-gay discrimination.

Hawkeye, it's really very simple.  My rights end where yours begin.

A person has a right to their religious views, but when the practice of their religion interferes with another persons rights, that's not allowed. 

And thank you for calling me stupid.  I'm not, but at least it lets me know I'm wasting my time with you. 

I most certainly never called you stupid.

My rights end where yours begins. No argument there. My point was that the RFRA has never been used to infringe on gay rights despite claims to the contrary. Sure, businesses have refused service to gay weddings and claimed RFRA protection, but that has never been upheld in court. That's the point. A business owner could claim protection under the First Amendment as well, but that doesn't mean the courts are going to agree.

[lvstephanie]

When paints stated "A person has a right to their religious views, but when the practice of their religion interferes with another persons rights, that's not allowed," that is only partially correct... Since our country prides itself in offering its people freedom to act, the purpose of laws is to dictate what should happen when one person's rights interact with another person's rights; usually it isn't so clear-cut to say that a person's religious rights are interfering with another person's rights and therefore the other person's rights trump the religious views. The legislatures have to determine which rights / freedoms cause the most harm when interacting with another person's rights. For example, murder in self-defense is considered legal (or may carry a much lesser penalty than murder in the 1st degree) because we feel that a person protecting their own rights to life and / or their property is more important to protect than the thug victim's life that was planning to harm the actual murderer. This is why the federal RFRA law stipulates that there has to be a "substantial burden" placed on a person's religious views in order for those views to be the prevailing right to be preserved. This is also why it would be more difficult for a company to use RFRA laws in order to discriminate against a person of a protected class. A company couldn't just choose to not do business with a gay couple because the company's (or owner's) religious views are against homosexuality; they'd also have to show that what the gay couple is asking the company to do actually goes against something the company's religion.

[paints]

Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines. 

The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. 
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.

Obviously, you don't. You haven't come close to being able to articulate an understanding of the RFRA, let alone explain how it makes it legal for businesses to discriminate. You are regurgitating headlines, similar to claim you made a few weeks ago that the minimum wage would have been $23+ if adjusted for inflation. It's propaganda, not facts.

If you look want to look at origins of the RFRA, it was passed (97 to 3 in the senate) after a business owner legally fired an employee for using peyote, which peyote is central part of his Native American religious ceremonies. It protected employees against the "evil" business owners. None of this was seen as controversial, and was almost universally trumpeted as a great thing recently.

So what changed? It really started with the Hobby Lobby decision. Which is little odd, because there was nothing controversial about the Obama Administration stated that Wheaton College could not be sued by an employee for failing to provide contraceptive coverage because it imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That's right, even a corporation has it's own religious rights. The "controversial" Indiana law did nothing more than write into code that the private enforcement of public laws, such as discrimination claims, can be defended if it posed a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion. It's still a matter then for the courts to decide if the substantial burden actually exists. It's simply not a license to discriminate as the headlines suggest. In no way does the RFRA provide immunity from discrimination suits.

The comedy of it all has been the rush to appease all the decenters of the law, which has caused numerous politicians to stick their foot in their mouth. Most notably, the Connecticut Governor who condemned the Indiana law while failing to realize his own a state had a much more restrictive RFRA law on the books. The Connecticut law only needs to show that a "burden" exists in ones right to free exercise of religion. His response to the people pointing that out should have given anyone capable of free-thought to realize that the RFRA wasn't the issue. He claimed that unlike Indiana, his state had more anti-discrimination laws on the books. If the RFRA is "acceptable" in one state because of other anti-discrimination laws, the RFRA isn't actually the real issue. You don't need knowledge of the laws to see that.

Finally, you claim that the RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. In reality, no RFRA law has ever been used to successfully defend anti-gay discrimination. Not once. There's been cases where businesses have tried to use the RFRA in defense of anti-gay discrimination suits, but have failed. If the RFRA hasn't been used for anti-gay purposes in the past 20+ years, why is there so much concern now and for the future? As is the case most times in politics, you're likely answer is another group trying to get rid of the RFRA and is simply "playing" people into believing this somehow has something to do with anti-gay discrimination.

Hawkeye, it's really very simple.  My rights end where yours begin.

A person has a right to their religious views, but when the practice of their religion interferes with another persons rights, that's not allowed. 

And thank you for calling me stupid.  I'm not, but at least it lets me know I'm wasting my time with you. 

I most certainly never called you stupid.

My rights end where yours begins. No argument there. My point was that the RFRA has never been used to infringe on gay rights despite claims to the contrary. Sure, businesses have refused service to gay weddings and claimed RFRA protection, but that has never been upheld in court. That's the point. A business owner could claim protection under the First Amendment as well, but that doesn't mean the courts are going to agree.

I apologize. You called my thinking naive, which I interpreted as equivalent to stupid.

Hobby Lobby's claim to the contrary, corporations have no god, but profit.
A business has no religion, so how can it claim religious freedom?

Rights should be reserved for living persons, not legal constructs.

[hawkeye3210]

I apologize. You called my thinking naive, which I interpreted as equivalent to stupid.

Hobby Lobby's claim to the contrary, corporations have no god, but profit.
A business has no religion, so how can it claim religious freedom?

Rights should be reserved for living persons, not legal constructs.

The owners of Hobby Lobby are living persons with religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby isn't open on Sundays because of their religious beliefs. They commit 50% of their earnings a year to various religious missions.  They had already put religion before profits.

Legally, it really just comes down to the legal concept Corporate Personhood, which gives corporations some of the same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual. It's also the same legal concept that allows a corporation to be sued.

[mstevenson2]

every one should be free to do their own religion as long as their not out hurting killing people

[hitch0403]

every one should be free to do their own religion as long as their not out hurting killing people

What gives mankind the right how the TRUE GOD wants to be served?

Read Rev 4:11 and understand why the TRUE God has that right!!

A landlord can decide what tenants he has.How much more if God created the earth and us!!

[hitch0403]

When the Pharissees thought they were worshiping god go read what the son of the TRUE GOD Jesus Christ told them and who they were really serving!!

Not that most of you care anyway because in the times we live in even when truth and logic can dominate...people are so set in their ways they still dont give a D*M!!