- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 2/26/14 at 8:12 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:Minus 13 today 30 MPH winds this after noon.
Hey J Bird snow flurries in NY once again We need spring!
quote:You haven't read any of it have you?
and no I haven't read the whole bill.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 8:13 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
thanks for the answer. shows the depth into which you've studied this. and for the record, i am not sure i'm behind the exact AZ amendments before Brewer now.
but, when a Christian homosexual videographer (I know some, so this isn't farfetched) is conscripted by the state to tape a Westboro Baptist Church wedding ceremony, you and your ilk will be need to step up and take some of the blame.
but, when a Christian homosexual videographer (I know some, so this isn't farfetched) is conscripted by the state to tape a Westboro Baptist Church wedding ceremony, you and your ilk will be need to step up and take some of the blame.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 8:15 am to McLemore
Me and my ilk? When an Okla restaurant days it will not serve gays what do you say? When Cracker barrel wouldn't serve blacks I guess that was OK? When ole Miss wouldn't integrate that was OK?
Ilk? But I like your example though
Ilk? But I like your example though
This post was edited on 2/26/14 at 8:16 am
Posted on 2/26/14 at 8:24 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Me and my ilk? When an Okla restaurant days it will not serve gays what do you say? When Cracker barrel wouldn't serve blacks I guess that was OK? When ole Miss wouldn't integrate that was OK?
When a Ca restaurant wont serve proponents of the AZ bill, is that ok?
Posted on 2/26/14 at 8:30 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
people blindly opposing RFRA is all I meant.
And no, we already have laws against that, federal and state.
Arguing aside, just go really study this.
There are issues, but they aren't the ones you cite (which don't exist).
eta:
The AZ amendments do two things: expand religious objection to persons and entities, not just "religious organizations" and allow statute to be used as a defense even when state isn't a party to the action.
e.g., in my homosexual videography hypo, GayFlix, LLC and/or Gary the Gay Videographer is sued by Westboro for discrimination (note that sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Arizona, despite some municipal ordinances related to same, but suspend that reality for a moment) on the basis of sexual orientation. Gary and GayFlix hold the genuine religious belief that Westboro is a bunch of haters who stand in direct contradiction to Christianity (99.99999% of the US thinks this way too of course but that's beside that point), he evokes the RFRA's protection against being forced to film the ceremony.
However, due to the political pressure from so-called gay-rights activists, Gov Brewer vetoed the bill, so the RFRA doesn't apply a) to Gary or GayFlix and b) to an action by Westboro Baptist.
Now is this a risk we're willing to take? I don't know.
But what's the risk in the other direction? In the areas where most (especially out gays) gays live, there are going to be a plethora of choices for photographers, florists, bakeries, etc etc, to choose from. And why would a gay person want an anti-gay marriage person (to continue in the general arena of my hypo) to participate in any way in their lives?
Keep in mind the standards here too--the strict scrutiny analysis, etc.
This isn't as cut-and-dried as your reductionist platitudes make it seem.
And no, we already have laws against that, federal and state.
Arguing aside, just go really study this.
There are issues, but they aren't the ones you cite (which don't exist).
eta:
The AZ amendments do two things: expand religious objection to persons and entities, not just "religious organizations" and allow statute to be used as a defense even when state isn't a party to the action.
e.g., in my homosexual videography hypo, GayFlix, LLC and/or Gary the Gay Videographer is sued by Westboro for discrimination (note that sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Arizona, despite some municipal ordinances related to same, but suspend that reality for a moment) on the basis of sexual orientation. Gary and GayFlix hold the genuine religious belief that Westboro is a bunch of haters who stand in direct contradiction to Christianity (99.99999% of the US thinks this way too of course but that's beside that point), he evokes the RFRA's protection against being forced to film the ceremony.
However, due to the political pressure from so-called gay-rights activists, Gov Brewer vetoed the bill, so the RFRA doesn't apply a) to Gary or GayFlix and b) to an action by Westboro Baptist.
Now is this a risk we're willing to take? I don't know.
But what's the risk in the other direction? In the areas where most (especially out gays) gays live, there are going to be a plethora of choices for photographers, florists, bakeries, etc etc, to choose from. And why would a gay person want an anti-gay marriage person (to continue in the general arena of my hypo) to participate in any way in their lives?
Keep in mind the standards here too--the strict scrutiny analysis, etc.
This isn't as cut-and-dried as your reductionist platitudes make it seem.
This post was edited on 2/26/14 at 8:43 am
Posted on 2/26/14 at 8:53 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
The whole bill is less than 2 pages. I linked it yesterday. This is my problem. A seemingly very smart person passionately debating a bill based upon talking points being fed to them. If you would read the actual bill....all 2 pages of it, I would wager you wouldn't find much objectionable in it. If you did, you could post that part here and we could have a nice debate. That seems to be an impossible task for the many in this thread invoking the 60s and dropping ad hominem.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 8:54 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Me and my ilk? When an Okla restaurant days it will not serve gays what do you say? When Cracker barrel wouldn't serve blacks I guess that was OK? When ole Miss wouldn't integrate that was OK?
What does "OK" have to do with illegal?
Posted on 2/26/14 at 8:58 am to BBONDS25
quote:
BBONDS25
Thanks for your input in this thread.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:05 am to SammyTiger
quote:The strong take from the week every fricking day notwithstanding man made law. Fact.
The only thing stopping the strong from taking from the weak is man made law. Fact.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:20 am to GumboPot
quote:
Thanks for your input in this thread.
ditto.
and i think this thread shows that efforts to actually dissect legislation and discuss the real policy issues and the balancing of interests and risks involved in analyzing nearly every statute, amendment, legal decision, etc., are wasted on the True Believers.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:31 am to BBONDS25
quote:
The whole bill is less than 2 pages. I linked it yesterday.
quote:
41-1493.01.
Free exercise of religion protected; definition
A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B. Except as provided in Subsection C, Government of this Section, state action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C. Government state action may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it the government or nongovernmental person seeking the enforcement of state action demonstrates that application of the burden to the person person's exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:
1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
E. A person that asserts a violation of this section must establish all of the following:
1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief.
2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held.
3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs.
F. The person asserting a claim or defense under Subsection D of this section may obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
G. In for the purposes of this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
H. For the purposes of this section, "state action" means any action, except for the requirements prescribed by section 41-1493.04, by the government or the implementation or application of any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether the implementation or application is made by the government or nongovernmental persons.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:45 am to asurob1
*wanders in*
If the crux of argumentation is hinged on the idea that humanity is capable of terrible things and we are opening doors, the very least the detractors of the bill can agree upon is that humanity has a sick and twisted inclination, no?
That being the case, I fail to see how a system with or without the bill is any better. If the assumption is true then any policy - whether it 'protect' rights or not - is going to be subject to abuse through misinterpretation and twisting... Surely you cannot seriously say that the system before this bill was implemented is the cure all for the supposed issues? Surely it is just as subject to twisting, right?
Upon realizing that, I think I have just proven that discussion over the issue is fruitless and full of insignificant hot air. In fact, policy implementation in general in useless seeing as it's people crafting and implementing the policies. At this point I'm left to wonder... If your view of humanity is true...
Y u try so hard man? U get nowhere
If the crux of argumentation is hinged on the idea that humanity is capable of terrible things and we are opening doors, the very least the detractors of the bill can agree upon is that humanity has a sick and twisted inclination, no?
That being the case, I fail to see how a system with or without the bill is any better. If the assumption is true then any policy - whether it 'protect' rights or not - is going to be subject to abuse through misinterpretation and twisting... Surely you cannot seriously say that the system before this bill was implemented is the cure all for the supposed issues? Surely it is just as subject to twisting, right?
Upon realizing that, I think I have just proven that discussion over the issue is fruitless and full of insignificant hot air. In fact, policy implementation in general in useless seeing as it's people crafting and implementing the policies. At this point I'm left to wonder... If your view of humanity is true...
Y u try so hard man? U get nowhere
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:59 am to Captain Jaye
quote:Except in the former case, a customer simply chooses proprietors based on service rendered. In the latter case, the proprietor is mandated to provide services against his will.
I fail to see how a system with or without the bill is any better
E.g., the case of a Muslim baker being told to make a cake in the image of Mohammed.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 10:21 am to NC_Tigah
Completely agree, I'm just trying to get a fix for my curiosity in the bigger picture. It seems so utterly fruitless to pursue a discussion on policy if you adopt asurob's fundamental reasoning. If I try to accept it, I feel so apathetic, worthless, and hopeless. xD
Posted on 2/26/14 at 10:33 am to Captain Jaye
i feel your pain.
those are the nihilists above, btw.
those are the nihilists above, btw.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 1:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Do you live in AZ?
Sad but true.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 1:26 pm to Jbird
quote:
Thanks for the link supporting your point you arse.
No problem, I understand that you could handle the simple Google search...oh yeah I need to call you a name...
Posted on 2/26/14 at 1:28 pm to asurob1
quote::nana
oh yeah I need to call you a name...
quote:Sure thing Chief.
I understand that you could handle the simple Google search
Page 27 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News