Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Yes, if it's not illegal, then it's OK to do. You're arguing with yourself, I hope you realize.

  Not necessarily okay, but not illegal. I hope you realize simply saying something is okay to do suggests moral and ethical attributes in addition to legalities. Because something is legal to do does not make it okay morally or ethically. It only makes it legal.

  I've never said I would answer it nor am I obligated in any sense to answer it. It just so happens that the question doesn't make sense concurrent with my complete lack of obligation.

  No one here has an obligation to answer anyone here. We're here voluntarily because we want to engage subjects, and hopefully with others who are honest enough to answer questions asked of them as they would have others answer their questions. When engaged in discussion common courtesy is to answer relevant questions, and in this case you've repeatedly refused to answer a quite simple question, a question that would test the edges of whatever position you hold in relation to discrimination we find in society. At this point my thought is that you don't want to share whatever is your real position in relation to societal discrimination. But my question remains should you want to pursue the subject of discrimination we find in society around us.

  Are there any questions you've asked of me that I've failed to answer? If so please let me know.
  
  
  
• 

  DJS

  August 23, 2013

  A Georgia court has ruled in favor of Marshall Saxby, the Grand Wizard of a local KKK chapter, in a lawsuit stemming from two years ago when a local bakery denied him service. The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization’s annual birthday party. Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a cake for the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

  Saxby filed the lawsuit claiming that Bailey’s refusal of service was discriminatory against his religious beliefs.

  The KKK has re- branded itself, in many places, as a ‘loving’ X-tian org. trying to ensure white people are treated fairly – a white version of the NAACP if you will. Like it or not they operate legally. A business refusing to serve the KKK will likely lose similar lawsuits. What a business can do is to refuse to include hate speech on a cake, such as use of the “N” word or depictions of racist actions, for examples. Businesses have a legal and constitutional right to have the type of business they desire (a family oriented business can’t be forced to sell porn, for example, or a restaurant can require clothing or ban certain types of clothing). We have discussed these things before. Case law supporting businesses in these areas is firmly established. What a business cannot do is to refuse to serve someone based on purely discriminatory reasons when there is no compelling business interest served.

  Contrary to what some of you feel, this isn’t a complicated area. Your prejudices and biases keep some of you from understanding that we live in a constitutional democracy based on utilitarian principles (for the common good), and your religious or individual rights you think you have end at this demarcation point. The courts have had to establish this over the decades, based on the Constitution. Although not perfect, over time they have typically gotten things spot on. If some of you paid attention during HS Civics class or the world around you for the past 100 plus years you would already know these things. Or learn to google. But the very first thing you will need to do to accomplish any of that is to lose your prejudices and your biases and actually think about and read about things that do not confirm those biases.
• 

  blondie

  I wonder if these "pure and loving" Christians apply this to adulterers (is that "normal" like 4 Bethel elders told me)? When I was a teenager in the 60's there was still a law on the books allowing landlords to forbid renting to unmarried couples or to people not married to each other but to others.

  I remember that Jesus healed the daughter of a Gentile woman when it was forbidden to associate with Gentiles.

  (If you do not personally believe in the historical Jesus, remember the people I am talking about do or say they do)

  (Matthew 15:21-28) . . .Leaving there, Jesus now withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Si′don. 22 And, look! a Phoe·ni′cian woman from those regions came out and cried aloud, saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David. My daughter is badly demonized.” 23 But he did not say a word in answer to her. So his disciples came up and began to request him: “Send her away; because she keeps crying out after us.” 24 In answer he said: “I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 When the woman came she began doing obeisance to him, saying: “Lord, help me!” 26 In answer he said: “It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to little dogs.” 27 She said: “Yes, Lord; but really the little dogs do eat of the crumbs falling from the table of their masters.” 28 Then Jesus said in reply to her: “O woman, great is your faith; let it happen to you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour on.

  Or the Jewish woman with a blood flow that Jesus healed although it was also against Jewish law to touch such person (let's not forget the lepers).

  (Matthew 9:19-22) . . .Then Jesus, getting up, began to follow him; also his disciples did. 20 And, look! a woman suffering twelve years from a flow of blood came up behind and touched the fringe of his outer garment; 21 for she kept saying to herself: “If I only touch his outer garment I shall get well.” 22 Jesus turned around and, noticing her, said: “Take courage, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And from that hour the woman became well.
• 

  Viviane

  Not necessarily okay, but not illegal. I hope you realize simply saying something is okay to do suggests moral and ethical attributes in addition to legalities. Because something is legal to do does not make it okay morally or ethically. It only makes it legal.

  I never suggested any moral or ethical attributes. You were reading that into what I wrote.

  At this point my thought is that you don't want to share whatever is your real position in relation to societal discrimination. But my question remains should you want to pursue the subject of discrimination we find in society around us.

  As I said, if you want to know the answer to THAT question, simply ask it. There is no need to ask a different question and attempt to derive my position.
• 

  DJS

  From the Prof (now I will remove myself from my soapbox until this topic comes up again)

  One of the most common and misleading economic myths in the US, most often espoused by Libertarians, Far R. politicians, Separatists and some religious fundies, which comprise some of the more vocal responses to this OP), is the idea that government rules and regulations only “interfere” with the natural beneficial workings of the market. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our “free” market system would simply not exist as we know it without the presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently. To summarize:

  By the end of the 19th century, the government concluded that major corporations such as Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel and Union Pacific Railroad had grown too powerful. As a result, laws were created to offset this power. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed monopolies. The Food and Drug Administration was created in 1904 and vested with litigation of companies that broke new purity laws. The Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914 to regulate competition among American companies.

  The Security and Exchange Act of 1934, The Wagner Act of 1935 (labor relations and unions) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (national minimum wage) all were implemented to level playing fields and bring about more fairness to the economy. Without these and other Acts, the rich would have become richer, the poor, poorer, and the US wouldn’t have a thriving middle class. As I’ve stated before, a Darwinian survival of the fittest economy may be ruthlessly efficient, but it is also ruthlessly indifferent to inequality and suffering.

  There are many other rules and regulations passed by the government that make business possible. Under a purely capitalist system, none of these laws or entities should exist. Essentially, each act limited markets by granting the federal government the power to regulate business. The US and most W nations have a managed economy -- by definition, a non-market economy since it doesn't exist solely on supply and demand. Strong government control of the economy is a Keynsian model, whereas Milton Friedman, darling of the supply siders and Libertarians, believed that government should stay out of everything. Both of these models of course should be employed for a diverse strong economy.

  Some believe the Keynsian model is too present today; I agree in principle, but I have zero trust in business leaders to do the right thing for everyone. Most would greedily extract the last drop of oil from the planet for profit regardless of the impact it had on the environment, the economy or global warfare and strife, for example, without strong controls.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I never suggested any moral or ethical attributes. You were reading that into what I wrote.

  As I said already, it was your use of broad language to describe something narrower. I only mentioned moral and ethic perspectives to illustrate why I objected to your language toward what I wrote.

  As I said, if you want to know the answer to THAT question, simply ask it. There is no need to ask a different question and attempt to derive my position.

  My reason for asking you the question I did was to test your position for whatever it is. Even now you opt to avoid answering such a simple question, which is telling by itself.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Our “free” market system would simply not exist as we know it without the presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently.

  That's so true. To your list of libertarians, radical right-wing politicians, separatists and religious fanatics I'd add radical left-wing politicians. I think the person who says "Government built that" is just as goofball as the one who says "Private business built that". The reality is both built "that". It's not always pretty, but it take both working on concert to build the things we see around us in a free market commercial system.
• 

  Viviane

  As I said already, it was your use of broad language to describe something narrower. I only mentioned moral and ethic perspectives to illustrate why I objected to your language toward what I wrote.

  You read something into the text that wasn't there. I can't help that.

  My reason for asking you the question I did was to test your position for whatever it is. Even now you opt to avoid answering such a simple question, which is telling by itself.

  As I've said, if you want to know my position, simply ask. Using a poorly constructed "test" question to attempt to derive them on your own isn't the way.

  What it should be telling you is to ask directly and plainly if you want something.
• 

  flipper

  You would think the president of the United States could invoke some sort of constitutional rules or laws into effect to prevent the Indiana Governor " Dickhead " to not be able to pass such prejudiced laws.

  Out here in California there has been some jerk off attorney trying to get passed in legislation to " kill gays and lesbians ". Absolutely horrific. Our Attorney General Kamala Harris is working on getting that eliminated and not allowed to even be submitted on a bill.

  I don't believe in the Bible, but when you see idiots like this governor or attorney in California doing such despicable actions - when Proverbs said, " foolishness has been put in many high positions. " Man- no truer words have been spoken especially in instances like this concerning prejudice and discrimination no matter who it's against. One reason I wrote a song titled : " Prejudice and Ignorance. " Because the two phrases go hand in hand. Can't have one without the other
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  As I've said, if you want to know my position, simply ask.

  Okay. What is your position on a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause such discrimination based on race to cease?