Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => Rantatorials => Topic started by: Edward Starkie on March 31, 2015, 03:03:54 pm

Title: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Edward Starkie on March 31, 2015, 03:03:54 pm
Kevin, thanks for an interesting rantatorial. You note that it is not about photography, but if I were a wedding photographer in Indianapolis I would put up a sign right now that says, "This Business Does Not Discriminate." For those who do not discriminate there are two new markets: gay weddings, and the business of people who do not want to patronize businesses that discriminate. Combined, those two groups could mean a lot of business (one year of same-sex weddings in Massachusetts was quoted a generating ±$37 million in spending).

If businesses make non-discrimination declarations it will put pressure on those who do discriminate--loss of the business of both groups above. And young people, at least the ones who are my daughters age, don't seem to feel the same way as many of their elders and many are passionate about the rights of gay and transgender, and most weddings are marriages of those young people who probably do not favor discrimination and would avoid discriminatory businesses..

I think this law will backfire because of the unintended consequences brought on by cluelessness. Don't feel bad about the great state of Indiana--every state goes through periods of accelerated legislative production of unintended consequences. It even happens at the Federal level (gasp!).
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 31, 2015, 03:40:10 pm
Thanks god voting is (still) secret, so that people can express their opinion freely, albeit indirectly, without the fear of losing their jobs, livelihoods, careers, or being bullied, shamed, and terrorized in social and other media.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on March 31, 2015, 04:09:06 pm
Kevin, thanks for an interesting rantatorial. You note that it is not about photography, but if I were a wedding photographer in Indianapolis I would put up a sign right now that says, "This Business Does Not Discriminate." For those who do not discriminate there are two new markets: gay weddings, and the business of people who do not want to patronize businesses that discriminate. Combined, those two groups could mean a lot of business (one year of same-sex weddings in Massachusetts was quoted a generating ±$37 million in spending).

If businesses make non-discrimination declarations it will put pressure on those who do discriminate--loss of the business of both groups above. And young people, at least the ones who are my daughters age, don't seem to feel the same way as many of their elders and many are passionate about the rights of gay and transgender, and most weddings are marriages of those young people who probably do not favor discrimination and would avoid discriminatory businesses..

I think this law will backfire because of the unintended consequences brought on by cluelessness. Don't feel bad about the great state of Indiana--every state goes through periods of accelerated legislative production of unintended consequences. It even happens at the Federal level (gasp!).

but what is the problem ? homosexual photogs will make more money and homophobic ones lose, while both sides can exercise their freedom to do their business as they wish without gov't saying how - I think the state of Indiana has to be congratulated  :) ...

the case with Pledge Of Allegiance In Arabic is way more serious, because this was not a private enterprise but a state school
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Rajan Parrikar on March 31, 2015, 05:42:51 pm
Kevin asks: "What I’d like to know is what religion actually would dictate a right to discriminate against anyone?"

There is at least one. It has some nasty prescriptions for me, a kaffir.

There was also another 'religion' (in quotes because it isn't really a religion as understood in the West) that at certain times in history discriminated against certain people deemed "untouchables."
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: amolitor on March 31, 2015, 06:02:27 pm
The photography and florists example is actually quite silly. It makes the whole issue seem trivial.

There are other businesses which are not awash in competition, and which offer substantially more important services. If the only dentist, doctor, grocery store, in your small town declines to serve you because you are gay (or otherwise in a recognizable but unprotected category. Veterans? Gun owners? Photographers? People who dye their hair?), you could have a much more substantial problem.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Telecaster on March 31, 2015, 06:48:37 pm
Kevin asks: "What I’d like to know is what religion actually would dictate a right to discriminate against anyone?"

There is at least one. It has some nasty prescriptions for me, a kaffir.

There was also another 'religion' (in quotes because it isn't really a religion as understood in the West) that at certain times in history discriminated against certain people deemed "untouchables."

No need to stop with those examples. Religions are all about inclusion and, just as important, exclusion. In group vs. Out group.

Two general observations on the subject:

1) IMO the best way to further denigrate the value of the Christian religion in the US is to further entangle it with the state.

2) IMO cloaking bigotry in religious garb is chickenshit & weak. Own your beliefs. And if you can't deal with criticism and even ridicule for doing so, maybe reconsider what & why you believe.

Props to Kevin for posting his rant.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on March 31, 2015, 07:40:39 pm
The state of Indiana has made the world news headlines in Great Britain and Europe (true). In other news, Putin has "friended" Pence. (satire) The linked New Yorker satire is likely close to the mark, by the way.

Arkansas is poised to follow IN down the drain. Then again, AR hasn't really overcome the Central High School desegregation of 57 years ago. If you are not from AR, the one image that you are guaranteed to know about AR are the photos of "screaming mobs of white people held back by 101st Airborne US Army soldiers there to protect nine black high school students". Now that businesses off-shore their low-skill labor, no nationally oriented businesses are going to want to locate in AR, because ambitious educated or highly skilled people don't want to move there. I didn't bother to look at a faculty position at the medical school there despite some recruitment by the then-chair - no point, didn't want to live in Little Rock. The number one tourist attraction is the extensive national forests and rivers, and state parks, none of which generate a heck of a lot of income, because the tourists pay zero to 10 bucks to 80 bucks (all-parks-year-long-pass) to the US government for admission and camping, maybe 10 bucks a night for state park electrified trailer campsite .
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on March 31, 2015, 07:48:51 pm
Vendors in Indianapolis are apparently buying up and posting all the rainbow stickers they can find. Smart business move.

 I do know that seeing prominently displayed Christian paraphernalia in store windows or on store vans makes me alert for bad deals and the need to comparison shop. There have been enough examples of people wearing their religion on their sleeves and then fleecing their co-religionists who are naive enough to think that public piety equals honesty.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on March 31, 2015, 10:16:01 pm
Now that businesses off-shore their low-skill labor, no nationally oriented businesses are going to want to locate in AR

WalMart is still there... in Bentonville, AR
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Chris_Brown on March 31, 2015, 10:33:14 pm
Yo, Kevin. Come on over to Illinois if you want some real cronyism.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: telyt on March 31, 2015, 10:34:07 pm
Agree with much if not all of the above.  In a few instances (displaying rainbow stickers vs. religious piety for example) the market will sort out the schmucks, but there are too many ways the market can fail especially in smaller communities.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 01, 2015, 12:07:19 am
A good response....

Indiana's new anti-gay law has had some unexpected consequences (http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/indianas-new-antigay-law-has-had-some-unexpected-consequences--eJityhRjAe)



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 02:27:43 am
Agree with much if not all of the above.  In a few instances (displaying rainbow stickers vs. religious piety for example) the market will sort out the schmucks, but there are too many ways the market can fail especially in smaller communities.

If it is ok to call one side of the debate "schmucks," would it be ok to call the other side pervs or freaks?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: dzevchek on April 01, 2015, 03:05:34 am
Luminous Landscape has always been about photography, not politics.  Even the rants.

This rantatorial has no place here.

Best Regards,
Don Z.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Chairman Bill on April 01, 2015, 05:16:25 am
Here in the UK, it's illegal in most instances, to discriminate on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, disability, race, etc. What is more, if you are offering a service to the public (including selling wedding cakes or offering wedding photography), you are not allowed to discriminate, whatever your personal beliefs/feelings. If you won't photograph a gay wedding, don't be a wedding photographer, because if you're asked & refuse because they're gay, you risk prosecution.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: David Anderson on April 01, 2015, 08:06:27 am
I think it's time to start throwing the odd christian to the lions as a reminder when they were the target...  ;)  ;D

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: PeterAit on April 01, 2015, 08:24:28 am
BH Photo in New York City is owned and run by orthodox Jews whose religion does not allow them to eat pork, shrimp, etc. Would it be OK for them to turn away any customer who does? I see the Indiana law the same way - freedom of religion means you are free to practice YOUR religion the way YOU see fit. It does not mean you are free to discriminate against people who practice THEIR religion differently than you do.

North Carolina is considering a similar law and I am glad to say that the furor over Indiana has at least some of the bill's sponsors saying "more study is needed."
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: PeterAit on April 01, 2015, 08:27:22 am
I should also say that I too think the rantatorials should stick to photography. As much as I respect Michael and Kevin, their political opinions - whether I agree or not - are of precisely zero interest.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: michael on April 01, 2015, 08:29:58 am
Luminous Landscape has always been about photography, not politics.  Even the rants.

This rantatorial has no place here.

Best Regards,
Don Z.


I disagree.

Firstly, Kevin is now the publisher here, and is free to write what he sees fit. And though not a primary consequence of this stupid law (remember when America was the champion of all forms of freedom, and enshrined them in its constitution?) it has huge consequences for business, and for many photographers this is a business.

This highly discriminatory law is simply an end-run around gays and other visible minorities, and allows those preaching a perverted form of religiosity to act in a legally- sanctioned bigoted manner.

What's next. Jews? Blacks? Hispantics?

There are no "official" religions in the U.S. Indeed its outlawed in the constitution. Therefore anyone who wants to say that providing service to Jews is against their religion now has the legal right to do so in Indiana, and I understand eventually in as many as more than half the U.S. states.

No. This is a dumb, even an evil law being used by the the anti-gay marriage crowd to foster their particular form of hatred on everyone else. It is making the USA a sad and despised country among those of us who value both freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

In my opinion Kevin should be shouting this from the rooftops, not just the pages of this site.

As someone who has known Kevin for many years I can say that his bona fides are unquestionable. In many political debates I'm on the left and he's on the right, but in this instances there is no division between us. The Indiana law and its clones in other states are simply wrong-headed at best, and frankly nakedly homophobic. They offer a chance for legally supported racial, sexual and religious intolerance.

Michael
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jfirneno on April 01, 2015, 09:01:13 am
Yeah and let's teach those muslin butcher shops that they can't get away with not serving me that ham on rye that I like so much.  When they told me it was against their beliefs I felt so violated that I called up Eric Holder and he said he'd get right on it.  But when he told me that he could only hold kosher butchers accountable but not muslim (you know they've really suffered too much lately) I relived the horror of my micro-assault all over again.  Yeah, there's way too much freedom going on around us today.  Maybe we can cancel the bill of rights!
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 09:09:44 am
Instead of whining about how bad and bigot is this law, why don't make bigotry a disease that's lethal by starvation?
In the internet era how difficult is setting up a site (maybe www.starvethebigots.net?) that lists of the business run by bigots who refused to serve gay/atheists/jews/black an so on?
How difficult is writing a mobile application that let someone knows if the store he's entering is run by a bigot so that you can choose not to buy stuff from him?



PS: I can't wait the day some christian will refuse to serve a jew because "jews killed jesus".
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 09:15:22 am
BH Photo in New York City is owned and run by orthodox Jews whose religion does not allow them to eat pork, shrimp, etc. Would it be OK for them to turn away any customer who does?...

But it does allow them to turn away any customer on days their religion tells them not to work, even when their customers do.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 09:16:38 am
Luminous Landscape has always been about photography, not politics.  Even the rants.
This rantatorial has no place here.

Photography is about how you see the world and the people around you, how you fit in it, how you feel about it.
Take all this out of photography and you will end up with traffic's camera shots.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 09:31:24 am
If there are still those interested in a level-heased analysis of those laws (i.e., not just Indiana's), free from the usual knee-jerk reaction and hysterics of the professional armchair outragers, there is an article in the Washington Times here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/31/religious-freedom-laws-helped-muslims-indians/?page=3).
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 09:34:27 am
If there are still those interested in a level-heased analysis of those laws (i.e., not just Indiana's), free from the usual knee-jerk reaction and hysterics of the professional armchair outragers, there is an article in the Washington Times here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/31/religious-freedom-laws-helped-muslims-indians/?page=3).

Any law that allows discrimination of any kind is unworthy of a civilized nation.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 01, 2015, 09:39:47 am
remember when America was the champion of all forms of freedom, and enshrined them in its constitution?
you mean when founding fathers did not consider females and negroes as human beings ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 01, 2015, 09:41:24 am
Here in the UK, it's illegal in most instances
so what are the instances when we can be a little pregnant ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 09:42:38 am
Any law that allows discrimination of any kind is unworthy of a civilized nation.

That is what the debate is about: is it a discrimination. But apparently for some people there is no need for a debate, even if they didn't read the law or the 20 years of its implementation and judicial practice, as they already "know."
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Deardorff on April 01, 2015, 09:48:37 am
Utah has one of these drawn up and pushed by top leadership in the Mormon Church. Discrimination based on religion is still discrimination based on hate no matter how they try to explain it away or justify it.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 09:49:58 am
That is what the debate is about: is it a discrimination. But apparently for some people there is no need for a debate, even if they didn't read the law or the 20 years of its implementation and judicial practice, as they already "know."

Yes, it is discrimination, plain and simple.
Just change "gay" with "jews" or "black people" and it will be quite obvious.
But, for some reason, "gay" needs debate but "jews" no.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 09:58:47 am
Yes, it is discrimination, plain and simple...

That is what I am talking about. People who have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about are jumping into the fray based on their preconceived notions. There are very, very few things in life and especially law that are "plain and simple."
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Phinius on April 01, 2015, 10:00:09 am
First, the slander: "Here we go again, religion, the word that has caused more wars and conflicts than anything else and we just allowed it to be the grounds for a way to say no to people." Do the names Hitler, Stalin and Mao come to mind as deeply religious people? Not unless they are all members of the church of the left.

Second, the law does not "allow" business people to refuse to serve gays; it allows a business person to use her faith as a defense in a lawsuit against her.

Third, in states with similar laws the businesses rarely if ever win because it is very hard to argue effectively that because one thinks sodomy immoral, the can't take a picture of otherwise normal people doing normal things.

Fourth, the real problem is that Indiana has no statutory protection for gays as a protected class.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jfirneno on April 01, 2015, 10:01:48 am
Any law that allows discrimination of any kind is unworthy of a civilized nation.


Obviously you would like to discriminate against anyone whose religious beliefs do not line up with yours.  Interesting.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 10:02:16 am
That is what I am talking about. People who have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about are jumping into the fray based on their preconceived notions. There are very, very few things in life and especially law that are "plain and simple."

One of this "plain and simple" thing is that this is discrimination.
You can hide behind all the rationale you want: that doesn't change the fact that this is discrimination.
And, again, it's quite obvious if you change "gay" with "jews".

But you know what? I'd like you to try to convince someone that a store with a "we don't serve jews" on its front door is not engaging in discrimination.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 10:03:37 am
Obviously you would like to discriminate against anyone whose religious beliefs do not line up with yours.  Interesting.
I know that's interesting.
But I'm not a government, so what I think it's not a law all the citizen are subjected to.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: PeterAit on April 01, 2015, 10:05:26 am
But it does allow them to turn away any customer on days their religion tells them not to work, even when their customers do.

I don't think that being closed is the same as "turning away any customer" - do you? I can't imagine anyone objecting to a Christian baker or florist being closed on Sunday.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 01, 2015, 10:15:33 am
The Indiana law is an embarrassment. I am a lifelong Midwesterner - grew up in Cincinnati OH, lived in St. Louis MO for past 30 years. If anyone thinks, well, this just affects gays, butch-ish women (think preppie), and nebbishy guys not wearing camo, think again. The most obvious targets are going to be 1. the OTHER favorite punching bags, brown skinned people with foreign names, Jews, blacks 2. straight women (in employment matters). What this law says is that discrimination is legal if done for "sincere" religious reasons, and that ALL for-profit businesses can claim religious convictions.

 Do you honestly think that there aren't any Indiana (Arkansas, Missouri) businesses that wouldn't hire or serve blacks because the owner "sincerely" believes that race mixing is agin' his religion? We have several explicit White Supremacy churches in Missouri, in the small towns.

The amount of hysteria shown by suburban and exurban/rural white people over the Ferguson MO affair was ridiculous - suburban housewives were taking gun lessons and buying guns before the verdict came out. I think that the Meetup outdoors club people I go hiking with (different people each time) are generally ordinary nice-enough (overwhelmingly white) people, but I was hearing all sorts of paranoia, and people thought I was crazy for not being very concerned for my safety and telling them that if they didn't drive straight through Ferguson, they would be just fine. I live 5 miles from Ferguson, 2 miles from another hot-spot, work at an inner city hospital with scads of black co-workers whose main concerns were for their commuting route and possibly their own safety if they lived in or within a mile of Ferguson.

 My cynical thought this past year has been - St Louis hasn't changed in 30 years concerning race. I want to shout, Grow Up Already.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 10:15:57 am

...I'd like you to try to convince someone that a store with a "we don't serve jews" on its front door is not engaging in discrimination.

And in the 20 years of the existence of those laws, federal and states, where are those or similar signs?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 10:18:06 am
And in the 20 years of the existence of those laws, federal and states, where are those or similar signs?

Nice try, but that doesn't do the trick.
Again: can you show anyone that a store with a "we don't serve jews" on its front door is not engaging in discrimination?



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 10:20:17 am
Nice try, but that doesn't do the trick.
Again: can you show anyone that a store with a "we don't serve jews" on its front door is not engaging in discrimination?

I admit my defeat...it is hard to argue with your imagination.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 10:20:49 am
I admit my defeat...it is hard to argue with your imagination.
It's more hard to argue with reality, isn't it?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 10:21:08 am
BH Photo in New York City is owned and run by orthodox Jews whose religion does not allow them to eat pork, shrimp, etc. Would it be OK for them to turn away any customer who does? I see the Indiana law the same way - freedom of religion means you are free to practice YOUR religion the way YOU see fit. It does not mean you are free to discriminate against people who practice THEIR religion differently than you do.
Beautifully stated! Someone asked, what's the big deal? Discrimination is the big deal.

FWIW, as someone born a Jew (I call myself Jew-lite and love, love, love pork), my dad once told me as a young boy that the biggest anti semantics were Jews. I think he may have been right and not just about Jews discriminating their own. This 'law' is another perfect example.

Now, where's the last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, I need some comedy about religion.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: PeterAit on April 01, 2015, 10:22:19 am

Firstly, Kevin is now the publisher here, and is free to write what he sees fit.


Yes, Kevin is the publisher and is free to write what he sees fit - but I don't think that's the issue. The issue is whether he SHOULD be writing about politics on a photography web site. He could also post cupcake recipes, investment schemes, and advice for husbands, but he doesn't. Why? Because they are not appropriate for this site.

I am very involved in politics and am always shooting off letters to the editor, to politicians, to corporations. But, none of this goes on my web sites because they are not related to politics.

Yes, it's a very important topic, but that does not mean it must be discussed everywhere.

FWIW, David Brooks' most recent column provides food for thought regarding this issue.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 10:23:20 am
First, the slander: "Here we go again, religion, the word that has caused more wars and conflicts than anything else and we just allowed it to be the grounds for a way to say no to people." Do the names Hitler, Stalin and Mao come to mind as deeply religious people?
No, but lightweights in terms of responsibility for deaths in the name of religion.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 10:24:07 am
It's more hard to argue with reality, isn't it?

So show me that "reality," show me those signs.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 10:25:51 am
The issue is whether he SHOULD be writing about politics on a photography web site. He could also post cupcake recipes, investment schemes, and advice for husbands, but he doesn't. Why? Because they are not appropriate for this site.
The forum is called Rantatorals so anything goes and if Kevin has a good recipe for anything, I'm game (got a few of my own). If this isn't a conversation you wish to partake, you can leave or better, stay away from the Rantatorals forums, it might have zero to do with photography. And that's fine with me, I suspect others and certainly Kevin!
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 10:27:10 am
So show me that "reality," show me those signs.
Show me that a store with a "we don't serve jews" on its front door is not engaging in discrimination.
It could even be an hypotetical: is enough for you to say "EVEN IF a store would put such a thing on its front door it would not be engaging in discrimination".

So, let's hear it, then.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 10:29:26 am
FWIW, David Brooks' most recent column provides food for thought regarding this issue.
IF this is the Shutterbug magazine guy and the basis of his article is as non factual about his ideas of why people have issues with dark prints, I'll pass. Guy is completely in the dark about that subject  ;D
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 10:32:30 am
... It could even be an hypotetical:...

Now you want me to argue with your hypothetical imagination? As I said, I'll pass.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 10:36:25 am
Now you want me to argue with your hypothetical imagination? As I said, I'll pass.

You're not passing: you're feeing.
But let's see if that's just my hypotetical imagination or someone indefensible argument.

Let's say that tomorrow a store put a "we don't serve jews" on its front door.
Is this store engaging in discrimination?

It's not that hard of a question to answer.



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 01, 2015, 10:53:59 am
It's Kevin's state and Kevin's blog - he has every right to publish the rantatorial. If he wanted to lock or delete any thread on the subject, he be within his rights as well. If I ran my own blog, I'd be mocking my own state's legislative output. You don't want to read it? Then don't!

I don't get my legal analysis from the Washington Times, or Fox. Those are bought-and-paid-for by the Rev. Moon / Unification Church (Washington Times, which has NEVER made a profit -a hint that the owners have some other reason to hang onto it) and Murdoch (Fox - but at least Fox makes money).

Try this - written by an actual INDIANA LAWYER who blogs. Summary: INRFA too broadly written
https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/

Missouri just produces people who go on shooting sprees at synagogues or Jewish Community Centers.

Slobodan, you likely live on one of the coasts? With due respect, you are a white guy who doesn't live in the area being discussed. Things are different out here. I have read local news and heard complaints from a fair number of students and medical residents who happen to be noticeably brown. A business doesn't have to put a sign out, it can just serve customers out of order so they never get around to taking the brown customer's order. That's not the only issue. Employment is a huge potential issue in IN law, which is very loosely worded to allow wide and shieldable discretion to owners and employers.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: danvsjr on April 01, 2015, 10:56:25 am
This used to be a good site about Photography. If we wanted politically based rhetoric, from either side, there are thousands of other sites to visit.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 10:56:38 am
Try this - written by an actual INDIANA LAWYER who blogs. Summary: INRFA too broadly written
https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/

This blog come to mind, too (http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/04/01/bigots-dont-want-indiana-rfra-law-clarified/).

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 11:00:15 am
You're not passing: you're f[l]eeing...

Of course I am. No point arguing with someone who has already made up his mind, "plain and simple," in advance. "When you argue with a fool, there are two," as someone said.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 11:09:26 am
Of course I am. No point arguing with someone who has already made up his mind, "plain and simple," in advance. "When you argue with a fool, there are two," as someone said.

From Kevin's rantatorial:
Quote
Host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly asked the Republican governor whether the state’s newly passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow a scenario in which “a florist in Indiana can now refuse to serve a gay couple without fear of punishment.”

Each time, Pence did not answer with yes or no.
...
This is exactly why I have issues with politicians because they can’t answer simple questions.


But you know what? Silence sometimes gives me hope, because it means that those who don't speak their mind are ashamed of what they thought.
Guess what Fred Phelps would have answered to my question?
Something like "of course is discrimination and a rightful one, since jews killed jesus".




PS: By the way, that's not about discriminating gay at all. Noooooone at all (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/indiana-activist-dont-clarify-religious-freedom-law-wont-allow-discrimination).
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 11:19:15 am
...I don't get my legal analysis from the Washington Times, or Fox...

Nancy, with equally due respect, if your only source of information are your ideological brethren, you are almost certainly bound to be biased. I pointed to that article because I believe it has little editorial bias, and a lot of quotes from legal scholars, some of which actually argued pro-gay in the past. It also has some interesting (legal) thoughts about a different angle for photographers, e.g., to use a free speech argument insteed of the religious one. I am driven by intellectual curiosity in controversial debates, and I found facts and legal opinions in that article quite interesting. I am not interested in mudslinging from ideological tranches (though that can be fun occasionally).

I actually leave in the Midwest, Chicagoland.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: ndevlin on April 01, 2015, 11:27:13 am
Because they are not appropriate for this site.

This site is the private property of the people who run it.  It also happens to be a powerful public forum.  If they be moral men, which they are, it is an imperative that they use it to decry acts of immorality which undermine the sorts of fundamental freedoms which we, the creative class (and if ye be not one of those, what the hell are you doing here?) rely on for the things which give our lives meaning.

The American religious right is a force of evil, in the same sense and mechanism as any other religious fundamentalist movement bent on the subversion of pluralistic democracy to the tenets of their chosen metaphysical nonsense (usually, not coincidentally, linked inseparably to the economic enrichment of its leadership and chief oligarchic allies).   Watching your once-great country eat itself alive in this way is sad beyond words.

- N.


 
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jfirneno on April 01, 2015, 11:28:49 am
I know that's interesting.
But I'm not a government, so what I think it's not a law all the citizen are subjected to.

These state laws were in reaction to a Supreme Court ruling that the national religious freedom law (signed by Bill Clinton by the way) needed to be enacted on the state level.  So these laws have been more or less pre-approved by the Supreme Court to be legal and in accord with the states' jurisdiction.  If the elected officials of the states follow the ruling of the Supreme Court then I believe they have covered the legal requirements of the United States.  If that's not good enough for you then you'll have to win an election to get other legislators elected and write a different law (or just get good old Obama to just use an executive order and send in the storm troopers).  But either way it's really all meant to allow people to follow their religious beliefs.  The Bill of Rights used to be a sacrosanct item for liberals (when it was their ox getting gored).  Now they seem to think it's a matter of freedom for me but not for thee.  Very interesting.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 11:36:41 am
So these laws have been more or less pre-approved by the Supreme Court to be legal and in accord with the states' jurisdiction.

Did I ever questioned the legality of the law?
Not that I'm aware of.
What I said is that any law (legal or not) that allows discrimination is unworthy of a civil nation.



The Bill of Rights used to be a sacrosanct item for liberals (when it was their ox getting gored).  Now they seem to think it's a matter of freedom for me but not for thee.  Very interesting.

Did I ever said that the bigots don't have the right to discriminate?
Not that I'm aware of.
Does the right to discriminate make discrimination right?
Not in a civil nation.

What I said is that I'd like those bigots pay big money for their discrimination lust.


Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: bjanes on April 01, 2015, 11:38:14 am
BH Photo in New York City is owned and run by orthodox Jews whose religion does not allow them to eat pork, shrimp, etc. Would it be OK for them to turn away any customer who does? I see the Indiana law the same way - freedom of religion means you are free to practice YOUR religion the way YOU see fit. It does not mean you are free to discriminate against people who practice THEIR religion differently than you do.

North Carolina is considering a similar law and I am glad to say that the furor over Indiana has at least some of the bill's sponsors saying "more study is needed."
Beautifully stated! Someone asked, what's the big deal? Discrimination is the big deal.

FWIW, as someone born a Jew (I call myself Jew-lite and love, love, love pork), my dad once told me as a young boy that the biggest anti semantics were Jews. I think he may have been right and not just about Jews discriminating their own. This 'law' is another perfect example.

Now, where's the last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, I need some comedy about religion.

I hesitate to become involved in political discourse on a photography forum, but Kevin's rant does have something to do with photography.

To use an analogy from another time, what would or should B&H do if Joseph Goebbels placed a large order for Leica cameras to be used in his propaganda machine depicting Jews as monkeys and pigs?

Bill

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 11:40:43 am
This used to be a good site about Photography. If we wanted politically based rhetoric, from either side, there are thousands of other sites to visit.
We? Please speak only for yourself. If you don't want to discuss politics, leave the post.
IMHO, this location is still an excellent site about Photography.
Don't like the tone or topic? Most know the way out the door, no one if forcing this on anyone who doesn't want to be involved.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: PeterAit on April 01, 2015, 11:41:39 am
The forum is called Rantatorals so anything goes and if Kevin has a good recipe for anything, I'm game

The question is not whether Kevin has the "right" to post what he wants, the question is whether he SHOULD be posting these political things.  As others have noted, it's a PHOTOGRAPHY website. I tend to agree with Kevin's opinions on this matter, but they just don't belong here, IMO. Or, maybe we can start a recipe forum, or a lawnmower repair forum, or knitting?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 11:44:22 am
To use an analogy from another time, what would or should B&H do if Joseph Goebbels placed a large order for Leica cameras to be used in his propaganda machine depicting Jews as monkeys and pigs?
That's a good question.
In fact, is not even hypotetical: IBM sold computers to the nazi regime to allow for faster census of the jews.

I say B&H should sell the cameras: I do prefer make my own judgement of Goebbels' action rather that let B&H do it for me.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 11:46:11 am
As others have noted, it's a PHOTOGRAPHY website. I tend to agree with Kevin's opinions on this matter, but they just don't belong here, IMO.
It's the people who object to the original piece that don't belong here. None of you have paid to be here. Kevin has. You are all invited guests. This is Kevin's domain. You don't like his posts, don't read em. Had he written the article under the guise of it having to do with photography, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on but you'd still appear a pushy guest in Kevin's home. He didn't do that. Nor did this original post appear in a forum that is specific to any photographic subject. So, you don't like the free content? Start your own web site, good luck.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Kevin Raber on April 01, 2015, 11:46:51 am
Thanks Nick, Michael and others.  Luminous-Landscape is our site.  All of us are very much about photography but we are also about what we feel is right.  While the law mentioned may be about Indiana it is getting worldwide attention on a topic that deserves it.  Many other well know companies have used their websites as platforms on this topic also.  Today, for example, APPLE announced that it is bringing back the Rainbow logo to celebrate it's belief in diversity (http://macdailynews.com/2015/04/01/apple-resurrects-original-six-color-rainbow-logo-to-celebrate-diversity/).  Salesforce.com, Angies List, NCCA, and many others have also used their sites as a platform for letting their readers know how they feel. We added the Ranatorial section of this site as a place where we could share the latest news but also our feelings on certain topics.  Normally I'd stay focused on photography, but this topic really hit a nerve. Thus I shared my feelings.  So once in a while you may get something that is non-photographic in the Rant. 

Kevin Raber
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 01, 2015, 12:02:10 pm
I have no idea about the ideology of that Indiana lawyer and his blog. There's a bunch of nuts-and-bolts law on the site.  But the lawyer did highlight differences between the IN law and the US law and miscellaneous other state RF laws. I was looking for technical details, not commentary on Pence, religion, gay marriage. Note that the IN law is more loosely specified - broader coverage - than the US law. US law covered government-citizen interactions. IN law covers "person"-person interactions, with "person" being defined within this law as a corporation, business, or actual  human being. That's a HUGE difference.



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 01, 2015, 12:17:28 pm
what would or should B&H do if Joseph Goebbels placed a large order for Leica cameras to be used in his propaganda machine depicting Jews as monkeys and pigs?

why oldies - recent example : Charlie Hebdo ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: PeterAit on April 01, 2015, 12:44:59 pm
IF this is the Shutterbug magazine guy and the basis of his article is as non factual about his ideas of why people have issues with dark prints, I'll pass. Guy is completely in the dark about that subject  ;D

You really don't know who the respected NYT (and somewhat conservative) columnist David Brooks is?!?! Really?!?! Don't you have Google?

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 12:54:24 pm
... That's a HUGE difference.

It well might be, but perhaps justifiable? Because it is nowadays "persons" (being defined as corporations, businesses, or actual  human beings), not government, that are destroying small businesses whose worldview they do not like by litigation.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 01:03:45 pm
You really don't know who the respected NYT (and somewhat conservative) columnist David Brooks is?!?! Really?!?!
Right, he's the only columnist named David Brooks. Wrong again. I'm aware of both (and more).
You'd serve your arguments more weight if you actually outlined who you're talking about instead of just lazily writing:
Quote
FWIW, David Brooks' most recent column provides food for thought regarding this issue.
Your inability at reading posts is also being called out as I clearly wrote with emphasis:
IF this is the Shutterbug magazine guy...
Got Google? Use it to find the definition of the word IF.
Really!!
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: mkihne on April 01, 2015, 01:15:25 pm
Maybe this thread should be reposted in the Camera, Lenses, etc topic under "Bullying as a substitute for Argument". If this is a microcosm of what the world will be like with group think as the norm, I'll volunteer for that one way trip to Mars. I guess beating someone over the head for their intolerance with your intolerance is some how noble or at least permissible.  NFM  ::)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: ripgriffith on April 01, 2015, 01:25:07 pm
But it does allow them to turn away any customer on days their religion tells them not to work, even when their customers do.
Come on, SB, that's just plain stupid.  They do not turn away customers, they close.  They do not discriminate against any class of people, even orthodox Jews, they just close their doors to everyone, just as many Christian-owned businesses do on Sunday.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: ripgriffith on April 01, 2015, 01:26:54 pm
I disagree.

Firstly, Kevin is now the publisher here, and is free to write what he sees fit. And though not a primary consequence of this stupid law (remember when America was the champion of all forms of freedom, and enshrined them in its constitution?) it has huge consequences for business, and for many photographers this is a business.

This highly discriminatory law is simply an end-run around gays and other visible minorities, and allows those preaching a perverted form of religiosity to act in a legally- sanctioned bigoted manner.

What's next. Jews? Blacks? Hispantics?

There are no "official" religions in the U.S. Indeed its outlawed in the constitution. Therefore anyone who wants to say that providing service to Jews is against their religion now has the legal right to do so in Indiana, and I understand eventually in as many as more than half the U.S. states.

No. This is a dumb, even an evil law being used by the the anti-gay marriage crowd to foster their particular form of hatred on everyone else. It is making the USA a sad and despised country among those of us who value both freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

In my opinion Kevin should be shouting this from the rooftops, not just the pages of this site.

As someone who has known Kevin for many years I can say that his bona fides are unquestionable. In many political debates I'm on the left and he's on the right, but in this instances there is no division between us. The Indiana law and its clones in other states are simply wrong-headed at best, and frankly nakedly homophobic. They offer a chance for legally supported racial, sexual and religious intolerance.

Michael

+1, or can I say +100?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 01:27:22 pm
...I guess beating someone over the head for their intolerance with your intolerance is some how noble or at least permissible.  NFM  ::)

Indeed. The irony is that the group which has been pleading  for years for tolerance and acceptance is now militantly intolerant to any differing views.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 01:31:37 pm
Indeed. The irony is that the group which has been pleading  for years for tolerance and acceptance is now militantly intolerant to any differing views.
IF that view is discrimination, there's no reason to be at all tolerant to that differing view.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Iluvmycam on April 01, 2015, 01:32:07 pm
We? Please speak only for yourself. If you don't want to discuss politics, leave the post.
IMHO, this location is still an excellent site about Photography.
Don't like the tone or topic? Most know the way out the door, no one if forcing this on anyone who doesn't want to be involved.

Talk of politics can ruin things, just as religion, just as some sex topics like homosexuality.

Here is my take...

You want to be queer...be a queer. You want to be a holy roller...be a holy roller.

But queerness should not be force feed to the holy roller, nor should the holy roller force their views on the queers.

If someone find two guys swapping spit disgusting, why force it on him or her.  I grew up in Hollywood, been around queers all my life. Some of my best friends were queer. But, don't try to force fed queerness or religion on anyone.

So...in summation.

I am for the freedom act. And my advice to the queers is go to queer friendly business. Even if you force feed queerness on someone that hates you, it wont work out. They will be resentful for being forced to deal with you.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: ripgriffith on April 01, 2015, 01:35:19 pm
This used to be a good site about Photography. If we wanted politically based rhetoric, from either side, there are thousands of other sites to visit.
Then I encourage, even urge you to run to one of those other sites, and let the grown-ups here discuss something of real importance in the real world.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 01:35:37 pm
IF that view is discrimination, there's no reason to be at all tolerant to that differing view.

Since you are so enamored with "ifs," then if indeed. It is the subject of the debate, if it is a discrimination. The problem is, certain groups have already decided it is, and are now showing it down everyone else's throats.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 01:37:35 pm
Talk of politics can ruin things, just as religion, just as some sex topics like homosexuality.

Here is my take...

You want to be queer...be a queer. You want to be a holy roller...be a holy roller.

But queerness should not be force feed to the holy roller, nor should the holy roller force their views on the queers.

If someone find two guys swapping spit disgusting, why force it on him or her.  I grew up in Hollywood, been around queers all my life. Some of my best friends were queer. But, don't try to force fed queerness or religion on anyone.

So...in summation.

I am for the freedom act. And my advice to the queers is go to queer friendly business. Even if you force feed queerness on someone that hates you, it wont work out. They will be resentful for being forced to deal with you.

I never thought I'd agree with you 100% Iluvmycam  :)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 01:39:36 pm
Talk of politics can ruin things, just as religion, just as some sex topics like homosexuality.
IF you don't want to talk the talk or walk the walk, you know where the door is.
Quote
But queerness should not be force feed to the holy roller, nor should the holy roller force their views on the queers.
If someone find two guys swapping spit disgusting why force it on him or her.  I grow up in Hollywood, been around queers all my life. Some of my best friends were queer. But, don't try to force fed queerness or religion on anyone.
No one is forcing this on anyone (so called queerness, or guys swapping spit)! A law has been introduced to allow discrimination. It's no different from a restaurant owner refusing to serve someone based on the color of their skin. I too grew up in the same area not that it has any bearing at all! You may have, as you write: been around queers all your life but got any that are actually STILL good friends (anyone else notice the past tense)? I wonder if you did how they would feel about your writings here, referring to them a queers.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 01:46:36 pm
The problem is, certain groups have already decided it is, and are now showing it down everyone else's throats.
Well it is. It's pretty obvious too if you care to look at the evidence. Including the Governor's embarrassing multiple dodging of the questions asked of him Sunday by George Stephanopoulos. Bonehead was asked 6 times the simple question he refused to answer about the role of the new law and discrimination! The law he singed was great until this useful debate, now he's going to 'fix' it or so he says. If it's so fine, if there's no lick of discrimination possibility, what's he got to fix? Look, he and the state legislators got caught with their pants down. They will back peddle as they should. Whatever the intent of the law, it doesn't clearly limit discrimination. That's the bottom line.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: mkihne on April 01, 2015, 01:47:22 pm
Digitaldog, you are admonishing responders to discuss the topic at hand or leave. I would implore you to do the same. Your posts have evolved into personal attacks which are usually a last resort of a lost argument. You have offered some good points. Don't loose their value. I think you are better than that.

After the last post just previous to this...........nevermind.  ;D
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 01, 2015, 01:47:53 pm
A law has been introduced to allow discrimination.
affirmative action does
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: mkihne on April 01, 2015, 01:50:48 pm
Tut, tut..............no logic or fact allowed.  ;D
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 01, 2015, 01:51:40 pm
does digitaldog think that an owner of a shop can established some rules prohibiting certain behavior in his shop - like no kissing between males or between females while on his property ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 02:04:36 pm
Digitaldog, you are admonishing responders to discuss the topic at hand or leave.
Yup, if they don't like that the owner of this free site has produced an essay of his choosing, one that no one is forced to read, reply or agree with, they should leave.
I'm fine with the opposing view. Even if that suggest a bigoted view. I'm not fine with folks bitching that this discussion doesn't belong here because it's a photo site when the person making the post/essay owns it, and it's discussed in a forum that has no obvious hooks to photography (Rantatorials).

You don't like this topic, leave.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: PeterAit on April 01, 2015, 02:13:24 pm
Right, he's the only columnist named David Brooks. Wrong again. I'm aware of both (and more).
You'd serve your arguments more weight if you actually outlined who you're talking about instead of just lazily writing:Your inability at reading posts is also being called out as I clearly wrote with emphasis:
IF this is the Shutterbug magazine guy...
Got Google? Use it to find the definition of the word IF.
Really!!

So, Shutterbug columnists regularly write about political issues? No.

And if you really knew the NYT columnist David Brooks (which it is clear that you do not), then you would certainly know it is him I was talking about. And, you would go read his column and respond to what he wrote instead of hurling ignorant insults at me.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 02:18:28 pm
So, Shutterbug columnists regularly write about political issues? No.
Doesn't get you off the hook for sloppy writing. So, LuLa columnists regularly write about political issues? Yes indeed.
Quote
And if you really knew the NYT columnist David Brooks (which it is clear that you do not), then you would certainly know it is him I was talking about.
Right, that's why I put emphasis on the IF you missed again. Or that I am aware, as I wrote, of that other David Brooks named columnist, not that it excuses your poor behavior.
Quote
And, you would go read his column and respond to what he wrote instead of hurling ignorant insults at me.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. But at least you're being consistent in these forums with such posts.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: mkihne on April 01, 2015, 02:22:37 pm
Digitaldog.

I am fine with Kevin's post. He's a big boy and I am sure he is well aware of where things can go. It's even in the proper topic...Rants.  I think many, including myself, have experience on other boards as to what can happen if you bring in religion and politics, the metaphorical lightning rods. You are, however, the pot calling the kettle black(I say that at the risk of bringing race into the discussion, however small..... possibly the third leg of the lightning rod). Your apparent intolerance of any discussion you find offensive ruins the whole premise of a reasonable discussion of the topic, with others coming close as well. I would submit without truly knowing that the basis for the law is that it is an attempt to prevent tolerance from being shoved down someone's throat....ruining the very definition of tolerance(it is only tolerance if I believe it to be). JMHO

P.S. Kevin..............you should be able to raise your advertising rates after this thread reaches old age.  ;D
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 02:33:01 pm
Indeed. The irony is that the group which has been pleading  for years for tolerance and acceptance is now militantly intolerant to any differing views.
Do bigots really expect to be respected?
Really?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: mkihne on April 01, 2015, 02:34:15 pm
^^^^^^I give you the very definition of intolerance.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 02:35:41 pm
Well at least one state got a clue half an hour ago:
http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-governor-sends-religion-bill-back-rewrite-155537800--finance.html
Most telling:
Quote
Twenty U.S. states and the federal government have RFRAs, which allow individuals to sue the government if they believe their First Amendment religious rights have been violated.
But those in Indiana and Arkansas go further than all but one of the state laws, allowing lawsuits between private parties. That raised the possibility that businesses such as florists or photographers could use the law as a defense if they are sued for refusing to provide services for same-sex weddings. Texas is the only other state with a similar provision.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 01, 2015, 02:49:41 pm
Re: David Brooks
I interpreted the Shutterbug comment as an April Fool's comment.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 03:11:00 pm
Re: David Brooks
I interpreted the Shutterbug comment as an April Fool's comment.
Exactly  ;)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: PeterAit on April 01, 2015, 04:09:31 pm

You don't like this topic, leave.


Yes, people can leave - but that's the potential problem, as I see it. Do Michael and Kevin really want people leaving LuLa because it is getting cluttered with non-photographic material (Coffee Corner aside)? I can't speak for them, of course, but I cannot believe that's what they want. This is a terrific photography site, one I visit almost every day. It's taught me a lot, and part of that is because of the diversity of people on the forums - all of whom have one thing, and one thing only, in common: an interest in photography. Politics are important, but they belong elsewhere.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 04:12:44 pm
Politics are important, but they belong elsewhere.
It belongs elsewhere only if you believe that a photography is the product of the camera and not of the photographer.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 04:16:14 pm
Do bigots really expect to be respected?
Really?

Since you like to play with hypotheticals,  what is next in your logic? You and digitaldog jointly form brownshirts to teach bigots a lesson in tolerance?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 04:17:21 pm
Yes, people can leave - but that's the potential problem, as I see it. Do Michael and Kevin really want people leaving LuLa because it is getting cluttered with non-photographic material (Coffee Corner aside)?
IF they felt that was a burning issue, they probably wouldn’t post such essay's as they have. 2nd, since none of this per se generates money because everyone here got in free, I'm not sure what downside exists for them. If their advertisers make a stink, that's a different story (knowing Michael pretty well, Kevin less so, I suspect they would tell them to piss-off anyway).
We know how and why this discussion started. If people don't like Kevin's opinions and politics and leave for that reason alone, that's their call and likely their loss.  

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 04:20:01 pm
Since you like to play with hypotheticals,  what is next in your logic? You and digitaldog jointly form brownshirts to teach bigots a lesson in tolerance?

For some reason, I suspected then even "Do bigots really expect to be respected?" was too hard a question to answer for you.
How low one as to go to get an answer people like you?
"What time is it?" or lower?



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 04:22:19 pm
...2nd, since none of this per se generates money because everyone here got in free, I'm not sure what downside exists for them. ..
One thing must be said: even if there was an economic downsize, not all people are money-driven.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 04:27:17 pm
For some reason, I suspected then even "Do bigots really expect to be respected?" was too hard a question to answer for you.

Not hard to answer at all. The answer is: absolutely! Their (and everyone else's)  right to have an opinion and express it, even when we do not agree with it, shell be absolutely respected. That is the very essence of tolerance: peaceful coexistence of differences.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 04:31:27 pm
Not hard to answer at all. The answer is: absolutely! Their (and everyone else's)  right to have an opinion and express it, even when we do not agree with it, shell be absolutely respected. That is the very essence of tolerance: peaceful coexistence of differences.
Really bigots expect to be respected?
Well, I think that not unexpected from simple minds like their.
I mean, they implement discrimination but pretend respect.
Is like be a KKK member and whining about being called racist.

But you say they not only they expect to be respected: you're saying they DESERVED to be respected.

So you should also say that neo-nazists deserve to be respected, and racists too.

Are you saying that neo-nazists and racists deserve to be respected?






Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 04:41:53 pm
... Are you saying that neo-nazists and racists deserve to be respected

I clearly said everyone's right to have an opinion and express it, even when we do not agree with it, shell be absolutely respected. Is that so hard to comprehend for you? Yes, that includes racist, neo-nazis, zionists, and whatever group you want. And surprise, surprise, all those groups are legal in the U.S. As long as they obey the law, their right to their own opinion shall be respected.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 04:47:04 pm
I clearly said everyone's right to have an opinion and express it, even when we do not agree with it, shell be absolutely respected.
Nope, they don't have to be respected. What's to respect about the idea of genocide? Now they may believe in and have respected opinions about climate change, raw processing and other areas of discussion but the idea of both genocide or racism never IMHO deserve any respect.

As Linda Holmes of NPR wrote in 2010, “The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that speaking your mind will have no economic consequences. … Because the ‘free’ in that concept means ‘free from government interference,’ not ‘free from consequences.’ ”
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 04:47:34 pm
I clearly said everyone's right to have an opinion and express it, even when we do not agree with it, shell be absolutely respected. Is that so hard to comprehend for you? Yes, that includes racist, neo-nazis, zionists, and whatever group you want. And surprise, surprise, alls those groups are legal in the U.S. As long as they obey the law, their right to their own opinion shall be respected.

Now I can see how you can be so wrong: you can't tell the difference between freedom of speech and respect.
Respecting freedom of speech DOES NOT equate to respecting the person expressing the opinion.

Do you respect neo-nazists or racists?
Or do you think they are full of it?


Freedom of speech means you can say everything it's legal to say.
Respect (or lack of) means you will be judged for what you say.



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 04:49:10 pm
As Linda Holmes of NPR wrote in 2010, “The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that speaking your mind will have no economic consequences. … Because the ‘free’ in that concept means ‘free from government interference,’ not ‘free from consequences.’ ”

You couldn't have been more clear.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 04:53:33 pm
Now I can see how you can be so wrong: you can't tell the difference between freedom of speech and respect.
Don't get too frustrated with Slobodan. This discussion has a lot of levels of interpretation and subjectivity. Imagine trying to convince Slobodan about something he disagrees about that is totally based on color science (our little debate about color gamut a few months back) where there's no gray area, the science is clear but Slobodan would prefer to argue it.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 04:55:53 pm
... As Linda Holmes of NPR...

And she (whoever she is) is the supreme authority on the subject because...?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 04:56:37 pm
Don't get too frustrated with Slobodan.
Don't worry, I dont and I won't: after all the years I've spent bashing far worse bigots, my skin has tickened a lot on this kind of things.


Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 04:57:08 pm
And she (whoever she is) is the supreme authority on the subject because...?
Because she gets the meaning of "free" in "freedom of speech" and you don't.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 05:00:19 pm
... Respect (or lack of) means you will be judged for what you say.

I do not mind being judged by the likes of you. I actually respect your right to judge me. That is a matter of thought and speech.

What I do not respect is your clearly stated intention to take action to "starve me to death." In that sense you are a social terrorist, not much different from ISIS.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 05:03:15 pm
And she (whoever she is) is the supreme authority on the subject because...?
You're too much, what she wrote IS accurate. If you don't understand the basis of the First Amendment, we can't help you. Or, if you are such an expert on the law, please tell us what Holmes wrote that's incorrect instead of suggesting she's no authority to dismiss it outright as you just did.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: mkihne on April 01, 2015, 05:03:45 pm
The sad part of this page is many do not see who is clearly winning this debate by example.  ;D
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 05:05:58 pm
What I do not respect is your clearly stated intention to take action to "starve me to death." In that sense you are a social terrorist, not much different from ISIS.
Why you do not respect my intention to take action to "starve you to death"?
Don't you think that people has the right to choose you as photographer also by knowing whether you are homophobic or not?
If not, why?

And remember: I DO NOT ask whether people SHOULD choose you as photographer based on your position on gays.
I DO ASK whether people HAS THE RIGHT.


(So we put aside the "they should choose photographers based on the photographer's abilities" stuff).
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 05:09:49 pm
...please tell us what Holmes wrote that's incorrect...

It is obviously my position.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 05:10:50 pm
The sad part of this page is many do not see who is clearly winning this debate by example.  ;D

This debate is unimportant.
The real debate is being win by the good guys right now (http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/04/01/bigots-dont-want-indiana-rfra-law-clarified/):
Quote
Faced with a massive backlash over the passage of their modified RFRA law (some of it based on serious hyperbole, as I’ve detailed before), Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana and some members of the legislature are considering amending it to specifically say that it would not allow discrimination by businesses against gay people.

Looks like bigots are like cockroaches: as soon as light is cast, they flee.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 05:12:11 pm
It is obviously my position.

It is obviously my position.

I see, the old "because I say so" stuff.
How unexpected.  ::) ::)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 05:15:47 pm
It is obviously my position.
Sure seems that way! You're unable or unwilling to tell us what Holme wrote that is legally wrong while knocking it because you haven't a clue who she is. Would your position or opinion of the text or it's accuracy be any different if the person who wrote it was either or anyone named David Brooks or Chubby Checkers? No. You appear to enjoy dismissing the messenger rather than the message which is telling!

Again if you can, aside from the fact you don't know who Holmes is, what is it she wrote that's incorrect in terms of the First Amendment?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 01, 2015, 05:23:51 pm
Come on, if you don't like the topic, there are several other recent threads deserving attention - new landscape photographs posted. And for the G.A.S. sufferer, has Roger Cicala got a lens for you! Go over to his lensrental.com blog for a giggle or two.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Rajan Parrikar on April 01, 2015, 05:45:51 pm
Today, for example, APPLE announced that it is bringing back the Rainbow logo to celebrate it's belief in diversity (http://macdailynews.com/2015/04/01/apple-resurrects-original-six-color-rainbow-logo-to-celebrate-diversity/). 

Indeed, Mr. Cook is so committed to diversity that he even does business with Saudi Arabia, the holy kingdom where gays are executed.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 05:54:22 pm
My position, Andrew, is that I disagree with the apparent underlying philosophy in her statement. And if you insist, she is technically right. The first amendment is about government. I heard that argument many times, so it is not important who she is and what she meant.

My position is that the concept of free speech is so important, that it transcends technicalities. I believe free speech should be cherished, encouraged and protected by the society as a whole and by every member of the society, from attacks wherever they might come from, not just from government. While I respect individual rights to react to someone's free speech by boycotting them, I also consider organized actions to destroy someone for speaking their mind a form of social terrorism.

Take, for example, the former Mozilla CEO: he was destroyed for excising his civic duty, i.e., to "publicly support or oppose an issue or policy" (verbatim from the government's Civic Lessons). This is a frightening prospect: that people are afraid to speak their mind and take part in political processes in fear from "economic consequences." Remember, it is a civic duty, while a public debate on an issue of policy is going on, to take a stand. That stand might be to support or oppose. It isn't democracy, or a civilized society, to club to death those who "lost" in public debate once the issue is settled one way or the other. I repeat: this is a frightening prospect and will ultimately lead to a totalitarian society with a single PC truth on every issue. Trust me, I am coming from one of those.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 01, 2015, 06:15:25 pm
Indeed, Mr. Cook is so committed to diversity that he even does business with Saudi Arabia, the holy kingdom where gays are executed.

come on, Saudis are the best friends of the "Free World" ;D
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 06:19:30 pm
My position, Andrew, is that I disagree with the apparent underlying philosophy in her statement. And if you insist, she is technically right.
She's correct about the facts of the first amendment but you don't agree with them. Great. And yes, several of us agree how she is technically right.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 06:31:54 pm
This is a frightening prospect: that people are afraid to speak their mind and take part in political processes in fear from "economic consequences."
How it comes that "freedom from consequences" applies only to bigots?
Civil rights activists paid heavy consequences for their ideas.

Aren't your ideas worth the loss of money?
Because, you know, some lost more than that for theirs.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 06:38:37 pm
How it comes that "freedom from consequences" applies only to bigots?...

Now that's an intelligent conclusion from what I said.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 06:42:10 pm
Now that's an intelligent conclusion from what I said.

That's exactly what you said.

Let me make it easy for you to see:
a) A gay couple go to a photographer to get their marriage photographed;
b) It turns out the photographer is a homophobic bigot who refuses to do the job;
c) The gay couple post on their facebook page and twitter account something like "Don't hire this guy, he is a homophobic A-H";


Question for you: do freedom of speech give the gay couple the right to do c)?

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 07:17:38 pm
That's exactly what you said...

Do not deflect... Where did I say that freedom from comsequences should apply to only "bigots," as you claim I said?

As for your a,b,c question, if you read carefully my posts, you'd know I already answered that question.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 07:19:54 pm
Do not deflect... Where did I say that freedom from comsequences should apply to only "bigots," as you claim I said?
Exactly where I showed you.

If your answer the question I made it will be evident even for you.


a) A gay couple go to a photographer to get their marriage photographed;
b) It turns out the photographer is a homophobic bigot who refuses to do the job;
c) The gay couple post on their facebook page and twitter account something like "Don't hire this guy, he is a homophobic A-H";


Question for you: do freedom of speech give the gay couple the right to do c)?

Is not that hard to answer.
Or is it?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 07:25:24 pm
Exactly where I showed you...

I'm other words, you can not show MY TEXT saying that...you can only wrongly infer something else from my texts, which I already qualified as "highly intelligent."
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 07:29:05 pm
I'm other words, you can not show MY TEXT saying that...you can only wrongly infer something else from my texts, which I already qualified as "highly intelligent."

Oh, you're asking me where you WROTE "freedom from comsequences should apply to only bigots".
You never wrote that.

Nevertheless you said it quite clearly.

And just aswering the simple question I made will make it clear even to you.
But It looks that answering isn't your piece of cake, is it?

Anyway, let's try just one more time:

a) A gay couple go to a photographer to get their marriage photographed;
b) It turns out the photographer is a homophobic bigot who refuses to do the job;
c) The gay couple post on their facebook page and twitter account something like "Don't hire this guy, he is a homophobic A-H";


Question for you: do freedom of speech give the gay couple the right to do c)?


Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: markadams99 on April 01, 2015, 07:34:46 pm
In a free society one would have the freedom to discriminate, e.g. to discriminate against homosexuals or against those who discriminate against homosexuals. That's it. Michael and Kevin should always be free to rant against that freedom, but by seeking to make it illegal to discriminate, they open the door to those who would close down their own freedoms.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 07:41:03 pm
In a free society one would have the freedom to discriminate, e.g. to discriminate against homosexuals or against those who discriminate against homosexuals. That's it. Michael and Kevin should always be free to rant against that freedom, but by seeking to make it illegal to discriminate, they open the door to those who would close down their own freedoms.

The only problem with this is that the free society you're imagining cannot exists because it will auto-destroy itself.
How long can a society survive if a muslim doctor can refuse to treat a jewish patient?
What if a christian cop refuses to save an atheist's life from a murderer?
What if schools could refuse black students?

The act of discrimination is never acceptable in a civil nation, while the opinion is acceptable.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 07:57:06 pm
The only problem with this is that the free society you're imagining cannot exists because it will auto-destroy itself.
How long can a society survive if a muslim doctor can refuse to treat a jewish patient?
What if a christian cop refuses to save an atheist's life from a murderer?
What if schools could refuse black students?
The act of discrimination is never acceptable in a civil nation, while the opinion is acceptable.
Beautiful stated! The act of discrimination is never justifiable.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 08:13:21 pm
Beautiful stated! The act of discrimination is never justifiable.
Guess what someone will say?
"Isn't the organized economic boycott of bigots an act of discrimination?"

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 08:16:06 pm
...Anyway, let's try just one more time:...

Indeed, let's just try one more time: I already answered that in my post #120. But apparently, you do not read posts to understand the other side's position, you read just enough to find something to twist.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 08:20:25 pm
Indeed, let's just try one more time: I already answered that in my post #120. But apparently, you do not read posts to understand the other side's position, you read just enough to find something to twist.

No, you didn't answered, but that's not unexpected.
But, again, the silence is a good sign.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 08:21:08 pm
... The act of discrimination is never justifiable.

Except when it serves your ideology, of course, like affirmative action. But we are going in circles, as someone already pointed that out.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 08:22:07 pm
Except when it serves your ideology, of course, like affirmative action. But we are going in circles, as someone already pointed that out.
Sorry, pal: you're circling alone.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 08:24:21 pm
No, you didn't answered, but that's not unexpected.

What is not expected, is that you do not read or you are incapable to comprehend a simple statement like the one from my post #120:

Quote
While I respect individual rights to react to someone's free speech by boycotting them, I also consider organized actions to destroy someone for speaking their mind a form of social terrorism.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 08:26:20 pm
What is not expected, is that you do not read or you are incapable to comprehend a simple statement like the one from my post #120:

I do comprehend what you write much better than you.
So, since the point C) of the question you never answered involves economical costs for the bigot, again: do freedom of speech give the gay couple to tell anyone the know "do not hire that guy"?

Yes or no, it's quite simple.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2015, 08:26:50 pm
Sorry, pal: you're circling alone.

And on that cheerful note, I'll let you and Andrew continue your love affair. Just don't ask me to shoot your wedding.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 08:27:44 pm
And on that cheerful note, I'll let you and Andrew continue your love affair. Just don't ask me to shoot your wedding.

Question: how long a bigot could hide?
Answer: not for long much.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: telyt on April 01, 2015, 08:34:54 pm
The only problem with this is that the free society you're imagining cannot exists because it will auto-destroy itself.
How long can a society survive if a muslim doctor can refuse to treat a jewish patient?
What if a christian cop refuses to save an atheist's life from a murderer?
What if schools could refuse black students?

The act of discrimination is never acceptable in a civil nation, while the opinion is acceptable.


If the cop is employed by a governmental body and the school is a public school then discrimination based on religion or skin color violates the principle of equal protection under the law.  If the doctor is self employed or otherwise not employed by the state (meaning any level of government) then he may be foolish or inhumane for refusing to treat someone of a different religion but for the state to compel the doctor to treat the patient against the doctor's wishes is confiscation of his skills by the state.  [EDIT] OTOH if the doctor's medical license issued by the state stipulates that he must not discriminate based on religion, skin color, gender, or other protected status, then by accepting the license the doctor agrees to abide by these stipulations and must not discriminate.

IMHO the gay couple who are refused by the photographer are welcome to tell others about their experience.  In a large diverse market this couple will have other choices but in a smaller community where this photographer is the only one in town the market fails and the couple is without a photographer.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 08:43:42 pm
If the cop is employed by a governmental body and the school is a public school then discrimination based on religion or skin color violates the principle of equal protection under the law.  If the doctor is self employed or otherwise not employed by the state (meaning any level of government) then he may be foolish or inhumane for refusing to treat someone of a different religion but for the state to compel the doctor to treat the patient against the doctor's wishes is confiscation of his skills by the state.
You're right about the cop and the public school (that's why I omitted "public").
On the foolishness or inhumanity of a doctor not treating a patient, I agree but must be kept in mind that inhumanity is far from rare in human beings.
On the foolishness, would it be so fool if it wasn't illegal?


IMHO the gay couple who are refused by the photographer are welcome to tell others about their experience.  
Looks like I've found a fellow ISIS terrorist! (comment #110).


In a large diverse market this couple will have other choices but in a smaller community where this photographer is the only one in town the market fails and the couple is without a photographer.
Yes, and just because the photographer's mind is too simple to tell the difference between "love" and "heterosexual copulation".


Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 08:43:56 pm
No, you didn't answered, but that's not unexpected.
He's not behaving much differently than the governor of Indiana did on TV Sunday. Answer the question honestly would shoot holes in his argument of course.
His M.O. Is consistent with our recent 'argument' on gamut and color numbers where the science was irrefutable and again, getting a simple, honest answer was impossible as it would shoot holes in his 'theory'.  
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 01, 2015, 08:48:51 pm
He's not behaving much differently than the governor of Indiana did on TV Sunday.

I've noticed the same similarity.
How strange, isn't it?



Answer the question honestly would shoot holes in his argument of course.
Sooner or later someone will start arguing on the meaning of the word "honestly".  ;D
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 01, 2015, 09:10:50 pm
Wildlight said "If the doctor is self employed or otherwise not employed by the state (meaning any level of government) then he may be foolish or inhumane for refusing to treat someone of a different religion but for the state to compel the doctor to treat the patient against the doctor's wishes is confiscation of his skills by the state."

WRONG in many instances.
1. Emergency care - there is a well-recognized obligation of the emergency room and its physicians to treat (stabilize) any patient who arrives in an medically unstable condition. This is FEDERAL law, dating from 1965 or so. There is NO emergency facility that does not take federal money (Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare/CHAMPUS).
2. Any physician who takes government insurance - Medicare, TriCare /CHAMPUS (the insurance entity for uniformed and civilian employees of the Armed Forces and other federal agencies), Medicaid - must be willing to treat all comers with that insurance, as long as the physician has practice time available and provides the needed skills. Physician can't say, I am only going to treat white guys with prostate cancer, and tell the black guys with prostate cancer, get lost.
3. "Concierge" private practice physicians who do not accept any form of insurance and who charge a flat rate per year for access can pretty much get away with discrimination because there is no insurance oversight of such practices, no paper trail. Pretty much the only way to definitively identify illegal discrimination would be by sending out sequential  "testers", as was done for realtor and landlord discrimination cases. "Concierge" practices are pretty rare - basically these guys are physicians to the hedge fund barons or others who find it no problem to spend $30,000.00 a year to have 24-7-365 access.
4. The state has every right to confiscate the state licenses of physicians who commit fraud, abuse, and other illegalities directly connected to their practice of medicine, and will confiscate the licenses of physicians who commit felonies outside the scope of their medical practice (murder, serious assault, stalking and threatening a judge).  The national specialty boards likewise have the right to confiscate the physician's board certification.

Don't bother listening to Ben Carson, former neurosurgeon and current Republican long-shot Presidential primary candidate. He's cracked. He wants to take government money but doesn't want to abide by the rules. But then again, most physicians don't really respect other physicians who abandon their skills to become pundits or politicians.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 09:23:26 pm
I've noticed the same similarity.
How strange, isn't it?
Just an expected pattern. And the message can differ based on who each person may be addressing. Case in point Mike Pence who first wouldn’t answer the question about discrimination after being asked 6 times in one interview. A day later, he tells us there will be a fix. Same day, on Fox news, for that audience, no fix is needed. We see basically the same dumb behavior from the Governor of Arkansas who last week was ready to sign basically an identical bill, then today changed his mind (his son pleaded with him to do so). This party continues to show how little they care for the people and just as bad, how hypocritical they are on a daily basis:

Quote
At Tuesday's train wreck of a press conference to defend Indiana's new license-to-discriminate law, Gov. Mike Pence spent nearly 45 minutes alternating between lies, whining and complaints about being smeared, but he also guaranteed that this law would be fixed:
Let me say I believe this is a clarification, but it’s also a fix ... I think it’s important that we take this action this week.
And yet just hours later, Pence scurried over to Fox News to assure Sean Hannity:
Well look, I stand by this law, uh, the law doesn't need to be fixed, we need to fix the perception.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 01, 2015, 09:26:52 pm
Don't bother listening to Ben Carson, former neurosurgeon and current Republican long-shot Presidential primary candidate. He's cracked. He wants to take government money but doesn't want to abide by the rules.
Reminds of of Ted Cruz who spent nearly every waking hour trying to kill the Affordable Care Act. Till he lost his insurance the other day, now he's trying to sign up for Obama care.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/01/ted-cruz-obamacare/70765296/
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Les Sparks on April 01, 2015, 10:05:21 pm
Anyone who has followed the debates in the states where religious freedom acts are currently under discussion should understand that the purpose of these acts is to allow discrimination against gays and especially gay marriages. Here in NC proponents don't hide their objective.They're upfront about the purpose of the act is to provide cover for public officials who don't want is issue marriage licensees for or officiate at gay civil marriage. I know that those favoring the various religious freedom acts claim pure motives and the desire to protect everyone religious freedom, but the reasons given in floor debate make it plain the these acts are aimed at limiting rights of gays.

Allowing someone who offers goods and services to the public  to discriminate for any reason is bad public policy. We have a long history of the public ills caused by allowing those offering goods and services to the public to discriminate. Read the history of civil rights struggles of any minority for examples of the public ills caused by allowing such  discrimination. It's taken us as a country a long time to get to the point where we recognize that allowing discrimination in public transactions is bad policy.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Iluvmycam on April 01, 2015, 10:55:14 pm
To show you how crazy things have got...

I listened to Fresh Air today on the radio. They interviewed a homosexual. They discussed if if a queer guy balks at having anal sex with his partner they label him a 'homophobic' type of queer.

No wonder we have no fuzz left on our peaches and they are inedible. We have shifted gears to discussing all this BS and have forgotten the basics. This carries over to our camera gear. Whoever invented the program dial to replace the shutter speed dial did not do us a service at all.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: markadams99 on April 01, 2015, 11:02:10 pm
The only problem with this is that the free society you're imagining cannot exists because it will auto-destroy itself.
How long can a society survive if a muslim doctor can refuse to treat a jewish patient?
What if a christian cop refuses to save an atheist's life from a murderer?
What if schools could refuse black students?

The act of discrimination is never acceptable in a civil nation, while the opinion is acceptable.

That's jejune. There's no proposal to legalize murder of anyone or abolish the duties of public servants like the police. You should discriminate between public services and private business; private doctors work for money and should treat whom they wish to treat, and private schools like private businesses should be allowed to discriminate on race - as they do in fact via 'affirmative' action and black schools.

As regards your question C,  Yes.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: rmyers on April 01, 2015, 11:14:18 pm
Arkansas governor says he won't sign bill as worded.  Will be interesting to see what the new version looks like.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: telyt on April 02, 2015, 01:16:29 am
Wildlight said "If the doctor is self employed or otherwise not employed by the state (meaning any level of government) then he may be foolish or inhumane for refusing to treat someone of a different religion but for the state to compel the doctor to treat the patient against the doctor's wishes is confiscation of his skills by the state."

WRONG in many instances.

You did see my edit, right?  Without quibbling the details the basic concept regardless of the particular profession is that if you take government money or operate under a license issued by the government then you play by the government's rules.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 04:04:26 am
That's you should discriminate between public services and private business; private doctors work for money and should treat whom they wish to treat, and private schools like private businesses should be allowed to discriminate on race - as they do in fact via 'affirmative' action and black schools.
The problem is: no such society will ever long last.


As regards your question C,  Yes.

This forum is full of ISIS terrorists, it seems. (comment #110)

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 04:05:36 am
Just an expected pattern. And the message can differ based on who each person may be addressing. Case in point Mike Pence who first wouldn’t answer the question about discrimination after being asked 6 times in one interview. A day later, he tells us there will be a fix. Same day, on Fox news, for that audience, no fix is needed. We see basically the same dumb behavior from the Governor of Arkansas who last week was ready to sign basically an identical bill, then today changed his mind (his son pleaded with him to do so). This party continues to show how little they care for the people and just as bad, how hypocritical they are on a daily basis:

How true.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: markadams99 on April 02, 2015, 09:00:03 am


This forum is full of ISIS terrorists, it seems. (comment #110)



..which is in reply to me: "As regards your question C,  Yes."

I'm an ISIS terrorist because I uphold the freedom of homosexuals to say something I don't like?

I've briefly glanced at your posts and see "schmuck" and "bigot" and "terrorist" and sneering passim. Maybe you're on the wrong forum.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 09:07:22 am
I'm an ISIS terrorist because I uphold the freedom of homosexuals to say something I don't like?

No, because you agree that homosexuals have the right to organize and boycott bigot's business.
But I'm not the one who said this: just look that comment #110 (page 6).

In fact, comment #110's author think I'm a ISIS terrorist myself.

(My wife went ballistic for all that infidel blood spilled on the kitchen's floor  ;D)

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: markadams99 on April 02, 2015, 09:15:15 am
No, because you agree that homosexuals have the right to organize and boycott bigot's business

a) A gay couple go to a photographer to get their marriage photographed;
b) It turns out the photographer is a homophobic bigot who refuses to do the job;
c) The gay couple post on their facebook page and twitter account something like "Don't hire this guy, he is a homophobic A-H";


Question for you: do freedom of speech give the gay couple the right to do c)?



I answer "Yes" to your question c because I believe in freedom of speech for you as well as for me. Also when such boycotts are demanded, as with Chick-fil-A, they tend to increase the business of the target.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 09:22:38 am
Ok, maybe my english is not good enough.
So allow me to make my position perfectly clear:

I do think that an organized effort should be put in place to economically starve all bigot's who run a business and choose to discriminate customer because of any trait unrelated with the economic transaction in place.

So my aswer to che question is not only "yes the gay couple has that right", but even "and they should do it so that the bigoted photographer looses a lot of money".
For this position of mine someone equated me to an ISIS terrorists.


When I said that you are an ISIS terrorist too I was ironic (since you agree with me).
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: john beardsworth on April 02, 2015, 10:41:39 am
Right now there's an interesting law case in Northern Ireland where an equal rights NGO has taken a bakers to court for cancelling an order for a cake decorated with the words "Support Gay Marriage". The bakers were apparently perfectly polite with the customer and happy to supply the cake - they just wouldn't decorate it with a slogan with which they disagreed. Was this discrimination? If so, can a Muslim-owned printer no longer refuse a contract for a Muhammed cartoon or, less ludicrously, can a Jewish photographer decline to cover a neo Nazi wedding? Even as an atheist, I feel that surely there has to be a distinction between prejudicial acts that do actually harm the other person, and making you do something contrary to whatever you believe.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 11:00:57 am
Right now there's an interesting law case in Northern Ireland where an equal rights NGO has taken a bakers to court for cancelling an order for a cake decorated with the words "Support Gay Marriage". The bakers were apparently perfectly polite with the customer and happy to supply the cake - they just wouldn't decorate it with a slogan with which they disagreed. Was this discrimination? If so, can a Muslim-owned printer no longer refuse a contract for a Muhammed cartoon or, less ludicrously, can a Jewish photographer decline to cover a neo Nazi wedding? Even as an atheist, I feel that surely there has to be a distinction between prejudicial acts that do actually harm the other person, and making you do something contrary to whatever you believe.

Yes, it is discrimination.
As an atheist myself I find your examples very convincing but I think they are so convincing just because they are based on emotional foundations.
On a rational basis, instead, I'm utterly convinced that becoming a businessman also means accepting the role of "service provider" to the all the people around you and therefore it is wrong to deny such service to someone (on non-economical basis, that is).

So yes: a muslim printer should not be allowed to refuse a contract for a Muhammed cartoon and a jewish photographer should not decline to cover a neo nazi wedding.
If someone don't want to provide its services to choose your preferred bad guy that that someone should not go into business.


The same is true for employee: the employer sign a contract for photographing the nazi wedding but the employee refuses to do the job and get fired for that refusal.
Does the employer had the right to fire him?

Whose opinions wins in this situation? The employer's or employee's?

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 11:16:06 am
... Even as an atheist, I feel that surely there has to be a distinction between prejudicial acts that do actually harm the other person, and making you do something contrary to whatever you believe.

+1

From the article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/31/religious-freedom-laws-helped-muslims-indians/print/) I quoted earlier:

Josh Blackman, professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston (emphasis mine):

Quote
"It's a speech issue," Mr. Blackman said. "When you're requiring someone to engage in an act of creativity — creating a flower bouquet, photographing a wedding, baking and designing a cake — those are acts of art. In fact, if you ask bakers and photographers, they'll call themselves artists."

Mr. Blackman said the federal precedents appear to line up in favor of the religious business owners.

"There's a long-standing list of [U.S.] Supreme Court cases saying you can't compel people to speak, and these are cases going way back," Mr. Blackman said. "And I think those cover the baker and the florist. These are issues of speech, not religion."
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 11:20:14 am
+1

From the article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/31/religious-freedom-laws-helped-muslims-indians/print/) I quoted earlier:


In the meantime, anti-gay bigots don't want the law amended to forbid gay discrimination (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/indiana-activist-dont-clarify-religious-freedom-law-wont-allow-discrimination).

You're absolutly right: it's a freedom of speech issue: nothing to do with discriminating gay people. NOOOOTHING at all.  :)


Bigot's hiding time is getting lower and lower....


Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 11:26:12 am
In the meantime, anti-gay bigots don't want the law amended to forbid gay discrimination (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/indiana-activist-dont-clarify-religious-freedom-law-wont-allow-discrimination).

You're absolutly right: it's a freedom of speech issue: nothing to do with discriminating gay people. NOOOOTHING at all.  :)

Bigot's hiding time is getting lower and lower....

I am not sure why somebody ("gays", genuine or "for profit") must get an exemption ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 11:27:30 am
I am not sure why somebody ("gays", genuine or "for profit") must get an exemption ?

I'm sorry, I really don't undestand what you mean.
Can you clarify?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 11:32:13 am
I'm sorry, I really don't undestand what you mean.
Can you clarify?

what is to clarify - I am against that law to be amended to specifically protect some group no matter who they are - existing laws provide enough protection already
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 11:34:53 am
what is to clarify - I am against that law to be amended to specifically protect some group no matter who they are - existing laws provide enough protection already
Now I understand.

I am against the law as a whole.
The amendment just show who really are the people pushing it and why they don't want it amended.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: john beardsworth on April 02, 2015, 11:37:49 am
So by your logic, Diego, you should be forced to say/do something that damages your own reputation?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 11:40:59 am
So by your logic, Diego, you should be forced to say/do something that damages your own reputation?
Yes, if I choose to be in some business.
Don't I want to get my reputation damaged? I quit the job.

What if I was a creationist teacher who resuses to teach evolution (as required by my employer) because "doing that would damage my reputation"?
I quite cleary think that my employer have all the right to fire me.

Don't you agree?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: john beardsworth on April 02, 2015, 11:53:38 am
Perhaps so, but more on the grounds that the creationist teacher is insufficiently educated to be at the front of the classroom.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 11:56:04 am
Perhaps so, but more on the grounds that the creationist teacher is insufficiently educated to be at the front of the classroom.
That's not always the case: I'm sure Kurt Wise is not the only educated creationist out there.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 11:59:31 am
Was this discrimination?
Yes it is. I'd have stuck the bakery with the cost of the cake thus far and then done all I could to embarrass them.  
Quote
If so, can a Muslim-owned printer no longer refuse a contract for a Muhammed cartoon or, less ludicrously, can a Jewish photographer decline to cover a neo Nazi wedding? Even as an atheist, I feel that surely there has to be a distinction between prejudicial acts that do actually harm the other person, and making you do something contrary to whatever you believe.
It isn't discrimination for a Jew to turn down a neo Nazi wedding, we can all freely decide what assignments we wish to take. It would be discrimination to decline the job by telling the potential customer you wouldn't do it solely because the weeding is for neo Nazi's. Or to take a deposit, show up at the wedding, see that it's a neo Nazi wedding and refuse to do the work. There's a big difference between refusing to do the work, without discrimination and refusing the work and making the discrimination obvious. If a black couple go to restaurant and are refused service because they are black and told so, this is clear discrimination. If the restaurant owner closes early and tells the couple the chef was ill, even if that's untrue, it's not discrimination. Discrimination is something one person or persons applies to others, their actions towards the other side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
Quote
Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 12:00:09 pm
What if I was a creationist teacher who resuses to teach evolution (as required by my employer) because "doing that would damage my reputation"?
I quite cleary think that my employer have all the right to fire me.

Don't you agree?
Absolutely!
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 12:05:12 pm
It isn't discrimination for a Jew to turn down a neo Nazi wedding
it that exactly wording - it actually is... it isn't discrimination for a photog to turn down a wedding, but for a "jew" to turn down, as you specifically wrote, "neo nazi wedding" clearly spells an intent of the said "jew" to discriminate the said "neo nazi" based on it just being "neo nazi"... watch what you say.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 12:08:50 pm
What if I was a creationist teacher who resuses to teach evolution (as required by my employer) because "doing that would damage my reputation"?
I quite cleary think that my employer have all the right to fire me.

to fire a teacher here with unions and seniority  :D

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 12:11:53 pm
it that exactly wording - it actually is... it isn't discrimination for a photog to turn down a wedding, but for a "jew" to turn down, as you specifically wrote, "neo nazi wedding" clearly spells an intent of the said "jew" to discriminate the said "neo nazi" based on it just being "neo nazi"... watch what you say.
No it's not. The client doesn't know anything about me being a Jew or not wishing to take the job because the client is a Nazi because I didn't tell them. I simply did the smart thing and refused to accept the job (I have another booking, I'm out of town that day going to a Passover dinner etc).
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 02, 2015, 12:12:34 pm
Wildlight and markadams99, ALL physicians are government regulated, and have been for a very long time.
There's also the matter of professional pride. You don't like your patient of the moment? Suck it up, put on a professional manner, treat the patient, move on. The quality of your work should not depend on your personal feelings about a patient.

Refusal of service to customers is hardly a new matter. Some pharmacists refuse to fill any birth control pill prescriptions, and in many red states, they are protected by law even if no other pharmacist is available to serve the patient. The pharmacist's claim is generally "birth control pills cause abortion", which not only is factually INCORRECT, but widely known to be so in the medical and pharmacist professions.

Let the thread now explode.
Hey, at least it is a change from the endless DRone debates   ::)
Seriously, I do learn something from some of the DR posts.

I live in a big city (well, biggish) and I could deal just fine with getting turned away by a baker or florist or photographer because there are lots of them around, and because I am a well-to-do white woman who doesn't get the same sort of crap that my black counterparts get on a regular basis - a rare encounter with an *sshole over a non-essential service is not a huge stressor. As I explained in a post about Ferguson a few pages ago, we the people don't need any additional religious excuses to behave badly. Yep, there are plenty of people in MO that would claim religious objection to serving blacks. I would like to kick the camel's nose back out of the tent, and keep the legal principle of non-discrimination in public accommodations (including businesses) intact.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 02, 2015, 12:20:50 pm
I would like to kick the camel's nose back out of the tent, and keep the legal principle of non-discrimination in public accommodations (including businesses) intact.
I would like, too.
But, apparently, some think that discrimination and free speech are equivalent.
Web they discriminate, of course, not when they are discriminated.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 12:33:57 pm
No it's not. The client doesn't know anything about me being a Jew or not wishing to take the job because the client is a Nazi because I didn't tell them.

yes, you lied then but you disclosed your true intent to discriminate for the record now... so by the same logic it is ok for a white photog to do the same to negro wedding or anti-gay photog to a gay wedding.... it is very clear that you like to discriminate when it suits you and cry wolf when it doesn't ...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: markadams99 on April 02, 2015, 12:35:44 pm
Wildlight and markadams99... I would like to kick the camel's nose back out of the tent, and keep the legal principle of non-discrimination in public accommodations (including businesses) intact.
Diego and Nancy, so, just to be clear, when I ask you to be photographer for my next KKK "ban the bum" rally, you'll be there to serve?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 12:39:37 pm
keep the legal principle of non-discrimination in public accommodations (including businesses) intact.
the argument is whether some business is indeed a public accommodation
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: john beardsworth on April 02, 2015, 12:45:22 pm
It isn't discrimination for a Jew to turn down a neo Nazi wedding, we can all freely decide what assignments we wish to take. It would be discrimination to decline the job by telling the potential customer you wouldn't do it solely because the weding is for neo Nazi's. Or to take a deposit, show up at the wedding, see that it's a neo Nazi wedding and refuse to do the work. There's a big difference between refusing to do the work, without discrimination and refusing the work and making the discrimination obvious. If a black couple go to restaurant and are refused service because they are black and told so, this is clear discrimination. If the restaurant owner closes early and tells the couple the chef was ill, even if that's untrue, it's not discrimination.

So making the discrimination obvious makes a difference? That is twisted, isn't it? The only difference is whether the discriminatory act can be proved!

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 12:57:58 pm
yes, you lied then but you disclosed your true intent to discriminate for the record now... so by the same logic it is ok for a white photog to do the same to negro wedding or anti-gay photog to a gay wedding.... it is very clear that you like to discriminate when it suits you and cry wolf when it doesn't ...
Yes I lied, but I didn't discriminate, far lesser of two evils. And a very smart business mode too.

The fact you apply what I wrote hypothetically makes you certain that I like to discriminate illustrates to anyone paying attention that your argument is (like the one about DNG) completely ridiculous
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 01:01:59 pm
So making the discrimination obvious makes a difference?
Yes it does! But you failed to read or understand the definition of the term, you failed to understand it is the person at the receiving end of the discrimination that is key.

I can think but not say I think you're a stinkin Brit. My internal opinion is my own. If I say publicly you are stinkin Brit, and I refuse to shoot your wedding, you've been discriminated. 
And for poor AlterEgo, I don't think that John, this is a totally hypothetical example!
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 01:06:08 pm
So making the discrimination obvious makes a difference? That is twisted, isn't it? The only difference is whether the discriminatory act can be proved!

that LGBT crowd is like that, no wonder... all about smart lies
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 01:07:19 pm
Yes I lied, but I didn't discriminate, far lesser of two evils. And a very smart business mode too.

The fact you apply what I wrote hypothetically makes you certain that I like to discriminate illustrates to anyone paying attention that your argument is (like the one about DNG) completely ridiculous

the fact you totally approve the discrimination and call to hide it behind lies... face it !
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 01:08:31 pm
Oh, this is getting really funny. So, forcing people to lie is the answer? Let's say lying does become the preferred method for avoiding jobs you do not want to do. I doubt that would appease social terrorists. The next thing you know, they would subpoena photographer's calendar and schedule to prove he was lying he would be busy on that day. Or they'd call 911 to obtain a proof that "the chef is ill."
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 01:08:53 pm
But you failed to read or understand the definition of the term, you failed to understand it is the person at the receiving end of the discrimination that is key.

when that person is LGBT it is bad, when that person is neo Nazi it is good, we got that  ;D


Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 01:14:32 pm
the fact you totally approve the discrimination and call to hide it behind lies... face it !
Well that's totally untrue and unjustified but it is typical of your posting and mindset.
Are you telling us you have no bias that would keep you from accepting a job without obvious discrimination?
Again, it appears you and John have vastly different ideas of what discrimination means. In my example, I refused to accept the job of the Nazi's without a lick of discrimination as far as they know. Discrimination has to be directed and recognized by the people being discriminated against. I don't have to believe or disbelieve in the Nazi's agenda to accept or not accept their job offer, and I don't have to discriminate to get out of doing the work!
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: john beardsworth on April 02, 2015, 01:15:02 pm
And for poor AlterEgo, I don't think that John, this is a totally hypothetical example!

Do you mean AlterEgo or deeejaaa or vladimirovich?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 01:17:25 pm
Oh, this is getting really funny. So, forcing people to lie is the answer?
The answer is to be accepting of everyone. I'd be hard pressed to do that with Nazi's or ISIS terrorists to name a few. And further, I don't have to discriminate, I can refuse with or without an excuse without the other party being discriminated, a point a few here seem to misunderstand. 
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 01:18:56 pm
Do you mean AlterEgo or deeejaaa or vladimirovich?
You pick.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 01:20:46 pm
Alert the media!!! And the federal and state legislatures... no law is necessary. Revoke them all. All reduce them to one line, one word: lie!. Tell people to lie. Problem solved.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 01:27:28 pm
Discrimination has to be directed and recognized by the people being discriminated against.
not true - discrimination against people with diminished mental capacity (who naturally can't recognize that they are being discriminated) for example  ;D ... your logic is as usual quite wrong... discrimination is discrimination when the laws & courts say it is and in USA it is enough for DOJ to collect a meaningful statistics for example to start the case, lie or not in the face of discriminated (jew or neo nazi)...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 01:28:54 pm
Alert the media!!! And the federal and state legislatures... no law is necessary. Revoke them all. All reduce them to one line, one word: lie!. Tell people to lie. Problem solved.
Lying and dissemination are not the same! Not even close. If you wish to go on record here, telling us you never lie or have never lied, do so.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 01:31:07 pm
not true - discrimination against people with diminished mental capacity (who naturally can't recognize that they are being discriminated) for example  ;D ... your logic is as usual quite wrong... discrimination is discrimination when the laws & courts say it is and in USA it is enough for DOJ to collect a meaningful statistics for example to start the case, lie or not in the face of discriminated (jew or neo nazi)...
PROVE legally or otherwise that I discriminated with my lie about Passover dinner to get out of shooting the Nazi wedding.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 01:32:14 pm
PROVE legally or otherwise that I discriminated with my lie about Passover dinner to get out of shooting the Nazi wedding.

so now you finally understand that you were wrong about "recognized by the people being discriminated against"  :D ... never too late to learn, as for the prove legally - yes, certainly you need to be convicted in the court of law (or as LGBT crowd wants it - in the court of their (only) public opinion) - but that point about "recognized by the people being discriminated against" will not stand a chance there (in a court of law, I mean) :D
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 02, 2015, 01:42:23 pm
Markadams99: Nope. I am a mere amateur, and have never shot any event beyond the local photo club meeting and have never done any PJ.  But if a KKK member shows up at my hospital, I will participate in his medical care, as for any other patient.

I never thought of this forum as particularly religious. There's a lot more "eeewwww" than theology in this thread, in my opinion. I base that opinion on the complete lack of response to the 'pharmacist refusal to fill birth control pill prescription" issue I mentioned earlier.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: markadams99 on April 02, 2015, 01:50:17 pm
Markadams99: Nope. I am a mere amateur, and have never shot any event beyond the local photo club meeting and have never done any PJ.  But if a KKK member shows up at my hospital, I will participate in his medical care, as for any other patient.

I never thought of this forum as particularly religious. There's a lot more "eeewwww" than theology in this thread, in my opinion. I base that opinion on the complete lack of response to the 'pharmacist refusal to fill birth control pill prescription" issue I mentioned earlier.

I want to be sure I understand your position. Suppose you were a professional photographer. Would you accept my commission for my next KKK "ban the bum" rally?

Diego, since you were so insistent that Slobodan directly answered your question, I address this to you as well.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: markadams99 on April 02, 2015, 01:52:24 pm
Discrimination has to be directed and recognized by the people being discriminated against. I don't have to believe or disbelieve in the Nazi's agenda to accept or not accept their job offer, and I don't have to discriminate to get out of doing the work!

You're redefining discrimination to suit your agenda. Recognition by the discriminee has nothing to do with it.

dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
"victims of racial discrimination"
synonyms:   prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More
antonyms:   impartiality
2.
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 02:11:50 pm
Markadams99: Nope. I am a mere amateur, and have never shot any event beyond the local photo club meeting and have never done any PJ.  But if a KKK member shows up at my hospital, I will participate in his medical care, as for any other patient.

do you own a hospital (means - it is your business, you are a business owner of the said hospital) ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 02:13:54 pm
You're redefining discrimination to suit your agenda.
he already recognized his fault in the logical reasoning and no longer insisting on that part  ;D ...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 02:32:58 pm
... Would you accept my commission for my next KKK "ban the bum" rally?

Mark, you'd need to qualify that request to say that the resulting photograph should portray the rally and each participant in a positive light, not just document it. Just like the expectation for a wedding photographer is to produce nice, lovely, artistic, romantic, memorable, cute, etc. images of a wedding, not just any. Which would be hard for a photographer opposing gay marriage. Just like it would be hard for Diego to portray in a favorable light a rally by bigots under the banner "Starve Fags to Death."
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 02:42:24 pm
That's not always the case: I'm sure Kurt Wise is not the only educated creationist out there.
Being educated and a creationist! That's oxymoronic statement if ever I heard one.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 02:48:48 pm
You're redefining discrimination to suit your agenda. Recognition by the discriminee has nothing to do with it.
It's not mine if you look at the source.

I gave very concrete examples of discrimination and what the discriminee (is that a made up word?) may or may not be aware of.

IF I am a Nazi and I'm asked to shoot a wedding with other Nazi's and refuse (decline) without saying why, did I discriminate? No. If I'm not a Nazi and I'm asked to shoot a wedding with Nazi's and refuse (decline) without saying why, did I discriminate? No. In either case if I'm asked to shoot a wedding with Nazi's and refuse by telling the couple I hate Nazi's, boom, I discriminated. It's as simple as that.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 03:00:17 pm
I think something should be mentioned here with regard to the facile comparisons re KKK/Nazis and gays. One group is simply describing a sexual preference, the other two are organisations that engaged in illegal acts and are responsible for killing a lot of innocent people. Not wanting to work for potential murderers is in no way comparable to not wanting to work for someone who likes to kiss the same sex, which is perfectly legal.
'Incitement to racial hatred' which is what Nazis and the KK do/did is however illegal here in the UK. So doing promotional work for them such as say photography could be considered aiding and abetting, therefore opening you up to prosecution. So refusing a job offer from them may be the smart thing to do.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 03:01:48 pm
Being educated and a creationist! That's oxymoronic statement if ever I heard one.
pope
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 03:05:34 pm
One group is simply describing a sexual preference,

so are zoophiles and other minorities

the other two are organisations that engaged in illegal acts and are responsible for killing a lot of innocent people.

so does Israel  ;) => all jews are ? yes, arabs too.... all of them


Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Torbjörn Tapani on April 02, 2015, 03:07:15 pm
Godwin's law already killed this thread.

But I will say it's nice to see Kevin and Michael take such a firm stance against this stupidity.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 03:07:23 pm
illegal here in the UK.
we are talking about a different country... not sure what that island has to do with the free state of Indiana ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 03:09:11 pm
...'Incitement to racial hatred' which is what Nazis and the KK do/did is however illegal here in the UK...

Neo-Nazis and KKK are legal in the U.S.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 03:11:35 pm
we are talking about a different country...
And you completely missed the overall point. Which was not geographically specific.

Quote
not sure what that island has to do with the free state of Indiana ?
Free!? Free to discriminate it would seem, that's about as far as it goes.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 03:15:57 pm
so are zoophiles and other minorities
Your point being?

Quote
so does Israel  ;) => all jews are ? yes, arabs too.... all of them
Dear me. Possibly the most pathetic argument ever, one kids particularly like to indulge in. "But they are doing it too....".
The one that gets usually gets dragged out whenever there is no actual argument against the point being made.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 03:17:09 pm
Neo-Nazis and KKK are legal in the U.S.
Being a Nazi or indeed KKK member is not illegal here either as far as I know Indulging in certain types of behaviour is however.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: telyt on April 02, 2015, 03:18:39 pm
pope

Google is your friend.  From http://www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution-are-not-controversial-among-roman-catholics-281115

".. before he became pope, Ratzinger delivered an address at the Vatican in 2002 in which he stated that “converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on Earth.”
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 03:19:29 pm
Being a Nazi or indeed KKK member is not illegal here either as far as I know Indulging in certain types of behaviour is however.

Again, the threshold what constitutes illegal behavior is much higher here, in the land of the free.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 03:49:03 pm
Google is your friend.  From http://www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution-are-not-controversial-among-roman-catholics-281115

".. before he became pope, Ratzinger delivered an address at the Vatican in 2002 in which he stated that “converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on Earth.”

did I say which pope ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 03:52:05 pm
Your point being?
point is that their particular inclinations do not make them somehow better than other inclinations of a similar kind

Dear me. Possibly the most pathetic argument ever, one kids particularly like to indulge in. "But they are doing it too....".
The one that gets usually gets dragged out whenever there is no actual argument against the point being made.

same logic - you try to smear individual(s) by association
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 03:54:25 pm
Again, the threshold what constitutes illegal behavior is much higher here, in the land of the free.
One of the most annoying things about some Americans is the arrogant, inaccurate and smug wittering on about "the land of the free" as if you were were somehow different to most other developed democracies. You really are not btw.
Also if you think you are such a free country, try and photograph or discuss the workings of the agriculture/livestock industry. You may find your right to free speech is very severely curtailed.

The other irritating thing is that Americans thinks everyone else wants to be one, when in fact people are usually quite happy being their own nationality in their own country. Here in the UK, saying something is getting Americanised is an insult, not a compliment. A country where discriminatory laws get passed and nonsense like creationism is taught in schools as fact is a country going back to the dark ages, not one progressing forwards.

As for this part of your post...
'Again, the threshold what constitutes illegal behavior is much higher here' What are you trying to say with that ridiculous statement? That it's harder to prove someone is guilty? As that's how it seems to read.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 03:55:30 pm
Free!? Free to discriminate it would seem, that's about as far as it goes.
even if it is so - I'd give it a try and let market and voters in Indiana to sort it out...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 03:56:23 pm
point is that their particular inclinations do not make them somehow better than other inclinations of a similar kind
Which is not something I ever claimed or implied.

Quote
same logic - you try to smear individual(s) by association
For example?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 03:58:08 pm
even if it is so - I'd give it a try and let market and voters in Indiana to sort it out...
So you are in favour of discrimination then?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 04:01:16 pm
One of the most annoying things about some Americans is the arrogant
eh... don't forget who really stands between you and various unsavoury brutes out there, so be grateful and mind your place in the world.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 04:02:20 pm
Which is not something I ever claimed or implied.
For example?
reread your posting earlier in the thread... membership in a legal organization.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 04:02:54 pm
So you are in favour of discrimination then?
when did you stop beating your wife ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 04:19:22 pm
eh... don't forget who really stands between you and various unsavoury brutes out there, so be grateful and mind your place in the world.
As if to prove my point that some Americans are really quite up themselves and woefully misguided as to their position in the world.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 04:31:17 pm
As if to prove my point that some Americans are really quite up themselves and woefully misguided as to their position in the world.
Now is that discrimination :o

We're getting nowhere, I've got too much real work to do. Email box too full of posts, I'm signing off for the time being.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 04:35:54 pm
when did you stop beating your wife ?
You really posted that? Bet you wouldn't if you weren't hiding anonymously behind a keyboard.


reread your posting earlier in the thread... membership in a legal organization.
Seeing as you cannot be bothered to say which post in particular, I'll have to guess.
Was that the one where I accurately stated that Nazis and KKK were responsible for killing a lot of innocent people? Not only responsible for, bit notorious for their appalling behaviour. Therefore any willing member of such organisation must condone such activities, otherwise they would not join up. So how could I smear by association when their membership of such associations does that for them?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 04:43:23 pm
Now is that discrimination :o
No it isn't as (a) I quite specifically said 'some American' think blah blah' as opposed to 'Americans think blah blah'. Big difference.
And (b) Discrimination is acting on something, because of who someone is, not sating something bigoted/racist.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 04:59:07 pm
Quote
... some national polls have shown that a majority of Americans may support bills similar to RFRA. A poll – conducted by the Marist Institute of Public Opinion and sponsored by the Catholic News Agency – showed that 54 percent of Americans supported faith-based exemptions from the law. About 65 percent oppose fines for wedding vendors who decline to provide services to same-sex couples for religious reasons...

A poll conducted by the Associated Press in February found that 57 percent of respondents agree that wedding-related businesses should be allowed to refuse services to same-sex couples on religious grounds.

Source here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0402/Why-Indiana-pizza-parlor-is-now-a-conduit-for-conservatives-backing-RFRA).

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 05:03:32 pm
Source here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0402/Why-Indiana-pizza-parlor-is-now-a-conduit-for-conservatives-backing-RFRA).
So a poll sponsored by a Christian website in a country that has a majority of people with strong religious views is in favour of bias on religious views. Not exactly surprising. I'm sure slave owners were also in favour of slavery when polled.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 05:48:26 pm
So a poll sponsored by a Christian website in a country that has a majority of people with strong religious views is in favour of bias on religious views. Not exactly surprising. I'm sure slave owners were also in favour of slavery when polled.

I knew you are going to latch onto that... that's why I included Associated Press as well.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: MatthewCromer on April 02, 2015, 05:49:43 pm
The international media response to this law (which is NOT about discrimination against gays!) is worse than the media tarring and feathering a completely innocent cop as a killer in Ferguson, Missouri.

There are lots of actual anti-gay discrimination laws in America, some of which passed in the last few years, which did not get 1/10th the media coverage of this law (which is not about discriminating against gay people).

People need to investigate things for themselves, you cannot trust the media to tell you the truth about anything controversial. Period.

It's time for an end to the witch hunts.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 05:56:23 pm
I knew you are going to latch onto that... that's why I included Associated Press as well.
The AP survey won't change the religious make up of the respondents though will it?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 05:57:02 pm
You really posted that?
did you really ask me that original question ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 06:02:16 pm
Was that the one where I accurately stated that Nazis and KKK were responsible for killing a lot of innocent people?
let me remind you = " Not wanting to work for potential murderers ", that's a slander of an innocent until proven guilty human being trying to be your customer...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 06:03:25 pm
The international media response to this law (which is NOT about discrimination against gays!) is worse than the media tarring and feathering a completely innocent cop as a killer in Ferguson, Missouri.

There are lots of actual anti-gay discrimination laws in America, some of which passed in the last few years, which did not get 1/10th the media coverage of this law (which is not about discriminating against gay people).
No, it's being allowed to be a bigot against anything your region deems fit. The gay aspect has gained prominence because there is a lot of anti-gay attitudes justified by some people because 'the Bible said so'.

So how do you know that the policemen who fired 12 bullets at an unarmed suspect was completely innocent, if all the media tells lies? Did you witness it at first hand or are you relying on what was reported about the incident.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 06:11:03 pm
let me remind you = " Not wanting to work for potential murderers ", that's a slander of an innocent until proven guilty human being trying to be your customer...
No it's a sensible inference. In exactly the same way, I infer that members of a camera club have an interest in photography or people in a cycling club like cycling.
The KKK and Nazis hate other people so much that they have killed people for their differences. Joining such groups means you are also in favour of behaving in a similar way, otherwise why would you join?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 06:18:33 pm
did you really ask me that original question ?
I did ask if you were in favour of discrimantion because you said that you think the market should be allowed to decide if people want to discriminate. Therefore it was in context.
However I said nothing about beating up anyone, so your stating that I beat my wife is somewhat out of order.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: MatthewCromer on April 02, 2015, 06:29:30 pm
Quote
No, it's being allowed to be a bigot against anything your region deems fit.

No, it's not about that. These laws (first signed by the Democrat Bill Clinton) have been  used to allow a Muslim in prison to grow a beard for religious reasons, a Sikh to keep their jobs and be allowed to wear a small ceremonial dagger (a requirement for their religion), and Amish to be allowed to use their buggies for transportation.

They are not "about being allowed to be a bigot".

Those claiming that freedom of religion acts are about bigots discriminating against gay people need to show evidence that these laws have been used for that purpose in the two decades that they have been on the books.



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 06:40:10 pm
...your stating that I beat my wife is somewhat out of order.

In case you are not aware, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a textbook example of a logical fallacy known as "loaded question." Nothing to do with you or your wife.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: MatthewCromer on April 02, 2015, 08:33:13 pm
Quote
The Indiana law and its clones in other states are simply wrong-headed at best, and frankly nakedly homophobic. They offer a chance for legally supported racial, sexual and religious intolerance.

I'm afraid you have been badly informed on this issue by the media.

These laws are about making it possible for Muslim women to wear a head-scarf in school, Amish to drive their buggies on the roads, and Sikhs to be allowed to wear a small ceremonial knife.

None of these laws have been used to allow bigots to discriminate against gay people.

Now if you want to fight against laws that genuinely discriminate, they passed an anti-gay marriage amendment in my state a few years ago, and we sure could have used more awareness and verbal support to defeat it. I wish it had gotten 1/100 of the media attention - it is a genuinely bad and discriminatory law.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 02, 2015, 08:59:30 pm
I'm afraid you have been badly informed on this issue by the media.
These laws are about making it possible for Muslim women to wear a head-scarf in school, Amish to drive their buggies on the roads, and Sikhs to be allowed to wear a small ceremonial knife.
Go on... it's more than just that or is this totally wrong?:

Quote
Twenty U.S. states and the federal government have RFRAs, which allow individuals to sue the government if they believe their First Amendment religious rights have been violated.
The original measures in Indiana and Arkansas go further than all but that of Texas, allowing lawsuits between private parties. The Texas law also includes provisions that it cannot be used to violate civil rights.
That raised the possibility of businesses using the law as a defense if they are sued, such as realtors for refusing to show homes to a member of the LGBT community or caterers if they rejected a request to provide for a same-sex wedding.Steve Barnes, Reuters


This off base?:
Quote
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal law that was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.[6][7] The law mandates that religious liberty of individuals can only be limited by the “least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.”[8] Originally, the federal law was intended to apply to federal, state, and local governments. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government but not states and other local municipalities within them. As a result, 21 states have passed their own RFRAs that apply to their individual state and local governments.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: telyt on April 03, 2015, 12:51:07 am
did I say which pope ?

Here's Pope Francis, from the same link:

The creation of the universe, Francis said, was not a singular event, but rather “went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today.”
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 02:22:56 am
Just like it would be hard for Diego to portray in a favorable light a rally by bigots under the banner "Starve Fags to Death."

That's one of the infinite number of points you don't get (but that's neither strange nor unexpected).

I don't think it's a good thing to organize to starve to death the homophobic bigots : I think it's NECESSARY.
That's the same difference by thinking a war is good and a war is necessary.
Do you get it?  (don't mind to answer: it's a given you can't answer question).


Neo-Nazis and KKK are legal in the U.S.
And the fact that neo-nazis and KKK are legal does mean that they are NOT engaging in discrimination, right?
(don't mind to answer: it's a rethorical question, the correct answer is "wrong").


Anyway, as I said earlier, the cockroaches are fleeing and the governor is hastly backing.
I guess the bigots don't realize that politicians are usually more close to prostitutes that to pornostar: both sell they body for money, but the prostitute usually don't do it so in the light of the day.

What I wonder is if there is an organized effort, on the bigots side, to loose so badly and so often.
I start thinking that some of your leaders use this loses to fuel bigots faux persecution feeling.
You know what I mean, don't you? Saying "you're hurting my freedom of speech" just because someone tells you "I won't give my money to homophobic bigots".



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: michael on April 03, 2015, 08:04:10 am
OK kids, it's time to simmer down.

The debaters have scored their points and the rest have been put to sleep by the name calling and posturing.

We have hesitated to close this thread, because Kevin and I believe strongly in free speech – just not in stupid speech.

So let's wrap this up. A very good editorial in the NYT today has a good perspective. I hope that you can read it

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/opinion/timothy-egan-the-conscience-of-a-corporation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/opinion/timothy-egan-the-conscience-of-a-corporation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Iluvmycam on April 03, 2015, 10:27:14 am
Before I made artists' book by hand I tried a few small printers. I was refused at 2 places...religious reasons.

I didn't care. They have the right to not work on my stuff if it is offensive to them.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 10:46:08 am
Before I made artists' book by hand I tried a few small printers. I was refused at 2 places...religious reasons.

I didn't care. They have the right to not work on my stuff if it is offensive to them.
Do they have the right to refuse on your stuff because they are offended by what you are?


I think that a point is missing, which is this: even if it was their right to refuse to work on your stuff because of you, exercising this right may be an exercise unnecessarily devoid of respect of other.

The operative word, here, is unnecessarily.
Rights and freedoms (like freedom of speech) are not toys to pleasure oneself with: they are tools to build a better society.

This means that the unnecessarily devoid of respect of other use of a right or a freedom is in fact an abuse, because such an exercise doesn't serve the purpose.

I'm an atheist and I have the right to say that all religions are just tales and lies.
But I don't go outside churches and scream "you're being lied!" to those going in or coming out, because I would be disrespectful of those people without doing any good to the society as a whole.

Some extreatheists would say that a world without believers would be a better world, but guess what? They are wrong.
And, more so, they are wrong in the very same way homophobic people say a world without gay would be a better world.

That's the real problem with this law: it tell homophobic people that it's they right to exercise their rights and freedoms in a unnecessarily devoid of respect of other way.

Because, let's face it: the world isn't going to be a better place if a gay is refused service from a business.



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:08:19 am
Because, let's face it: the world isn't going to be a better place if a gay is refused service from a business.

the world is not going to be a better place if a gay is forcing his/her way into a private business that does not wish to deal with him/her... has to work both ways... "you" (not you personally, in case you are not gay, hence quotes) want that business owner to respect "you" - do "you" care to respect him/her in turn and not patronize his/her establishment ?

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 11:14:08 am
the world is not going to be a better place if a gay is forcing his/her way into a private business that does not wish to deal with him/her... has to work both ways.
Does paying for a job equates to "forcing his/her way into a private business"?

If I was gay and have one of my straight friend buy something from someone who wouldn't sell me because I'm gay, would I be "forcing into the guy's business"?


Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:16:56 am
Does paying for a job equates to "forcing his/her way into a private business"?

yes, if you payment is not desired...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 11:18:20 am
yes, if you payment is not desired...
Why my payment should not be desired?
For the job I'm asking to do or because I'm asking to do it?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:22:43 am
If I was gay and have one of my straight friend buy something from someone who wouldn't sell me because I'm gay, would I be "forcing into the guy's business"?

depends... imagine you are a nazi and jewish jeweler does not want to make a swastika piece (perfectly legal in the state of Indiana) for you...

so how does it feel now ? try to put emotions aside and consider a legal side of the matter ... do you (now a jewish jeweler) want to lie (like digitaldog) in order to discriminate, do you want to make that piece or do you want a law to allow to refuse the services (legal protection to discriminate in law-defined cases) ?

next question - you are a nazi and you do not ask jewish jeweler to make you a swastika piece, but you enter a store with such piece profoundly displayed somewhere on you

next question - you are a nazi and you do not ask jewish jeweler to make you a swastika piece neither you enter a store with such piece profoundly displayed and out of respect to a store owner you are hiding your allegiances and pretending to be regular man full with love to all protected classes
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:23:37 am
Why my payment should not be desired?
why do some folks believe in god...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 11:25:19 am
why do some folks believe in god...
That doesn't answer my question: is my payment unwelcome because I'm asking you to do a job you don't want to do or because I am the one asking you to do the job?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 11:26:45 am
depends... imagine you are a nazi and jewish jeweler does not want to make a swastika piece (perfectly legal in the state of Indiana) for you...
Le'ts imagine I'm a afroamerican man and ask a jewish jeweler to do a swastika piece  and he refuses.
Does he refuses because I'm a afroamerican man?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:33:44 am
Le'ts imagine I'm a afroamerican man and ask a jewish jeweler to do a swastika piece  and he refuses.
Does he refuses because I'm a afroamerican man?

are you asking me to imagine myself a jewish jeweler - business owner ? like I asked you to imagine yourself a customer before... ok, if I imagine myself a jewish jeweler in this case then __YES__ - I want a legal protection from the state of Indiana to be able to refuse your patronage based on your desire to order a swastika piece...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 11:35:50 am
are you asking me to imagine myself a jewish jeweler - business owner ? like I asked you to imagine yourself a customer before... ok, if I imagine myself a jewish jeweler in this case then __YES__ - I want a legal protection from the state of Indiana to be able to refuse your patronage based on your desire to order a swastika piece...
So you're refusing to do the job because of the job itself, not because I'm afroamerican, right?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:35:57 am
That doesn't answer my question: is my payment unwelcome because I'm asking you to do a job you don't want to do or because I am the one asking you to do the job?
it actually does... some people have a certain moral (and it is not your business to judge those) values so that they don't want your money
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:36:29 am
So you're refusing to do the job because of the job itself, not because I'm afroamerican, right?
I answered your question - reread it... but you did not answer my question
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 11:37:41 am
it actually does... some people have a certain moral (and it is not your business to judge those) values so that they don't want your money
So you're saying that there will be people refusing the job not because of the job itself but because of who's asking to do the job, right?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 11:39:38 am
I answered your question - reread it... but you did not answer my question

Can you clearly state if the job will be refused because of the job itselft or because of the afroamerican customer?

About your question, my answer is that yes, I would do the job no matter what.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:45:04 am
So you're saying that there will be people refusing the job not because of the job itself but because of who's asking to do the job, right?
no, I am not saying this in my answer, because the question was not properly put by you - you asked me to imagine myself a jewish jeweller in a particular situation (with swastika) and I answered you what I want to be able to do in this situation... plz don't try to generalized just because you asked the wrong question that does not force me into position that you'd lile  ;D ... ask a different question - but first answer my question, then we can continue...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 11:46:47 am
no, I am not saying this in my answer, because the question was not properly put by you - you asked me to imagine myself a jewish jeweller in a particular situation (with swastika) and I answered you what I want to be able to do in this situation... plz don't try to generalized just because you asked the wrong question that does not force me into position that you'd lile  ;D ... ask a different question - but first answer my question, then we can continue...

I did aswered you question: I will do the job no matter what.

Now, I don't understand why you say I'm asking the wrong question: can you explain to me?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:47:59 am
Can you clearly state if the job will be refused because of the job itselft or because of the afroamerican customer?

my answer was very clear and in suffiently plain english

About your question, my answer is that yes, I would do the job no matter what.

OK, then the case is closed - if you want to afford the same services to nazis and to gays then I am with you... for as long as LGBT & Co are not singled out for some preferential treatment I have no issues.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 11:50:52 am
my answer was very clear and in suffiently plain english
The problem is I'm not a native english speaker, so: is the job refused because of the job itself or because of the afroamerican customer?


OK, then the case is closed - if you want to afford the same services to nazis and to gays then I am with you... for as long as LGBT & Co are not singled out for some preferential treatment I have no issues.
The problem is that with this law LGBT are singled out because "religion" is an excuses to refute LGBT customer but not jews customer or afroamerican customer.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:51:45 am
I did aswered you question: I will do the job no matter what.

I saw that after my reply

Now, I don't understand why you say I'm asking the wrong question: can you explain to me?

because you combined the transaction with the nature of the customer and asked me to render my personal opinion in this case, I personally can imagine myself being a jewish jeweler and serving negro customer, but I can't making swastika (but I agree there will be such jewelers who 'd do swastika) - hence I personally want legal protection from the state to be able to discriminate, but I do not want state to single out groups where discrimination is possible - so I do not want state to tell me that I can only discriminate against nazis, but not against gays (or vice versa)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 11:57:53 am
The problem is I'm not a native english speaker, so: is the job refused because of the job itself or because of the afroamerican customer?

repeating : ok, if I imagine myself a jewish jeweler in this case then __YES__ - I want a legal protection from the state of Indiana to be able to refuse your patronage based on your desire to order a swastika piece... precluding the repetition, if I know (see) that you are a nazi, I want a legal protection from the state of Indiana to be able to refuse your patronage at all... and further if you ask me to imagine myself a white supremacist business owner then yes - the same goes for negroes...


The problem is that with this law LGBT are singled out because "religion" is an excuses to refute LGBT customer but not jews customer or afroamerican customer.

well, there are some beliefs that can refute jews, christians, negroes, etc... you name it... but you youself wrote that you are not going to judge them :-)... for as long as they are not coming to you - do not come to them (in their business)... goes both ways, you want business owner to respect you - try to respect him and his beliefs... now we are not talking about hired hand like a doctor NancyP being an employee (or contractor) in a hospital (which she does not own - hence she shall obey the rules established for her)... we are talking about an owner of a private business, w/o any money or ownership from a state (and if there are public money involved then no - you can't refuse unless you sever all such ties with a state)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 12:00:04 pm
because you combined the transaction with the nature of the customer and asked me to render my personal opinion in this case, I personally can imagine myself being a jewish jeweler and serving negro customer, but I can't making swastika (but I agree there will be such jewelers who 'd do swastika) - hence I personally want legal protection from the state to be able to discriminate, but I do not want state to single out groups where discrimination is possible - so I do not want state to tell me that I can only discriminate against nazis, but not against gays (or vice versa)

So you're saying that the job is refused for the job itself, not for the customer's characterists. OK.

You're saying that you don't want state to single out groups where discrimination is possible.
The problem is that in the jeweler example you're refusing the job not because of the afroamerican customer: you're refusing the job because of the job itself.

Now, if you tell the customer "look, bro, I don't want your nigger money here" and turn him away, would it be legal?
I'm not sure but I think it would be illegal.
But, with this law, you can tell the customer "look, bro, I don't want any faggot money here" and it would be legal.

Isn't this exactly the kind of singling groups out you don't want from the state?

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 12:00:48 pm
well, there are some beliefs that can refute jews, christians, negroes, etc... you name it... but you youself wrote that you are not going to judge them :-)... for as long as they are not coming to you - do not come to them (in their business)... goes both ways
Would such refusal be legal?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:02:13 pm
Would such refusal be legal?
that's why I want the law for it to be legal me not being a liar in that matter like digitaldog (see his postings earlier)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 12:04:33 pm
that's why I want the law for it to be legal me not being a liar in that matter like digitaldog (see his postings earlier)
Ok, you're saying it would not be legal.
So you agree with me that the current Indiana law allows exactly the kind of singling out you don't want from the state, correct?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 03, 2015, 12:04:53 pm
This whole episode shows the power of Internet media in politics nowadays - a relatively new phenomenon. Thank you, Michael, for the reminder about why the larger corporations express any given opinion. I always thought the Hobby Lobby decision was "full of **it" due to the obvious dominance of Chinese-made goods in the store, and as most people should know, birth control is not optional in mainland China. BTW, the five SCOTUS justices did not "invent" corporate personhood, they expanded the existing legal fiction.

The timing of the current crop (2014-2015) of state RFRA laws should be a hint as to their purpose. It has taken a decade for states to decide that a state RFRA is a good idea. Why not earlier? I see no other  stimulus other than the recent reversal of one or more aspects of the anti-gay-marriage laws by the SCOTUS and by appellate courts, including an appellate case decided against Wisconsin and Indiana in September 2014 that was sent up to SCOTUS, who declined to review the case in October. The first legislative action on the Indiana RFRA bill SB101 was in early January 2015. See this link for the official timeline: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#  Other states' RFRA bills also followed court cases in progress or decided against the state.

Putting it simply, current conservative politicians need "social conservative" Christian manpower to get out the vote, and keeping these people engaged in the political process is essential to the politician's continued career success. The "country club Republicans" (traditional business base of party) are fine with the process even though a large fraction don't care about the social conservative issues (trust me, I know, I am from a country club Republican family). So, politicians and wanna-be-kingmaker pundits and pastors are hot to stir up the "social conservative" base of ordinary pew-sitters and ordinary pastors. Many ordinary pastors take the bait and start emphasizing the gay issue more than in the past -  face it, congregations usually prefer hearing about OTHER people's sins rather than their own. Pastors get swayed by the leading opinion makers in their field - a process no different from those in other professions.

Politicians intentionally write the bills to preserve some plausible deniability, as Gov. Pence demonstrated in his unwillingness to answer questions on whether the bill is intended to support discrimination against gays. One of the problems with vagueness in bills is that it is easy to apply the law to a variety of situations. This bill has a lot of leeway to discriminate against women and non-Christians in employment matters, and the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision has opened the possibility of the SCOTUS (with addition of one or two more conservative Justices) considering such emplyment discrimination perfectly valid in ordinary for profit employment. Legislation not only changes existing law but changes perceptions and trends.  In general a large percentage of people will behave badly if such behavior is given the social seal of approval. Laws can be symbolic.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 03, 2015, 12:09:21 pm
This is Good Friday, when one should be considering one's own sins of commission and omission, if you are a Christian. And if you aren't a Christian, a reminder to 1. not treat others as you would not wish to be treated 2. treat others as you would wish to be treated is always in order.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 12:11:03 pm
This whole episode shows ..
Quite a clear analysis, from what I understand.

This is Good Friday, when one should be considering one's own sins of commission and omission, if you are a Christian. And if you aren't a Christian, a reminder to 1. not treat others as you would not wish to be treated 2. treat others as you would wish to be treated is always in order.

May I suggest "be excellent to each other" too?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:12:21 pm
So you're saying that the job is refused for the job itself, not for the customer's characterists. OK.

but in a different situation for for the customer's characterists too, if, for example, I am a white supremacist...

You're saying that you don't want state to single out groups where discrimination is possible.
The problem is that in the jeweler example you're refusing the job not because of the afroamerican customer: you're refusing the job because of the job itself.

I already expanded my answer above to include that case too

Now, if you tell the customer "look, bro, I don't want your nigger money here" and turn him away, would it be legal?

when did you stop beating your wife  ;) ? you still fail to distinguish between what is legal and what looks like a bad taste or outright insulting... I am not aware that using this language in the state of Indian is illegal, do you ? if it is legal then I shall be able to exercise my legal rights, period - now if I am losing customers that is my call and I guess market will make things right in the end...


I'm not sure but I think it would be illegal.

well, you are entitled to your opinion, but note that you are not sure - so may be somebody will tell us more precisely...

But, with this law, you can tell the customer "look, bro, I don't want any faggot money here" and it would be legal.

I bet both words are legal, but then somebody might brought a civil lawsuit of some kind for overly insulting actions...

Isn't this exactly the kind of singling groups out you don't want from the state?

I believe that from the legal standpoint - nigger, faggot or the equivalent wording for nazis - all shall be treated equally, that is allowed (free speech)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2015, 12:16:00 pm
... The timing of the current crop (2014-2015) of state RFRA laws should be a hint as to their purpose. It has taken a decade for states to decide that a state RFRA is a good idea. Why not earlier?...

Because the terror campaigns from which business owners needed protection of the law have started only recently.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 12:16:16 pm
I believe that from the legal standpoint - nigger, faggot or the equivalent wording for nazis - all shall be treated equally, that is allowed (free speech)
I think I distracted you with the wording.
Change those with "sorry, Sir, but I don't serve afroamericans/homosexuals/jews/choose-your-preferred-bad-guy".

My question was not about the legality of the wording but about the legality of the refusal based on the customer's characteristis.

Is it legal to refuse a customer because he is black?

If it's illegal than the Indiana law allows exactly the singling out you say you don't want.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:16:18 pm
Ok, you're saying it would not be legal.

if it is illegal - then I want legal protection for it to be legal... if it continues to be illegal it is also OK for as long as it is illegal for all, including nazis

So you agree with me that the current Indiana law allows exactly the kind of singling out you don't want from the state, correct?

no, I am a business owner in your situations, not a customer... so I want the law to allow me single out... somebody might single out gays, digitaldog will single out nazis, etc... and then market will put things right
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 12:19:28 pm
if it is illegal - then I want legal protection for it to be legal... if it continues to be illegal it is also OK for as long as it is illegal for all, including nazis
no, I am a business owner in your situations, not a customer... so I want the law to allow me single out... somebody might single out gays, digitaldog will single out nazis, etc... and then market will put things right

Sorry, but I don't get it.

You say you don't want the state to tell you who you can single out and who you cannot single out.
But this law allows you to single out just gays but not afroamerican or women or jews.

So is this law a good law or a bad law?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:20:53 pm
Is it legal to refuse a customer because he is black?
if legal scholars say that it is legal now with the law in place then I am fine with that (look, I have no issues with you trying to put me in a position where I am looking pro nazi or anti gay - I really do not care... what I care is that gays do not have more rights __or__ obligations vs nazis __and__ vice versa), but I want to be sure that the law also allows the same treatment for nazis (to be singled out) for those business owners who do not like nazis (or whites or asians or you name it)  ;D ...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 12:22:40 pm
if legal scholars say that it is legal [to refuse a customer because he is black] now with the law in place then I am fine with that .

What if the legal scholars say it's illegal?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:22:49 pm
You say you don't want the state to tell you who you can single out and who you cannot single out.

yes

But this law allows you to single out just gays but not afroamerican or women or jews.
__or__ nazis or men or arabs
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:23:09 pm
What if the legal scholars say it's illegal?
then I am fine if the same goes for nazis
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 12:24:49 pm
then I am fine if the same goes for nazis
So here you're contradicting youself because now you're ok for the state to tell you who you can or cannot discriminate against.
Is this correct?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:25:43 pm
Because the terror campaigns from which business owners needed protection of the law have started only recently.
btw things has to go both ways... if customers have right to punish private business owners (and I believe that they shall be able to) then private business owners shall have the legal right (or legal protection) to punish customers too (goes both ways)...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2015, 12:28:22 pm
The rabid calls for lethal action by some here still fall into the free-speech domain in the U.S. (legally that is... colloquially though, they are more in the idiot's blabbering domain).

However, his ideological brethren are already taking the call for ams to the next, criminal level. A high-school teacher in Indiana asked her Twitter followers to follow her to BURN DOWN a pizzeria that expressed an opinion about the law in a TV interview. The pizzeria was initially forced to close and the owners went into hiding after death threats. The teacher got suspended and the police recommended criminal charges of harassment, intimidation and threats. Oh, yes... the pizzeria in the meantime got $400,000 donations as of Thursday.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:29:00 pm
So here you're contradicting youself because now you're ok for the state to tell you who you can or cannot discriminate against.
Is this correct?


no, I am saying that I want (to be able to single out gays or nazis), but if I am not getting what I want then I am OK to obey the law that does not allow to single out, but then I want the that law to be equal for gays and for nazis - so that if you can't single out gays then you can't single out nazis
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:35:21 pm
In general a large percentage of people will behave badly if such behavior is given the social seal of approval.
the issue is that you usurp the right do decide what is "behave badly" - why do you think you opinion about that is more valuable than mine ? now we can take this to a vote... or vote is OK only when it suits you ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 12:38:24 pm
A high-school teacher
teachers and federal employees and some others are totally out of sync with the realities... they have too much protections and too much sense of entitlement...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 01:54:50 pm
no, I am saying that I want (to be able to single out gays or nazis), but if I am not getting what I want then I am OK to obey the law that does not allow to single out, but then I want the that law to be equal for gays and for nazis - so that if you can't single out gays then you can't single out nazis

So you're saying that the Indiana law is ok because, even if it singles out gay but not women or afroamerican (just two examples), it allows you to single out some of the people you don't like.
Did I understand correctly?

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 03:40:38 pm
So you're saying that the Indiana law is ok because, even if it singles out gay but not women or afroamerican (just two examples), it allows you to single out some of the people you don't like.
it is OK because it allows private business owners to act according to their beliefs on a legal basis _if_ they decide to do so... now I bet that the market will make sure that nobody (from those groups so dear to you) will actually suffer, because most of those private business owners will put their wallets above their inner thoughts (and as a good person, you shall believe that most of those people are not going to even think poorly about discriminating anybody - have faith in humanity, eh ?)... so fear not, Diego...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 03:50:59 pm
it is OK because if allows private business owners to act according to their beliefs on a legal basis _if_ they decide to do so
I see.

Let me propose a thought experiment.
Let's imagine two opposite worlds: RIGHT-WORLD, where any private business can legally discriminate anybody for any reason they like.
In LEFT-WORLD, instead, any kind of discrimination of any type for any reason in illegal.

What do you think is the best world of the two?




Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 03, 2015, 03:55:38 pm
Slobodan, do you have a citation for that supposed arson threat statement? Indy Star and WISH-8 TV are silent on this.  Is this statement the common radio host stunt of featuring a pull-it-out-of-nether-region unconfirmed rumor from an uncited source. I don't take much of what goes on on commercial radio as reliable two-sourced news. Commercial radio is not in the news business, it is in the advertising business, and will feature anything that is entertaining.

Maybe the pizzeria owner was trying to get some free advertising for the pizzeria, maybe the owner wanted to get her opinion on TV, maybe the owner sees that people are willing to give her money without asking for the pizza and is sitting on her hands while the donations are flowing, instead of opening up the pizzeria again. Who knows?  If all she wanted was to get her opinion on TV, she certainly was naive in not realizing that yes, being interviewed about a controversial subject can result in more  interviews from a wide variety of sources (ordinary newspapers, Christian syndicated media, etc) and suck up an inordinate amount of time and energy, and that yes, random people are likely to jump on the Facebook and aggregated review pages and post likes and pans. I do feel sorry for her if she was sincere and naive about being on TV, rather than gaming the system for free publicity. Anonymity on the internet does tend to promote rudeness in  people. Any woman who posts as a woman on controversial subjects in a non-moderated forum has had a perfect stranger wish rape on her, if not threaten to do it himself. I stopped posting on certain USENET alt. boards for that reason, way back in the day. Too tiresome.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2015, 04:00:05 pm
Slobodan, do you have a citation for that supposed arson threat statement?...

CNN article here (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/living/indiana-religious-freedom-pizza-feat/index.html)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 04:32:48 pm
CNN article here
 (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/living/indiana-religious-freedom-pizza-feat/index.html)
Looks like some idiots get your attention much more than an entire town (http://www.abc57.com/story/28700221/walkerton-residents-and-visitors-react-to-memories-pizzas-statements):

Quote
Garrett hung a sign in his store front letting everyone know they are welcome. The sign reads “We do not discriminate, if you are a customer, you are a valued customer. Please come again.”

“We don't care if you are pink, white, purple, orange it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you do in your own free time. If you are a homosexual or heterosexual it just doesn't matter," said Garrett.

Throughout town, both visitors and residents like Steven Zehner share Garrett's open attitude.


Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2015, 04:36:00 pm
Looks like some idiots get your attention...

Indeed... You got my attention too... initially.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 04:39:42 pm
Indeed... You got my attention too... initially.
And where did you get the talent to spot idiots? House mirrors?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 04:47:02 pm
Name-calling aside, don't you know think that boycotting anti-gay businnes is quite a good deal?
This pizzeria got almost 500.000 USD in a few days.

Don't you think now that more boycott should be put in place?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 05:08:06 pm
What do you think is the best world of the two?

between these two specific alternatives - the first one... I like to have the right and it is up to me whether I will exercise my right or not...

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 05:18:20 pm
between these two specific alternatives - the first one... I like to have the right and it is up to me whether I will exercise my right or not...

Ok, so you choose "RIGHT-WORLD, where any private business can legally discriminate anybody for any reason they like."

Now let's imagine you're living in right-world and that one of your customer is unhappy with the job you did.
The job was done flawlessly yet he's unhappy and wants his money back.
You refuse and the customer leaves knowing that he can't successfully sue you.

So he start talking to people that know you, saying that "well, if you ask me that guy likes small children a little too much for my taste".
He's not plainly saying that you are a pedofile: he's just saying that he wouldn't leave his children alone with you.

People around you start thinking that better safe than sorry, you know.

So the car repair shop start refusing to repair your car.
And the grocery store decide that is better not to sell stuff to you.
And for some reason you can't get the medical doctor to have a look at your back pain.
And you enter a coffee shop but they refuse to serve you.

Do you still think prefer right-world over the two?


(If the example seems too far-fetched, remember maccartism)



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 05:28:23 pm
remember maccartism
ahaha... dear, I haul from a country where "McCarthyism" might be considered as a liberal perversion of justice  ;D ... so yes, unlike most of the people in this topic, when I prefer something I can actually compare my own experience... as the joke /there, sorry if somebody feel offended, it is what it is/ goes - "hi, you know those negroes in america,  they don't eat enough... damn ! I wish we can get the leftovers", I am sorry if the point was lost in translation... my grand-grandfather was not born a free man, for example, albeit he lived his adult life as such.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 05:29:46 pm
ahaha... dear, I haul from a country where "McCarthyism" might be considered as a liberal perversion of justice  ;D
So you still prefer the right-world?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 05:43:26 pm
So you still prefer the right-world?
but of course, I wish to have the legal right and decide if I want to exercise the legal right in question myself, w/o resorting to lies (like somebody suggested here) - whether I will do so (exercise) or not, that shall be up to me to decide...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 05:45:11 pm
but of course, I wish to have the legal right and decide if I want to exercise the legal right in question myself, w/o resorting to lies (like somebody suggested here) - whether I will do so (exercise) or not, that shall be up to me to decide...

Ok, then.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 05:53:08 pm
Ok, then.

peace, friendship, bubblegum (http://s30.postimg.org/vc9vasbkx/737508_mir_druzhba_zhvachka.jpg)

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on April 03, 2015, 05:54:47 pm
peace, friendship, bubblegum

 ;D

(My dentist will kill me for the bubblegum....)
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 03, 2015, 06:40:56 pm
Well, Slobodan, all sorts of people get on the internet and turn into loud-mouthed bullies - because they can. Because no-one is going to check up on them, they think. Because they don't lose face with other bullies, for mouthing off and not working a muscle larger than the ones needed to type a threat. 99% of the threats are not credible, which helps a bit but doesn't make it any less miserable to receive a threat, especially if one has no experience being bullied. I am sorry for the owner, who may just be plain naive about the internet. Plus, we don't have all the information, the unfortunate owner might have some ex-spouse or a local with a grudge who could be setting up revenge. Having been bullied in person before, I laughed off anonymous rape threats on USENET "popular" unmoderated alt. fora and other sites as not credible. But without having had to think things through, I might have been spooked, and the pizzeria owner might be spooked too.

Meanwhile, take a look at what happened at a storefront church above a bar about 40 years ago
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/24/remembering-the-upstairs-lounge-the-u-s-a-s-largest-lgbt-massacre-happened-40-years-ago-today/

and reflect that although this was the deadly fire, there were other arsons of gay congregation spaces occurring in that era (partial list, omitting the no-injuries St. Louis example and many others)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_arsn.htm





Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 03, 2015, 07:08:28 pm
Nancy - It is most certainly worth remindeing those defending the 'freedom' to discriminate that people kill those who are gay, simply because they do not like them being 'different'.

In the UK this week, two male prisoners got married. The part that was key to this being so interesting is that both were sentenced for gay bashing crimes that resulted in murder.
Research I saw a while back also concluded that those who like to indulge in anti-gay behaviour were also more likely to aroused by gay porn. So whenever people make a big fuss about other people's sexual behaviour, it always makes me wonder what they are trying to deflect from or hide.

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2015, 07:08:41 pm
Well, Slobodan, all sorts of people get on the internet and turn into loud-mouthed bullies...

Nancy, let's not kid ourselves that this and other cases are simply a result of a few deranged individuals. That is a result of well-orchastrated, well-coordinated campaign of terror unleashed on normal people in the last few years by the likes of diegopig, whose call for "necessary starving to death" of those he disagrees with are repeated here several times wihout anyone raising a slightest objection. Much less vivid accusations of cops by the NYC mayor resulted in death of two of them, and he and the likes of him, including the president and AG, opened the season on cops across the nation. Lets not forget how a similar call for "burning down" ended up in Ferguson.

Yes, many bad things happened 40 or 400 years ago. Is that a reason for similar things to happen today? Yesterday, gays were beaten, sometimes to death. Today, some would like to beat "bigots" the same way. Progress?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2015, 07:12:25 pm
So you still prefer the right-world?

Note that his family already experienced the left-world.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jjj on April 03, 2015, 07:12:33 pm
Nancy, let's not kid ourselves that this and other cases are simply a result of a few deranged individuals. That is a result of well-orchastrated, well-coordinated campaign of terror unleashed on normal people in the last few years by the likes of diegopig, whose call for "necessary starving to death" of those he disagrees with are repeated here several times wihout anyone raising a slightest objection. Much less vivid accusations of cops by the NYC mayor resulted in death of two of them, and he and the likes of him, including the president and AG, opened the season on cops across the nation. Lets not forget how a similar call for "burning down" ended up in Ferguson.

Yes, many bad things happened 40 or 400 years ago. Is that a reason for similar things to happen today? Yesterday, gays were beaten, sometimes to death. Today, some would like to beat "bigots" the same way. Progress?
There's a vast difference between those being oppressed standing up for themselves and those keeping others down.
Hurting others is never a good answer regardless, but ignoring the greater context is simply naive behaviour of an armchair warrior who has no concept of how the persecuted and discriminated against experience life - which is roughly how you like to dismiss other's opinions, Slobodan.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2015, 07:32:02 pm
There's a vast difference ...

... only because of your perception and worldview. You see "oppressed standing up for themselves," I see thugs looking for a special treatment. You of course assume that your worldview is right, and mine is wrong.

As for experience, I bet I have more than you. I came from the "left-world" (and from the common side of it, not the privileged elite) to the "right-world," so at least I have a first-hand experience of both. Well, I hoped I was coming to the right-world, turns out it is under assault from the left-world from within.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 03, 2015, 07:54:08 pm
Slobodan, click through my prior post and read the links, you might learn something. One of the main points is that the public, other ministers, and some families made jokes about the deaths, refused burial (which is for the family, not the deceased), just didn't care.
Or consider the Atlanta Olympics bomber, if you will.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph
Few people remember that the guy also blew up a gay bar and two abortion clinics, killing 2 people and injuring 111 other people over his bombing career. He was one of the first American terrorists to use the two-stage detonation, in which first responders were targeted by the second detonation.

This is a bit different from a drunken tweet, I would say.

I don't shop at Hobby Lobby. Am I starving that business to death? I don't owe Hobby Lobby my business. I can source better materials from locally owned craft shops anyway. I don't buy at a particular local bakery after they were rude to someone I know, an American-born student of Indian subcontinent descent. Am  I starving that bakery to death?

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2015, 08:03:36 pm
... I don't shop at Hobby Lobby. Am I starving that business to death? I don't owe Hobby Lobby my business. I can source better materials from locally owned craft shops anyway. I don't buy at a particular local bakery after they were rude to someone I know, an American-born student of Indian subcontinent descent. Am  I starving that bakery to death?

Nancy, "starving to death" reference was not meant for you and certainly not your examples (what you do and how you do it, I would do as well). If you read diegopig's posts, you'd notice that he advocates something entirely different and much more sinister.

Quote
... you might learn something.

Frankly, I did not expect that condescending tone from you.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 08:08:59 pm
Meanwhile, take a look at what happened at a storefront church above a bar about 40 years ago
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/24/remembering-the-upstairs-lounge-the-u-s-a-s-largest-lgbt-massacre-happened-40-years-ago-today/

and reflect that although this was the deadly fire, there were other arsons of gay congregation spaces occurring in that era (partial list, omitting the no-injuries St. Louis example and many others)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_arsn.htm

so you imply that every person who does not want to conduct business w/ gays is some kind of murderer ? you are not implying though that every man who served or serving in US Army for example is the kind of person from Abu Ghraib, no ?  not to say that we really do not know whether it was an act of a homophobic person or a deranged gay ...

Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 03, 2015, 08:15:46 pm
There's a vast difference between those being oppressed standing up for themselves and those keeping others down.

there is one more option that you intentionally forgot to mention - wishing not to be forced to have to deal with somebody in a course of conducting your totally private business w/o any public assistance or subsidies, etc (but if you accept public funds or whatever - then you can't refuse any member of the pubic - so your choice then)

Hurting others is never a good answer regardless

try to comprehend that you hurting a person by imposing yourself on him in his place of his private business...
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 03, 2015, 09:57:59 pm
Well, I will let you in on a secret. Chances are very good that you have already done business with a gay person. You just don't know it. It is clear to me that this is all about male panic, either felt personally or transmitted by the culture (too much listening to radio), and not about facts, and likely not about sincerely felt religious belief. If you were sincerely Christian, you'd be a bit more contemplative on Good Friday, perhaps attend a Tenebrae (vigil) service.

The entertainment value of the thread has finally hit rock bottom. Hasta la vista, bayybee.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Telecaster on April 03, 2015, 11:05:10 pm
Well, I will let you in on a secret. Chances are very good that you have already done business with a gay person. You just don't know it. It is clear to me that this is all about male panic, either felt personally or transmitted by the culture (too much listening to radio), and not about facts, and likely not about sincerely felt religious belief. If you were sincerely Christian, you'd be a bit more contemplative on Good Friday, perhaps attend a Tenebrae (vigil) service.

The male panic aspect may be a bit exaggerated here given LuLa's overwhelmingly male forum presence, but in my experience it's a real thing nonetheless. More broadly it's about fear of the Other and anger at not being able to suppress the Other and revulsion at having to confront the Other. The Puritans came to North America centuries ago primarily because they couldn't tolerate the beliefs & ideas & behavior of Other people. We still live with their heritage whether we like it or not. When your sense of self is so entangled with being Not Other, being Us and not Them, how do you deal with living in a culture where all sorts of Others are gaining acceptance and even respect? There are no remaining new frontiers you can escape to. It's a serious problem, one I suspect will continue to cause us a great deal of grief in the coming years & decades.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 04, 2015, 10:06:56 am
$842,592.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 04, 2015, 10:23:35 am
On the other hand, the Other tend to explain the other Other's positions  as a result of a. mental illness (hence all the psychoanalyzing in this thread) or b. lack of education (hence the lecturing). There is no possibility that sane, educated people might have a different opinion. It leaves the Other in utter disbelief that two equally sane and educated people, when presented with the same facts, might interpret them differently. The expectation is that we all must arrive to the same conclusion, the same PC conclusion, that is. The inevitable result is totalitarianism, and that is where most left movements, which start with oh-so-noble ideas and lofty goals, end up anyway.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: mezzoduomo on April 04, 2015, 09:50:24 pm
you mean when founding fathers did not consider females and negroes as human beings ?

"By the quotes, letters, and documents they left behind, it is clear that most of our founding fathers wished to see slavery ended, though they did not believe it possible for it to happen in their lifetimes. Some of them, most notably Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, were very supportive of the rapidly growing abolitionist movement. Benjamin Franklin was President of the Pennsylvania society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, which included Jay and Hamilton. The year he died, he signed a petition for the abolition of all slavery. He died before he got to see it become a reality. Alexander Hamilton grew up with a deep rooted hatred of the slave trade that fueled his work as an avid supporter of the abolitionists his entire life."

Source: Revolutionary-War.net

Do your homework, AlterEgo. The founding fathers were clearly hypocrites, since many owned slaves, but you're wrong in asserting that they did not consider blacks to be humans. From its inception, 60% of the early United States did not allow slavery, and perhaps you've heard of the Civil War.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Plateau Light on April 05, 2015, 12:44:14 am
Well it appears to already be a federal law that was rewritten to a state law.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Rand47 on April 05, 2015, 11:44:42 pm
Well it appears to already be a federal law that was rewritten to a state law.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act


PLEASE ... do not spoil this splendid "dialog" with facts.

Rand
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 06, 2015, 10:30:35 am
The federal RFRA concerned the interaction of the Federal Government with various religious minorities.
Many state level RFRAs are close copies of the federal law and thus concern ONLY the interaction of the State Government with various religious minorities.
The Indiana and Arkansas RFRAs covered not only state governments but also any interaction between two private parties, specifically including for-profit corporations. The implications for employment law are significant. To name something that affects heterosexual white men, it would be perfectly supportable to fire a man who divorced and remarried, or to refuse to hire someone with a "Jewish" name, or to hire "only" Catholics -for a job at a bank or milling machine company or other completely secular for-profit company. The ability to actually perform the job is irrelevant.

Fear of the Other (stereotyped group)  is common and present in varying degrees among the population. It is part of the human condition, original sin if you will. It can range from a relatively minor bad habit (if governed by rational risk assessment for each individual of the group),  to the standard knee-jerk "implicit association" racism that is present in American society, to criminality (KKK) or psychosis (as part of paranoid schizophrenia). Believe me, having grown up in an all-white environment during the Civil Rights era, it took me a while to lose the "pearl-clutching"* white-lady alarm when dealing with black strangers, but after a while I got over myself, primarily by living and working in a city with a large black population and large black educated health-care workforce (ie, colleagues). Consequently, life has gotten a little more comfortable, and I have made and am making friends who I would not have expected to know when I was a kid.

asterisk: I love the movie "Hairspray", and there's a funny scene where the mother of a friend of the protagonist goes into a black neighborhood in Baltimore to yank her kid out of a record (remember those?) store. The mother is comically panicky, providing amusement to the neighborhood.



Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2015, 11:18:16 am
...It is part of the human condition, original sin if you will...

Exactly, Nancy.

And yet you want to change humans from what they are into what you think they should be, by any means necessary, including terror and "starving to death." Quite a Marxist concept, btw.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: digitaldog on April 06, 2015, 11:33:31 am
The federal RFRA concerned the interaction of the Federal Government with various religious minorities.
Many state level RFRAs are close copies of the federal law and thus concern ONLY the interaction of the State Government with various religious minorities.
The Indiana and Arkansas RFRAs covered not only state governments but also any interaction between two private parties, specifically including for-profit corporations.
Exactly! It's a significant difference that as you point out, and allows a huge degree of wiggle room to potentially discriminate.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 06, 2015, 11:41:04 am
"By the quotes, letters, and documents they left behind, it is clear that most of our founding fathers wished to see slavery ended, though they did not believe it possible for it to happen in their lifetimes. Some of them, most notably Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, were very supportive of the rapidly growing abolitionist movement. Benjamin Franklin was President of the Pennsylvania society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, which included Jay and Hamilton. The year he died, he signed a petition for the abolition of all slavery. He died before he got to see it become a reality. Alexander Hamilton grew up with a deep rooted hatred of the slave trade that fueled his work as an avid supporter of the abolitionists his entire life."

Source: Revolutionary-War.net

OK, we have an indirect reference about 3 people who btw owned slaves ... and how many founding fathers were there ? at least 3 dozen  ;D


Do your homework, AlterEgo. The founding fathers were clearly hypocrites, since many owned slaves, but you're wrong in asserting that they did not consider blacks to be humans.

sure, some of them (more educated) were considering them humans, biologically so to say...  :D, that again did not prevent them from being slaveowners ... I am sorry if you didn't understand what I meant  :D ...

From its inception, 60% of the early United States did not allow slavery, and perhaps you've heard of the Civil War.

let me remind you that we are talking about "founding fathers" and 18 century... not about mid 19th century... and let us go back to 18th century - slavery was legal and practiced in each of the Thirteen Colonies, was it not  :D ? Vermont didn't when it joined US in 1791 = http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/hus-vermont.htm = "the first State of the Union to abolish slavery" ... so which "60% of the early United States" in terms of the actual states (and not some "territories") we are talking about at the time when (hint - no not early 19th century, not mid 19 century) "founding slave owners" did their founding acts ?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: mezzoduomo on April 06, 2015, 01:40:27 pm
AlterEgo,

I have no desire to split hairs with you and Google stuff that bolsters me and undermines you. IMHO, there's far too much of that on LuLa already.

I was reacting to your blanket comment that the founding fathers considered blacks and women as non-human. Clearly some did, and some did not. In 1789, there were 5 free and 8 slave states, and a greater number of Americans lived in free states vs. lived in slave states. Bottom line, among whatever number of 'founders' one might want to evaluate, there were significant minorities who were ardently anti-slave from the beginning (whatever year you think marks 'the beginning'), including those who hypocritically owned (and procreated with) slaves.

I think you wanted to paint this entire group (America's founding fathers) in a bad light, and I don't think that's entirely accurate. And, hair-splitting aside, the ensuing 50 years brought rapid and unprecedented social change to America, and that doesn't happen without a persuasive and committed group of leaders we generically call the founding fathers.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: AlterEgo on April 06, 2015, 02:17:08 pm
AlterEgo,

I have no desire to split hairs with you and Google stuff that bolsters me and undermines you.

just because you have nothing to say :-)...

I was reacting to your blanket comment that the founding fathers considered blacks and women as non-human.

absolutely they did...

Clearly some did, and some did not. In 1789, there were 5 free and 8 slave states

which ones ? let us see what actually was happening as of 1789...

1 Delaware = http://slavenorth.com/delaware.htm = "By 1810, some 78 percent of Delaware's blacks were free (as opposed to 63 percent in New York and 42 percent in New Jersey in the same year), and unlike other northern states, it had been done voluntarily, without legal requirements. By 1840, only 13 percent of the state's blacks were enslaved, and slaves made up a mere 3 percent of the total population. " = SLAVE STATE

2 Pennsylvania = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Pennsylvania = "Slavery ended in Pennsylvania in 1847, when the state legislature passed a law voiding the property rights of Pennsylvania slaveholders", "The first U.S. Census in 1790 recorded 3,737 slaves in Pennsylvania (36% of the Black population). By 1810, the total Black population had more than doubled, but the percentage who were slaves had dropped to 3% and 795 slaves were listed in the state."  = SLAVE STATE

3 New Jersey = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_New_Jersey = " New Jersey state legislature was the last in the North to abolish slavery, passing a law in 1804 for its gradual abolition.[18] The 1804 statute and subsequent laws freed children born after the law was passed. African Americans born to slave mothers after July 4, 1804 had to serve lengthy apprenticeships to the owners of their mothers. Women were freed at 21, but men were not emancipated until the age of 25.[19] Slaves who had been born before these laws were passed were considered, after 1846, as indentured servants who were "apprenticed for life."  = SLAVE STATE

4 Georgia = no need to bother checking, slavery till Civil War  = SLAVE STATE

5 Connecticut = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Connecticut = "Connecticut abolished slavery in 1848."  = SLAVE STATE

6 Massachusetts = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Massachusetts = this one was free by 1791 = FREE STATE

7 Maryland = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Maryland = "by 1860 Maryland's free black population comprised 49.1% of the total number of African Americans in the state"  = SLAVE STATE

8 South Carolina = no need to bother checking, slavery till Civil War  = SLAVE STATE

9 New Hampshire = http://slavenorth.com/newhampshire.htm = "Slaves were removed from the rolls of taxable property in 1789, but the act appears to have been for taxing purposes only. The 1790 census counted 158 slaves; but in 1800, there were only 8."... ok, let it be a little pregnant one = PREGNANT WITH FREE

10 Virginia = no need to bother checking, slavery till Civil War  = SLAVE STATE

11 New York = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_New_York = "In 1817, the state freed all slaves born before July 4, 1799 (the date of the gradual abolition law), to be effective in 1827. It continued with the indenture of children born to slave mothers until their 20s, as noted above.[6] On July 4, 1827, the African-American community celebrated final emancipation in the state with a long parade through New York City."  = SLAVE STATE

12 North Carolina = no need to bother checking, slavery till Civil War  = SLAVE STATE

13 Rhode Island = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Rhode_Island = " In February 1784, the Rhode Island Legislature passed a compromise measure for gradual emancipation of slaves within Rhode Island. All children of slaves born after March 1 were to be "apprentices," the girls to become free at 18, the boys at 21. By 1840, the census reported only five African Americans enslaved in Rhode Island."...  = SLAVE STATE

you probably can't comprehend that prohibiting import and making newborns free does not constitute a "free" state  ;D , likewise a slave owner is a slave owner - founding father or not...

so what do we have with the issue of WMD in Iraq actual slavery in those 13 founding states in 1791... oops... 1 free state (MA), one little pregnant (NH) and 11 genuinely slave states... eh ;D
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: jeremyrh on April 06, 2015, 03:17:53 pm
Name-calling aside, don't you know think that boycotting anti-gay businnes is quite a good deal?
This pizzeria got almost 500.000 USD in a few days.
Eh? I thought the market was going to solve all the probles?
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2015, 03:22:14 pm
It is certainly fascinating to dive into all that historic information, though that would have very little to do with the thread subject. I do not see any point in applying today's standards to those from several centuries ago. Those guys lived in their time, with all the good and bad associated with it from today's point of view. Some of them were certainly ahead of their time in thinking, perhaps decades ahead, but it is hardly reasonable to blame them for not being hundreds of years ahead. We shall forever be grateful for them for what they did, not blame them for what they did not do. And what they did was certainly way ahead of their time in terms of basic human rights, abandoning the European divine authority doctrine in favor of "We the people..."
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 06, 2015, 07:24:41 pm
Agreed that commonly held ethical standards change with time. Also agreed that slavery, women's rights, non-landholder's rights were controversial in the US Colonial and Revolutionary eras. I am not one of these people who downplay the amazing achievement of the Constitution. I don't think the Constitution was perfect, but it had the capacity to grow with the times. First the Bill of Rights, then the amendments extending suffrage to those who had been excluded in the original Constitution.

Slobodan, I have never advocated "terrorizing" or "starving to death" - my natural bent is ridicule.  As in:    ::)
Not buying pizza from some stranger hardly constitutes "starving to death" that business. And if various other strangers have seen fit to give $800,000.00 to the pizzeria, well, I just don't care. That's up to the donors.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2015, 07:34:28 pm
... Slobodan, I have never advocated...

I often use a rhetorical "you," so no, I did not have you personally in mind for those extreme measures, as I already explained in several previous posts.
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: NancyP on April 07, 2015, 06:53:03 pm
Yep, thread has gone on long enough to forget most of it.  :P
Title: Re: Religious Freedom Act
Post by: michael on April 07, 2015, 08:18:26 pm
I think it's time to close the curtain on this discussion.

Michael