Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 17   Go Down

Author Topic: Religious Freedom Act  (Read 113448 times)

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #260 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
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #261 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?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #262 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.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #263 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...
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #264 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?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #265 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.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #266 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.

Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #267 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)
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #268 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)
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 12:01:24 pm by AlterEgo »
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #269 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?

Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #270 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?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #271 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)
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #272 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?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #273 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.

Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #274 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.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #275 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?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #276 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)
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15286
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #277 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.

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #278 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.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #279 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
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 17   Go Up