Religious Freedom Act

[Jaylan]

Since when is the KKK a protected class? Sure they have their right to assemble and speak freely...but the racist beliefs are not a protected glass in the way gender, race, or religion is.

Gays and religious beliefs are protected classes. A black business can refuse to do business with a trolling racist, so long as they are still be open to all other whites. This is not the same as a business refusing to do business with all gays. They are singling out one group of people based on who they were born attracted to. They are singling out a protected class, especially as America is trying to move past this bs of alienating lgbt folk.

Its ignorant to compare that to doing business with a subset of people who choose to be bigoted racists. Plus its mighty weird how a law originally meant to help Native Americans and the Amish, is latched onto by fundies who word it in a way that would allow them to discriminate against people.

Sorry, but many Americans are too smart to fall for the whole freedom of association and state rights bullsh!t that many haters have tried to hide behind in the past. Its all thinly veiled attempts at freedom to discriminate.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Since when is the KKK a protected class? Sure they have their right to assemble and speak freely...but the racist beliefs are not a protected glass in the way gender, race, or religion is.

That was my point, genius. Religion is a protected class but gays and the KKK are not.

Gays and religious beliefs are protected classes.

Gays, or for that matter heteros, bisexuals, pedophiles, non-sexuals etc, are not a protected class, genius. But even if they were, as you correctly said religion IS a protected class. So how can you justify one class taking precedent over another? And if gay beliefs are protected class why shouldn't any other beliefs be, such as racists ones?

A black business can refuse to do business with a trolling racist, so long as they are still be open to all other whites. This is not the same as a business refusing to do business with all gays. They are singling out one group of people based on who they were born attracted to. They are singling out a protected class, especially as America is trying to move past this bs of alienating lgbt folk.

Its ignorant to compare that to doing business with a subset of people who choose to be bigoted racists. Plus its mighty weird how a law originally meant to help Native Americans is latched onto by fundies who word it in a way that would allow them to discriminate against people.

Sorry, but many Americans are too smart to fall for the whole freedom of association and state rights bullsh!t that many haters have tried to hide behind in the past. Its all thinly veiled attempts at freedom to discriminate.

Pure non-sense that is invalidated above and not worthy of comment.

 

[Jaylan]

That was my point, genius. Religion is a protected class but gays and the KKK are not.

Yes they are, and most states they have laws stating just that. DO YOUR RESEARCH. Sexual orientation is also a protected class at the federal level.

A good place to start reading is in the case United States v. Windsor, where the Supreme Court held that Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. There are other laws and cases through the country in State supreme courts that have gays as a protected class.

Look up Executive Order 13672 as well.

Gays, or for that matter heteros, bisexuals, pedophiles, non-sexuals etc, are not a protected class, genius. But even if they were, as you correctly said religion IS a protected class. So how can you justify one class taking precedent over another? And if gay beliefs are protected class why shouldn't any other beliefs be, such as racists ones?

Why is it numbskulls like you always bring up pedophiles when discussing gays? Many pedophiles are straight you know? And pedophilia really has nothing to do with the discussion of the rights of law abiding citizens.

Also, racist beliefs are not a protected class because they are discriminatory. Thats why. The country has laws protecting citizens and giving us freedom from discrimination. Thus its contradictory to pass laws that give rights to discriminate against protected classes.

Pure non-sense that is invalidated above and not worthy of comment.

In other words, you don't comment because you have no sound rebuttal for the last paragraphs of my previous post. Duly noted.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Yes they are, and most states they have laws stating just that. DO YOUR RESEARCH. Sexual orientation is also a protected class at the federal level.

A good place to start reading is in the case United States v. Windsor, where the Supreme Court held that Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. There are other laws and cases through the country in State supreme courts that have gays as a protected class.

Look up Executive Order 13672 as well.

That case, said that IF a state legalized same-sex marriage the federal government had to treat the marriage equal per the fifth amendment. There's nothing about protected class being applied to gays. And private bakeries and wedding caterers are not the federal level.

I don't believe a state should have the right to legalize a gay marriage, but even if it didn't it certainly doesn't have a right to force private individuals to be any party to it.

You don't even understand the nuances of the cases you sight or just lie. You ruin every thread with your social Marxist nonsense.

 

[Jaylan]

Executive Order 13672

Did you even go read it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13672

Educate yourself and read. I can find you numerous State laws as well citing that LGBT are a protected class. Would you like me to, or will you actually research legislation for once?

 

[Stagger Lee]

Executive Order 13672

Did you even go read it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13672

Educate yourself and read. I can find you numerous State laws as well citing that LGBT are a protected class. Would you like me to, or will you actually research legislation for once?

This is entirely irrelevant. Obama's executive orders are not necessarily constitutional and do not apply to actors that are outside the federal government.

I know you're a communist and think Obama should be the dictator, but that's not how it works.

 

[Jaylan]

This is entirely irrelevant. Obama's executive orders are not necessarily constitutional and do not apply to actors that are outside the federal government.

I know you're a communist and think Obama should be the dictator, but that's not how it works.

Obama's Executive Order 13672 is indeed constitutional. What is unconstitutional about gays being a protected class when it comes to government employment?

Did you even look up the states that have these same laws? Im guessing you didn't. And while youre whining about the constitution the Supreme Court has also cast down laws that discriminate against gays. Whats communist or dictatorial about LGBT people being protected under our nation's laws? Do you believe it is just and constitutional to discriminate against someone based on what gender they are attracted to?

Btw, here's a hint of state's that have laws protecting LGBT as a protected class. Please do your research this time instead of trying to steer focus onto something else. Whining about Obama and ignoring the rest of my post doesn't help your case.

Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Washington D.C....all have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These laws cover employment, housing and public accommodations.

New York, Wisconsin and New Hampshire all have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation but not gender identity. More states have laws forthcoming.

Would you like me to link each states law for you to read through, or will you do this research yourself this time?

 

[Jaylan]

The constitution overrides ALL laws and executive orders.

Those which defy the Bill of Rights are null and void. Gays are not specified in the Bill of Rights whereas religion IS.

And no Jaylan, the refuse to service THE EVENT, not the gays themselves. But as I pointed out, SJWs like yourself ignore that fact, as well as shy away when it is Islamic businesses avoiding the business.

And yet the Supreme Court has struck down laws targeting gays as unconstitutional. The summer will be interesting when they get around to deciding gay marriage. I smell a landmark decision coming.

Amendments to the constitution do cover gays as the 14th amendment has been interpreted in the past by state supreme courts and the US supreme courts in a way that struck down laws targeting the LGBT. Look up Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas...both landmark decision in the last 20 years with regard to the protection of rights for gay citizens.

 

[zekko]

I'm trying to understand why you think this would somehow be wrong and unlawful discrimination in the first place even without the religious freedom law?

I never said anything like that. And I haven't even given my personal opinion once in this thread. I was just asking what the law did. And from seeing Mike Pence tap dancing around George Stephanopolis asking him questions, it's pretty clear that it was meant to do exactly what he was denying that it did.

Another politician lying, don't know why I'm surprised. All I know is Indiana is taking an @ss kicking over this thing.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I never said anything like that. And I haven't even given my personal opinion once in this thread. I was just asking what the law did. And from seeing Mike Pence tap dancing around George Stephanopolis asking him questions, it's pretty clear that it was meant to do exactly what he was denying that it did.

But you suggest and imply the law was intended to allow discrimination against gays and say the governor was not giving the right or honest answers. Some of us explained why that is not the intent . Why not just come out and say what your personal opinion is so no one gets the wrong inference?

Another politician lying, don't know why I'm surprised. All I know is Indiana is taking an @ss kicking over this thing.

Taking an ass kicking mostly from loud, radical and intolerant people in my view. Did you read about the death threats, arson and other threats?

I'll agree politicians lie, they just about have to when doing something unpopular or when being grilled by opposition in the media. Politicians like E. Kennedy lied about the immigration act of '65 not intended to change the demographics of America, no one admitted the civil rights act would lead to affirmative action and reverse discrimination, etc.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I still haven't seen this refuted. The more I read about it, the more I have to conclude that was the purpose, despite Pence's backpedalling. I don't mean that a restaurant owner would not serve a gay person coming in for a meal, I mean that it protects a restaurant owner from catering a gay wedding if that's against his religion. Isn't that correct?

Point out the part where it restricts the rights of anyone.

Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.

​

It's akin to Act that Bill Clinton signed while in office. So what's the difference and again, where does deny services to gays and lesbians?

 

[Bible_Belt]

The bold part above looks like it is aimed at municipal anti-discrimination ordinances. Getting local laws passed has been a common tactic for gay rights activists. They concentrate their resources in one place, get the law passed, and then move on. Those are typically the laws that say things like you can't refuse to cater the gay wedding. The text above is basically saying they would make it too difficult and expensive to defend those ordinances in court, by making them pass the "compelling government interest" standard.

Regarding the intent of the law, from a Constitutional perspective, intent is irrelevant. It's not a required element of someone being denied equal protection.

I'm sure lawyers are scrambling to find their "test case" right now, so they can get to the Supreme Court. That kind of thing will make your career as an attorney. The actual litigants are usually just dimwitted pawns being used by lawyers and activists.

The Supremes have pretty much said that sexual orientation is a protected class. It looks very obvious that they will toss this law out, and make a precedent case that prohibits such laws on the state level.

 

[Stagger Lee]

All the Indiana law does is provide a defense of burden on religion in a lawsuit brought by either private or state. Even if the Supreme Court declares sexual orientation a protect class like race and religion, which wouldn't surprise me, they'd still have to balance religious rights and gay rights. The Supreme Court has already found the RFRA constitutional, but who knows if they'll backtrack again and what they'll do next.

The RFRA doesn't even provide immunity to discrimination claims, instead a defense in lawsuits:

Indiana’s RFRA provides that “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416160/indiana-protecting-discrimination-josh-blackman

In reality what's happening is the powerful special interests, media and corporations are all on board the gay agenda and they're simply going to crush religious or conscientious objectors into giving up their beliefs to not serve the gay agenda. Ie. either make gay marriage cakes and cater gay weddings or go out of business, or go broke trying to defend your right not to. It's the same way they've been crushing christians, free speech, freedom of association etc. America will be forced to be gay, feminist, non-Christian, less white, multicolonized and 'diverse' because that's what the corporations and elites want.

 

[Jaylan]

The bold part above looks like it is aimed at municipal anti-discrimination ordinances. Getting local laws passed has been a common tactic for gay rights activists. They concentrate their resources in one place, get the law passed, and then move on. Those are typically the laws that say things like you can't refuse to cater the gay wedding. The text above is basically saying they would make it too difficult and expensive to defend those ordinances in court, by making them pass the "compelling government interest" standard.

Regarding the intent of the law, from a Constitutional perspective, intent is irrelevant. It's not a required element of someone being denied equal protection.

I'm sure lawyers are scrambling to find their "test case" right now, so they can get to the Supreme Court. That kind of thing will make your career as an attorney. The actual litigants are usually just dimwitted pawns being used by lawyers and activists.

The Supremes have pretty much said that sexual orientation is a protected class. It looks very obvious that they will toss this law out, and make a precedent case that prohibits such laws on the state level.

This. Good post.

Especially the bolded. Intent of a law is not the only crux of the matter here...how a law can be interpreted and applied is a huge part of things. The Indiana and Arkansas laws, prior to being amended, would not have passed the test of equal protection under the Constitution.

As my previous post highlighted...the Supreme Courts previous rulings regarding sexual orientation and the 14th amendment to the Constitution makes this clear. Go read those cases everyone.

 

[Jaylan]

And the 1st amendment doesnt override the 14th. Lemme ask a question.

Mormons used to believe all blacks were the descendents of Cain, and were thus cursed by God. Up until 1978, blacks were not allowed priesthood if they so happened to belong to the Mormon Church. In fact, there was a time in American history where even mainstream Christians believed black people descended from Cain and bore his mark. All of this is nothing but racism injected into religious teachings.

Now say for example Mormons in the 70s argued that they were within their right to deny blacks service in their stores. Or say they denied doing business at black weddings because they felt they were cursed people...would you defend such behavior and thought as religious freedom? Would you deem it constitutional to bar certain people from a store because the owner's religion considers them cursed? How is this different from what some mainstream Christians currently teach and believe regarding gays?

Lastly, the Indiana law is NOT just about marriage services. Read BibleBelt's post again, and go watch Governor Pence's Stephanopolous interview again. Many citizens objection to the law is that the law was vague enough that it could be used in discriminatory ways outside of the intent verbalized by its supporters.

Just because someone says the intent of the law is one thing, does not mean the law shouldnt be scrutinized for other things it would make legal. Pence couldnt even tell people on national tv that the law wouldnt make it possible for gay consumers to be discriminated against.

 

[( . )( . )]

Now say for example Mormons in the 70s argued that they were within their right to deny blacks service in their stores. Or say they denied doing business at black weddings because they felt they were cursed people...would you defend such behavior and thought as religious freedom? Would you deem it constitutional to bar certain people from a store because the owner's religion considers them cursed? How is this different from what some mainstream Christians currently teach and believe regarding gays?

:crackup: gaylan trying to shuck and jive the 1st amendment away through sh!tlib feeeelz.

Your bible makes faggots feeeeel uncomfortable and that's problematic BIGOTLORD!!! :box:

Also lol @ you attempting to elicit emotion because Mormons thinking continual bix nooding behavior was due to a biblical curse. Nice try, lets not forget you and your anti-white ilk think of whitey as the devil (outside of his tax dollars obviously).

 

[Stagger Lee]

The 14th amendment cannot and does not override the 1st amendment in terms of religion.

Like I said on page 1, the 14th amendment and the commerce clause are horribly abused nowadays. It was reinterpreted starting around 90 years later to grant citizenship to nontraditional immigrants and even illegals' babies, as a basis for mass immigration, affirmative action etc, and now 140 years later it supposedly makes sexual orientation a protected class and marriage a right? If that was the 14th amendment's intent, then why didn't we have gay marriages starting in the 1870's, or allow for polygamy today, etc etc?

I do not give two $hits what the supreme court says on the matter, I know tyranny when I see it.

That's the bottom line. We don't really have a constitutionally limited government, freedom or liberty since about the 1960's maybe earlier. That's just a sham now. We just have progressive tyranny.

Jaylan and his kind again reveal their true colors by trying to paint Christians as the 'bigots' when plenty of atheist are racist and anti-gay and plenty of gays are bigots too. The most bigoted person I ever personally knew was a gay guy who hates women, jews, anyone non-white, christians and I don't know what else.

 

[zekko]

Why not just come out and say what your personal opinion is so no one gets the wrong inference?

I can't say that I have strong feelings on this subject, because my opinion on it is a little complicated.

I believe in freedom. The Old West was free, and it was a very dangerous place. But this country has not been free for a long, long time. Ideally, anyone could serve or not serve anyone they wanted to. However, being as we don't live in a free country, there are laws that make it illegal to not serve someone based on their race. And while that is not exactly free, I have a hard time getting too upset over that.

I definitely think that a church or pastor should not be forced to marry gay couples. People should be allowed to have their faith. When it comes to businesses catering or providing flowers for gay weddings, things get stickier. If you are not going to allow people to discriminate because of race, in the present culture I don't see how you can allow people to discriminate because of sexual orientation.

You can allow it, but the businesses that don't do it are going to be labeled as hate mongers and will just be cutting their own throats, fairly or not.

I don't think it's fair that gays demand that everyone approve of their lifestyle, or be labeled a bigot. Judeo-Christian values have their roots going back 3000 years. Gay marriage has been around for what, 16 years?

I don't understand how polygamy is illegal, seriously. If gays can marry, why can't men have multiple spouses if their religion allows it?

 

[Bible_Belt]

I was part of a religious freedom vs. gay rights case that went all the way to the Supremes: http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2013068&postcount=17

Issue: Does a state school have the right to force the Christian club to all sign statements saying they believe in gay marriage?

(and this is before it was legal in my state)

Answer: Yes, the school may do so. If you want to be a school club, you have to accept the school's position on gay marriage. No one cares about your religion's objection.

 

[Jaylan]

^Guys like you love bringing up the Constitution when it benefits you, but disregard it when it doesnt. It doesnt matter if you care what the Supreme Court says. Fact of the matter is they are constitutional scholars who know the ins and outs of those documents. Im pretty sure they know more about the law than you.

Tyranny is trying to pass laws to legally discriminate a protected class of people.

Jaylan let me turn that around on you.

Would you feel that blacks should be forced to cater to a white nationalist party event?

Again, the liberals claim to be all about diversity but the reality is that they want to destroy all value systems but their own.

White nationalists are not a protected group. No bigots are. Blacks, Whites, gays, Jews and Christians are. The black business wouldnt be refusing all white people...they would be refusing one bigoted group.

So please answer the question in my previous post.