POLL: Should Indiana Fix It Now?
- Thread starter OldStyle1902
- Start date
I actually saw someone post on Facebook a few weeks ago that 9/11 was also a plan devised by the U.S. Government and that Russia was going to release satellite photos proving it.
What was scary was that quite a few of the responses actually believe that it was.
Lots of whackadoo thinking out there.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: It's simple....
Gotta agree, the Constitution was made to be modified, and thus live and breathe. A provision was made to allow that to happen through Constitutional Amendments, not executive or legislative fiat (sp?) from either side of the aisle.
Gotta agree, the Constitution was made to be modified, and thus live and breathe. A provision was made to allow that to happen through Constitutional Amendments, not executive or legislative fiat (sp?) from either side of the aisle.
I actually saw someone post on Facebook a few weeks ago that 9/11 was also a plan devised by the U.S. Government and that Russia was going to release satellite photos proving it.
What was scary was that quite a few of the responses actually believe that it was.
Lots of whackadoo thinking out there.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
probably for several reasons
1. It codified discrimination where before it was merely from an absence of protections.
2. This law dealt not with state on individual, but also individual on individual, thus it is different from other RFRA laws.
3. This law was passed as a response to gay marriage legalization through a federal judge.
I realize none of that sits as well with you as "them liberuls got all riled up" but you asked.
1. It codified discrimination where before it was merely from an absence of protections.
2. This law dealt not with state on individual, but also individual on individual, thus it is different from other RFRA laws.
3. This law was passed as a response to gay marriage legalization through a federal judge.
I realize none of that sits as well with you as "them liberuls got all riled up" but you asked.
We in the Vast Liberal Conspiracy manufacture a lot of those things to make our opponents look crazy. Most of the people you see interviewed on the Daily Show are actually our plants. I'm able to tell you this because it makes it less believable. Wheels within wheels my friend.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
yes
thankfully, the Constitution as written is crystal clear about everything and is no way written as a compromise political document melding two contrary views with any degree of vagueness or confusion.
Thus any time we have a dispute as to what the Constitution says, how to interpret it, etc, we should go to an amendment process.
thankfully, the Constitution as written is crystal clear about everything and is no way written as a compromise political document melding two contrary views with any degree of vagueness or confusion.
Thus any time we have a dispute as to what the Constitution says, how to interpret it, etc, we should go to an amendment process.
Re: It's simple....
It's not the same. I also wonder if there are any laws that we thought were a good idea in, say 1953, that by 1975 we had decided weren't so good. Society changes.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/?hootPostID=b1caea36a3c30d3aa4e514f65f22e89a
It's not the same. I also wonder if there are any laws that we thought were a good idea in, say 1953, that by 1975 we had decided weren't so good. Society changes.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/?hootPostID=b1caea36a3c30d3aa4e514f65f22e89a
Precisely...
(I probably didn't do a good job of expounding) but if you bring enough cameras and media to cover it, you could have a good lead in to the nightly news. It would be idiotic for the owner of that restaurant to fall under the statue as you pointed out but that won't prevent someone from trying to "test the waters".
The reason I thought of that example is that there used to be a deli in Long Beach (who now has an openly gay mayor, I might add) who charged $1,000 to make a BLT. Why, he didn't like the grease of the bacon on his grill so he didn't want to sell any of them.
(I probably didn't do a good job of expounding) but if you bring enough cameras and media to cover it, you could have a good lead in to the nightly news. It would be idiotic for the owner of that restaurant to fall under the statue as you pointed out but that won't prevent someone from trying to "test the waters".
The reason I thought of that example is that there used to be a deli in Long Beach (who now has an openly gay mayor, I might add) who charged $1,000 to make a BLT. Why, he didn't like the grease of the bacon on his grill so he didn't want to sell any of them.
Re: probably for several reasons
Most recently, "Hands up, Don't shoot" was based purely on a lie, which cost an innocent police officer his career, several other police officers were killed and it almost destroyed a city. The Liberals rely on ignorant acceptance of the LIE to proliferate it in society. I watched Liberal media types on TV and Congressmen in the HOUSE raise their hands and say, "Hands up, Don't shoot". I'm still waiting for ANY of them to apologize to the country for proliferating that LIE and fomenting riots because of it. It was completely irresponsible, but Liberals never seem to care about responsibility, it's all about cause and effect.
I've seen enough of Liberals getting the country fired up on a LIE before.
Most recently, "Hands up, Don't shoot" was based purely on a lie, which cost an innocent police officer his career, several other police officers were killed and it almost destroyed a city. The Liberals rely on ignorant acceptance of the LIE to proliferate it in society. I watched Liberal media types on TV and Congressmen in the HOUSE raise their hands and say, "Hands up, Don't shoot". I'm still waiting for ANY of them to apologize to the country for proliferating that LIE and fomenting riots because of it. It was completely irresponsible, but Liberals never seem to care about responsibility, it's all about cause and effect.
Re: While you would think...
by soon I mean in the next five years.
Once gay marriage is more or less protected, which will happen this summer, then you pretty much run out of areas to discriminate against except possibly adoption.
But really, adoption is not going to be the line in the sand.
Some states already have the protections...more will follow, the feds (whether legislative or judicial) will follow after that.
by soon I mean in the next five years.
Once gay marriage is more or less protected, which will happen this summer, then you pretty much run out of areas to discriminate against except possibly adoption.
But really, adoption is not going to be the line in the sand.
Some states already have the protections...more will follow, the feds (whether legislative or judicial) will follow after that.
Re: While you would think...
somewhat true, gays will be members of a protected class called "sexual orientation". heterosexuals likely will also be members of that class. curious to see if polygamists will be included or not. there will be many sexual orientations that won't make the cut. which becomes an odd dilema for those championing for sexual orientation as a protected class, where do you draw the line?
Re: yes
NO, you would think, as a Lawyer, that you would know that was why the Supreme Court was created, to resolve any issues regarding interpretation of the Constitution. Those Founding Fathers did a Helluva good job.
Re: So if a baker
let me explain this again just for you...
If you do something for some, but not for others, that's a problem.
If you are asked to do something special, that you don't do for anyone, and you refuse, that's not a problem.
Does that make it easier now for you to get the answer to your question?
let me explain this again just for you...
If you do something for some, but not for others, that's a problem.
If you are asked to do something special, that you don't do for anyone, and you refuse, that's not a problem.
Does that make it easier now for you to get the answer to your question?
Re: So if a baker
qzplm must go to the mike pence school of digging yourself into a hole. nice work.
qzplm must go to the mike pence school of digging yourself into a hole. nice work.
no
The supreme court was not created for that purpose.
That's why Marbury v. Madison is kind of a big deal (and to a lesser extent Calder v. Bull).
Read up on that.
It was an open question as to whether the SC actually had the power of judicial review. While the Federalist Papers discuss it positively, and many of the attendees to the Constitutional Convention agreed to it in some form it is NOT EXPLICITLY in the Constitution.
It was more or less made into law in Marbury.
From Thomas Jefferson:
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one
which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with
others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of
their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in
office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to
the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single
tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions
of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely
made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Like a lot of other things in the Constitution, even the Supreme Court isn't clear.
The supreme court was not created for that purpose.
That's why Marbury v. Madison is kind of a big deal (and to a lesser extent Calder v. Bull).
Read up on that.
It was an open question as to whether the SC actually had the power of judicial review. While the Federalist Papers discuss it positively, and many of the attendees to the Constitutional Convention agreed to it in some form it is NOT EXPLICITLY in the Constitution.
It was more or less made into law in Marbury.
From Thomas Jefferson:
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one
which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with
others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of
their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in
office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to
the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single
tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions
of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely
made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Like a lot of other things in the Constitution, even the Supreme Court isn't clear.
so clearly
even that breaking it down doesn't break through to explain it well enough to you either.
So, no, you don't have to put KKK on a cake just because someone wants you to, nor do you have to put dead babies on an abortion cake.
What you can't do is say I don't sell wedding cakes to gay people. You don't have to put "I love gay weddings" on the wedding cake, you can propose a simple cake without decoration if you want to, what you cant do is say, no, no wedding cakes for gays.
I mean I can't make it any simpler even as I realize you may need simpler.
even that breaking it down doesn't break through to explain it well enough to you either.
So, no, you don't have to put KKK on a cake just because someone wants you to, nor do you have to put dead babies on an abortion cake.
What you can't do is say I don't sell wedding cakes to gay people. You don't have to put "I love gay weddings" on the wedding cake, you can propose a simple cake without decoration if you want to, what you cant do is say, no, no wedding cakes for gays.
I mean I can't make it any simpler even as I realize you may need simpler.
Keep in mind that liberal media equals any media outlet that I disagree with on a given day, never mind what 90% of their editorial leanings are.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Honestly, the concept of someone "discriminating" against someone based on who they have sex with is going to end up in the Supreme Court. If I had to guess, it will come down to this: a religious person cannot be forced to violate their religion (I.E. By participating in a homosexual wedding), but you can't justify something like not selling products to gay people when it's not forcing you to participate in something that violates your religion. If you sell picture frames for a living and you are willing to sell them to people who, for example, lie, then it's hard to justify not selling them to someone who commits another sin, can you? That's where it will end up, regardless of whether or not there's a RFRA.
Wrong place for a political post. I personally think it makes the state look terrible. If a pizza place doesn't want to sell pizza because of a difference in "values" they'll come to a different realization when their business tanks. Definitely not a business mind running that company or the state for that matter.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: I guess I don't understand
I assume you're just stirring the pot and you do realize that the law is about preventing people from being able to force religious people (particularly Christians, Muslims and Jews) to violate their religion. It is not about allowing people to just say "I hate gay people, so I won't serve them in my restaurant).
I assume you're just stirring the pot and you do realize that the law is about preventing people from being able to force religious people (particularly Christians, Muslims and Jews) to violate their religion. It is not about allowing people to just say "I hate gay people, so I won't serve them in my restaurant).
