• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Sen Tom Cotton to gays upset over Indian Religious Freedom Law

 
 
 
Senator Cotten is doing a great job in simultaneously playing to his base and proving to the rest of world that he is class A dumbass.
 
"at least?"
This is what we aspire to, being at least a little bit better than a country we despise?

Or 76 other countries where it's illegal?
 
Indiana. Slightly better than Iran.

Brought to you by the Indiana Tourist Board.
 
I saw Jonah Goldberg of the National Review on Fox News two days ago. He said that God's people had lost for no good reason on gay marriage and that because of this we should accept the religious freedom laws as the God's people's just due compensation for losing on the question of gay marriage. (Goldberg on gay marriage: '"I don't understand it, conservatives control the Supreme Court!")
 
SimpleDon said:
I saw Jonah Goldberg of the National Review on Fox News two days ago. He said that God's people had lost for no good reason on gay marriage and that because of this we should accept the religious freedom laws as the God's people's just due compensation for losing on the question of gay marriage. (Goldberg on gay marriage: '"I don't understand it, conservatives control the Supreme Court!")
Click to expand...

Proof positive that not all conservatives are fundies, er God's people according to God's people, er fundies.
 
SimpleDon said:
as the God's people's just due compensation for losing on the question of gay marriage.
Click to expand...
So....we 'won' on gay marriage, mostly by court decisions that it's unlawful to discriminate against gays, therefore the zealots deserve to be able to discriminate against gays.

Yeah, okay, that's logical.
 
SimpleDon said:
He said that God's people had lost for no good reason on gay marriage
Click to expand...
I wonder if that's how people felt in olden times?

God's people lost for no good reason on the slavery issue. But ask modern Christains about how God use'ta condone it, that was just because of the times, the people around God's people.

God's people lost for no good reason on having multiple wives. Now the Christains say that God's plan is 1 man + 1 woman. Any multiplicity of wives was limited to certain periods and due to the influence of people around God's people.

In 200 years, will atheists try to say that the Books clearly discriminates against gays, and will the Christains of the future say that God was always on the gays' side, the homophobia was from the influence of the people around God's people?
 
Wow... and the Democrat lost to this idiot. Literally idiot! How in the world could anyone think that was a reasonable thing to say? Hey... just be glad we ain't hanging you folk.
fromderinside said:
SimpleDon said:
I saw Jonah Goldberg of the National Review on Fox News two days ago. He said that God's people had lost for no good reason on gay marriage and that because of this we should accept the religious freedom laws as the God's people's just due compensation for losing on the question of gay marriage. (Goldberg on gay marriage: '"I don't understand it, conservatives control the Supreme Court!")
Click to expand...

Proof positive that not all conservatives are fundies, er God's people according to God's people, er fundies.
Click to expand...
Actually, Lawrence v Texas was a 5-4 decision. And if they feel bad for losing that one, they should go talk to Seattle Seahawk fans. BAM!!!
 
This is from the same bolt of cloth that says Christianity trumps atheism because "our" dictators killed more people than Christian butchers. Sheesh.
 
I read that the Indiana legislature is going to add a clause that nothing in the legislation is intended to allow businesses to challenge anti-discrimination laws of the US or Indiana, or to allow discrimination against anyone because of race, religion, origin, sexual preference, etc. It is notable to mention that they didn't care about the outrage from gays, the left, the rational right*, etc., they responded to their lords and masters, the business community, who feared that they would lose business. Quite rightly.

* Both of them [/snark]
 
"Indian Religious Protection Law"?

An ironic typo as the Left was perfectly in favor of RFRA type laws that give religious people special rights and protections when they were used to give Indians special right, like the exclusive right to use the illegal drug peyote. That's why the federal RFRA was introduced by then congressman Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy, both Democrats and passed nearly unanimously.

I am against all RFRA type legislation as they directly violate the equal protection before the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment. A much better approach would be to mandate "compelling state interest" and "narrowly tailored" criteria on all laws affecting personal behavior by all people, not only religious ones.
Of course that would make mincemeat of many illiberal (but popular) laws like 21 as drinking age (while reducing drunk driving is a compelling state interest nobody can argue that imposing Prohibition onto young adults is in any sense "narrowly tailored"), ban on prostitution, ban on drugs etc.
If peyote is harmful enough to be banned it should be prohibited for everybody. If it's not, it should be legal for everybody to use.
Likewise, if state should allow bakers to refuse baking cakes based on personal disagreement with the customer that should apply to everybody, regardless of whether their objection is religious or not.

And in fact, using RFRA to give special rights to Indians is even worse than the use for Christians. While anybody can enter and leave various Christian denominations at will, Indian religions are closely linked to race and ethnicity. Thus giving special privileges to Indian religions amounts to giving special privileges based on race/ethnicity in practice.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Wow... and the Democrat lost to this idiot. Literally idiot! How in the world could anyone think that was a reasonable thing to say?
Click to expand...
Don't be too hard on republicans, Democrats are not whole lot better: US ambassador to Czech Republic thinks it's reasonable for him to criticize Czech President travel schedule. So Czech President appears to be kicking his 5 months into ambassador job ass out.
 
Derec said:
"Indian Religious Protection Law"?

An ironic typo as the Left was perfectly in favor of RFRA type laws that give religious people special rights and protections when they were used to give Indians special right, like the exclusive right to use the illegal drug peyote. That's why the federal RFRA was introduced by then congressman Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy, both Democrats and passed nearly unanimously.

I am against all RFRA type legislation as they directly violate the equal protection before the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment. A much better approach would be to mandate "compelling state interest" and "narrowly tailored" criteria on all laws affecting personal behavior by all people, not only religious ones.
Of course that would make mincemeat of many illiberal (but popular) laws like 21 as drinking age (while reducing drunk driving is a compelling state interest nobody can argue that imposing Prohibition onto young adults is in any sense "narrowly tailored"), ban on prostitution, ban on drugs etc.
If peyote is harmful enough to be banned it should be prohibited for everybody. If it's not, it should be legal for everybody to use.
Likewise, if state should allow bakers to refuse baking cakes based on personal disagreement with the customer that should apply to everybody, regardless of whether their objection is religious or not.

And in fact, using RFRA to give special rights to Indians is even worse than the use for Christians. While anybody can enter and leave various Christian denominations at will, Indian religions are closely linked to race and ethnicity. Thus giving special privileges to Indian religions amounts to giving special privileges based on race/ethnicity in practice.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with you, although not because of your right v. left arguments. The right is almost always wrong when discussing the problems of the day, by definition. But that doesn't mean that the left is always right.

Religion is a terrible basis for determining laws. That should be obvious by this entire discussion. To point out that other policies put into affect to try to accommodate another religion produces a bad result doesn't go very far in supporting your case that another religion's bigotry should be enshrined in the nation's laws.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
arkirk said:
This strikes me as a peculiar issue for a number of reasons. Let's say you want a cock shaped cake for a party. Why on earth would you go to someone who doesn't want to make it and try to get it made there. Everybody knows what kind of work you get when it is done under coersion. You get a shitty job that is done by someobody that resents you. Giving people who do not like you or your lifestyle your business may just be taking business away from someone more apt to be your friend and also to do a good job. I understand the impulse to try to force the issue and enforce some form of non discrimination but people who don't like you forced into a situation by you will find whatever means they can to make you pay for their dislike.

Something like a wedding cake for a gay couple should be baked probably by someone who is gay or likes gay people. It is not like those people do not exist. Human beings are perverse creatures in the matter of enforcing their dislikes on others. In the case of something as happy as a wedding ought to be, that is no place for a resentful vendor or servant....just saying there probably are better remedies than court action in these cases. I do not deny that lets the baker keep his prejudice, but it is possible to just let HIM stew in his hatred and not get it involved in your life.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think you should get to force people to bake you a gay wedding cake, cater a gay wedding, cater a KKK meeting, or alter your business in any other way that they find offensive.

It is one thing to refuse to serve somebody the same thing and the same way you serve everybody else. It is an entirely different thing to refuse to take on something like a gay wedding or a KKK rally. And I can just imagine the muslim graphic artist example, if somebody actually tried that, or gioing to a muslim owned copy centre and forcing them to mass print the mohammed cartoons. I can see why protections like the law in Indiana are sought after. They go too far, but I can see the basis.
Click to expand...

You seem to miss the point. It is not about penis shaped cakes or cartoons! It is about discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation. Full stop. Nothing else. Doing this use to be legal and for some acceptable. It is no longer acceptable or legal.

What you have to compare it to its race. Do you think that it is reasonable for a business to discriminate against people because of their race? ?

You now have to answer the question of whether it is reasonable to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation the exact same way that you do for race, religion, country of origin, etc. Because it is the law.

You may not like the law or you consider it to be unreasonable. But it is the law of the land.

As for your questions about your rather strained hypothetical situations, you got your answer in the #2 post in this thread, if you make penis shaped cakes for everybody except that you refuse to make one for Jewish people then it is illegal. If you make copies of mohammed cartoons for everyone except for homosexuals then it is illegal. If you consistently refuse to do either for everyone then you are safe.

What makes your hypotheticals so ridiculous is your assumption that somehow the desire to have copies of mohammed cartoons is somehow integral to being Jewish or the desire for penis cakes identify one as a homosexual. (I intentionally swapped the two in the paragraph above to make this point. Since irony is so poorly understood here I am forced to explain myself parenthetically like this.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom