The part from 0:00 to 2:17.
-
Features
Indiana's new "Religious Freedom" Law
- Thread starter Jolly_Penguin
- Start date
The part from 0:00 to 2:17.
James Madison
Senior Member
Yeah? Funny, I find nothing from the video in the language of the statute, which is to state the Youtube video, while edifying, isn't law, it isn't controlling, but what is law, what is controlling is the statute itself, its own words, what its words say or do not say, and not the Youtube video.
laughing dog
Contributor
James Madison:
Can you give examples of what actions or activities this law will address?
Can you give examples of what actions or activities this law will address?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,079
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Your statement does not conflict with what I said. The original RFRA did not extend religious rights onto non-anthropomorphic entities.
You do know what a diatribe is right? Typically involves ranting, raving, nonsensical speech, kind of long. See Sarah Palin speech
An attempt was made by Senate Democrats to insert language into the bill to indicate that this would not be used to trim civil rights or gay rights. That went down 40 to 10. Now the Indiana Congress and Governor are working very hard to make it seem like that this was never about trimming back rights at all. Their voting record is established. We know what this bill was designed for.
- - - Updated - - -
The law doesn't mean they have to. That's the complaint!
In Indiana the state law gives a corporation personhood. The comparison with Washington is void.
If it did you'd have cited it.
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
The Governor of Indiana can't, so I doubt James can.
Who cares if Clark used the language of the law in that video? He was talking about the law and is urging members of the Indiana state legislature not to clarify that the law does not allow discrimination because "that could totally destroy the bill."
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,079
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Oh, that could be taken to mean anything.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Looks like he is advocating a fix to this "totally non-discrimination" law to prevent discrimination.
He "pledged".
CNN said:
He "pledged".
laughing dog
Contributor
The Governor of Indiana is politician. James Madison is a practicing attorney with a demonstrated interest in these types of questions. So I am interested in what he might have to say on this.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,079
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Man, too bad the Republicans in the Indiana Senate voted against Amendment 4.Looks like he is advocating a fix to this "totally non-discrimination" law to prevent discrimination.
CNN said:
He "pledged".
Could have avoided all this silliness. And there are still people trying to support this garbage.Amendment 4 said:
maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Apparently you are not here to precisely address my point. Its not about any one person's alleged hyperbole it is about "an over-the-top 'hysterical social and moral mania' - the sudden creation of mass hatred, intolerance, and the promotion of mass shaming based on imaginary hobgoblins."
If you wish to derail this into a whining about a poster's style, rather than addressing his argument, I am not interested. We are here to discuss issues.
No? You must have intended to say "yes, you are correct Max - Eich held a private and personal view of marriage." And if you had bothered to read a few sentences further, you have also noted that I told you that he also donated to Prop 8. And no one claimed otherwise.
There is no point in making an issue out of a non-issue.
No one claimed that they did not have a right to encourage and be a part of the gay-stopo lynch mob, what I am claiming is that it was the wrong thing for them to do. When a culture gets to the point that others should be driven from private jobs because of their personal conviction then they have crossed the line.
Since the characterization of the actions of those who created, participated, or complied in the public lynching IS THE ISSUE then if yo think that most of the critics were conversational and reasonable, then demonstrate it.
Dodging. In other words, "Yes Max, he was hounded from the company he co-founded because of his political view".
Dodging again. Unless one is comatose, we've seen the over-reactions and outright fabrications of nonsense. Either you are denying these reactions are widespread in the opposition or you are playing the "I hear no, see no, speak no" game. Which is it?
It was only "unwise" because of the absurdity of social mania's whose outbreak of hysteria is unpredictable, and who unreason is never held accountable by those who should know better. Perhaps because they have been winning, the gay rights movement has reached a point of hair trigger hysteria, fearful that someone, somewhere, might find a way to exempt a baker or photographer from servitude to gay weddings.
Idiot mob manipulators like media matters and think progress are doing its usual dishonest job. But when people of stature willfully and cynically make hypocritical statements intended to 'join the bandwagon' it just pushes us that much further down the road of polarization and dishonorable role modeling.
Last edited:
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,079
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
So like the Republican Governor who is demanding the legislation be modified with text similar to that rejected by the Indiana Senate, he is overreacting and full of hysteria?
Except for the minor problem of Amendment 4 being rejected by the Indiana Senate Republicans. Why vote against that amendment, if the purpose of the bill isn't in conflict with it?
Sorry, I didn't intend to phrase it that way to pretend you were denying he donated. It's because you make it out as if people are bitching about difference of political opinion when the reality is, the crux of the matter came down to his actions. It is in reference to this, "Eich was hounded from this company for only one reason: his off-work place political view was discovered," but admittedly the sloppiness falls on my part.
Except he wasn't. Unless you have something factual indicating Mozilla's offer of continued employment was fraudulent, there is no reason to presume other wise. He may have had little choice in stepping aside as CEO in practice, but he was not hounded out of the company. Whether it is pleasant or not, he could have retained a well-paid position within the company. The public exerted no authority or force here.
He wasn't driven out for a personal conviction. This is an over-dramatized characterization on your part no less severe that the behaviour you attribute to RFRA detractors. It astounds me that even if you were correct, you're characterizing one of the least obtrusive acts of discrimination on the face of the planet as a 'lynching'. That's the best case scenario for you. I mean, you characterize one party as the "gay-stapo" and this is the evidence you produce of their harm? Do you understand that lynching and the Gestapo were real things orders of magnitude more severe than what amounts to a man having to step into a different, yet lucrative role because customers don't want to support a company with leadership which acts against their own interests (sure, even if it was in his private life and not in his capacity as a CEO).
I have no obligation to do so. I am saying it's not reasonably demonstrable in either direction, and the evidence you've provided so far is incorrect at worst and paltry at best.
As I stated, this sort of thing ordinarily occurs to some extent in most social and political movements, but to what extent it represents the greater movement is unknown. Unless you can substantiate your view that it is widespread, it's a non-starter. You can go with hyperbole and pejoratives against supposed lynchers if you like, but without something of substance, it's hollow sentiments which I would have thought, from your perspective, would just be more steps down the "road of polarization and dishonorable role modeling."
It's unwise because the legislation seems to be no more necessary than the public outcry against that very same legislation.
I admire your efforts, Krypton, but please save yourself the energy. Certain posters will always twist any story of discrimination into a claim of persecution of whites, the rich, police, or Christians, pretty much any person or group that enjoys some level of power, especially when the power is used to discriminate.
Herrick
Junior Member
If the left is overreacting and misinterpreting this law then blame should also be put on conservative Christians because they seem to believe the same things about this law as the left. Take a look at the quotes about "religious freedom" which we all know means refusing to do business with gays. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-answers-critics-2016-potential-candidates-respond-to-indiana-law/
Last edited:
James Madison
Senior Member
Original RFRA? I wasn't aware there have been subsequent RFRAs passes, oh wait, the RFRA of 1993 is still the RFRA of today. So your comment about "original" is non-sense.
Furthermore, the Dictionary Act defines the word "person" for all federal law when and where the federal law does not itself define the word "person." The RFRA does not define the word "person" and as a result, the Dictionary Act definition of the word "person," which includes corporations, is the applicable meaning of the word "person" in the federal RFRA. This was true in 1993. So, contrary to your most erroneous assertions, the RFRA in 1993 protected corporations as the Dictionary Act definition of "person" was the applicable meaning for the word "person" in the RFRA, and the Dictionary Act meaning of the word "person" included corporations. However, I suspect you will remain undaunted in your endeavor to reiterate the same erroneous point as before, which is the federal RFRA does not/did not protect corporations. You were wrong to make this statement before, you are still wrong, and you will be wrong again in the future when you repeat it.
No I am not prescient in asserting you will repeat this erroneous point again, well maybe a little prescient.
The plain text of the law provides nothing more than the analytical framework for courts to apply and following in evaluating and assessing state laws burdening the exercise of religion. Read the statute as opposed to guessing what the statute says.
Interesting, the analytical framework is identical between the Indiana RFRA and the federal RFRA. Why wasn't the same complaint alleged in regards to the federal RFRA? The state of Washington has the identical analytical framework as the Indiana RFRA and the federal RFRA and yet, no such allegation was made in regards to the Washington RFRA law and the courts there, at least a trial court, has applied the analytical framework of Washington's RFRA to deny refuge from the state's anti-discrimination laws.
Furthermore, the notion anti-discrimination laws are a compelling state interest is not some novelty in the legal field. The legal field has held the belief and opinion, in particular the judiciary of many jurisdictions, anti-discrimination laws are a compelling state interest. IIRC, the Indiana courts have made similar rulings (I'll do research again to make sure my recollection is accurate). So your complaint isn't very convincing.
The comparison cannot be void when a business in the state of Washington invoked the state's RFRA as a defense and the trial court analyzed the defense through the lens and analytical framework of the state's RFRA. If the state of Washington's RFRA was inapplicable to businesses then the trial court would have never engaged the analytical framework of Washington's RFRA to assess the business' claim and defense under the state's RFRA statute. Your retort the "comparison with Washington is void" is what is actually void, void for non-sense, void for ignoring the facts of the Washington case, void for being inconsistent with what the Washington trial court did in the case.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Dateline Arkansas:
Walmart's CEO is standing up against a religious freedom law that just landed on the governor's desk in Arkansas, home to the company's headquarters.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/news/companies/walmart-arkansas-anti-lgbt-bill/index.html
Walmart's CEO is standing up against a religious freedom law that just landed on the governor's desk in Arkansas, home to the company's headquarters.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/news/companies/walmart-arkansas-anti-lgbt-bill/index.html
James Madison
Senior Member
The accurate answer is the law provides the analytical framework the courts are to apply when evaluating a claim some state law, or government action, regulation, administrative rule, action, is alleged to substantially burden the exercise of religion. Prior to the passage of this law the Indiana judiciary was not required to analyze claims a state law/govt action/regulation or administrative rule through the analytical framework of requiring the govt./law/etcetera, to have a compelling state interest and there aren't alternative means to accomplishing the state interest.
So this law informs the judiciary of the analytical framework it is to apply and follow for those claims the exercise of religion is substantially burdened by the government.
Would you like some examples of some of causes of action that could be raised under the statute?
maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Thanks for the clarification. I suppose we are going to have to agree to disagree. I understand that one of the arguments has been that his 'sin' was not in his having a conviction, but in his donating to others for the purpose of presenting their mutual conviction to voters.
I don't find that to be a distinction of merit, and in any case it does not justify his persecution. Even in the most totalitarian and brutal regimes a person can hold private convictions. What gets someone in trouble is when they exercise their right to express their opinion (directly or through support of other like minded). And when others then seek to suppress such speech, including suppressing access to material support of communicating such speech, they are doing so because that person has publically adopted a threatening and heretical view. He dares to expressed his conviction on a proposed law.
Of course he was hounded for his revealed convictions. And should you still doubt it, remember that others (perhaps unintentionally) confirmed it in their coverage of the story. Kara Swisher of Re/Code wrote in the aftermath: "Throughout the interviews, it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage...Instead, he tried to unsuccessfully hedge those sentiments and, perhaps more importantly, did not seem to understand that he might have to pay the inevitable price for having them. Thus, something had to give — and it did."
Rarebit, firefox application developers, helped lead the public outrage. After Eich's resignation, they at least had the decency to say that they didn't expect that it would come to this...and wrote: "People think we were upset about his past vote. Instead we were more upset with his current and continued unwillingness to discuss the issue with empathy. Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO.
The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us."
So, it turns out that Eich might have kept his job had he had repented and recanted his beliefs and support, as all heretics must. But he did not (at least not to the satisfaction of his persecutors.).
He was hounded out by the public campaign to have him either fired or demoted from top management positions. The board, having horribly managed the crisis, created new hysteria among some divided staff. In the end, they told him take a demotion or else.
Sure sounds like hounding to me. Had the gay-techie left acted with a tad more tolerance and maturity, it would have never come to this. And, I might add, had Eich not been a man of character and taken the high road those moral pygmies in Mozilla might have been taken to the cleaners.
As a former union president, I am very familiar with the demotion as a fraudulent form of "constructive termination or discharge". Being demoted due to no actions of his would usually be considered a forced resignation. If an employee is compelled to resign because his employer has been negligent and created intolerable working conditions, or hostility from the employer is directed at the employee, or the employee is “demoted” for reasons other than conduct or performance, a claim could be made that he/she was constructively wrongfully discharged even though he/she resigned.
And as political activity is a protected activity in California, ANY negative action by Mozilla in response to his beliefs or actions is begging for a wide open suit. Given that it is likely he had an employment contract on or before he was appointed, unless he violated that contract he could have severely damaged Mozilla.
When someone of Eichs unblemished conduct at Mozilla is accused (at the Daily Beast) to be "the same as Donald Sperling" (a real bigot), when OKCupid writes that "he is our enemy, we wish nothing but pain, misery, and failure", when many bury Mozilla in hate mail (as Andrew Sullivan was buried when he dared to defend Eich) then if that is not a metaphorical "lynching", what is? A campaign of love letters?
Hell ya he was being lynched, THAT was the whole point of the campaign. And yes, I not only know the difference between the real gestapo and the gaystapo, I also know the difference between a private citizen quietly exercising his right to donate to a proposition AND a bunch of thugs acting like he is an existential threat to the moral and political order of the high tech industry.
I might have agreed, until I read the reactions to the op in this thread. The only problem with the Indiana law is that it is far to timid.
Ludicrous. Do you even believe the words as you type them?
It is not morally wrong to withhold resources from a company you disagree with morally, and no amount of quoting from your gay conservative poster boy can change that. It isn't even wrong if you are wrong about the morality of the company, since you had no moral obligation to support the company in the first place.
Or, let me put it another way. It is not morally wrong for Christians to boycott Disney because they think 'Frozen' emasculates boys and Disney doesn't torch homosexuals at the stake, even though the Christians are wrong (about the facts and the moral implication of those facts).
It is also not morally wrong to let people know the reason you're boycotting them, and what behaviours would make you not boycott them.
The boycotters did nothing morally wrong, but Eich did.