http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/indiana-controversy-differing-religion/2705022.html
So in my very short, and very quick research and reading of several articles from various different news outlets, I have found that the recent RFRA that is trying to get passed was originally meant for Religious Minorities who otherwise have no protection at all under local laws.
I am a Christian, and I understand what this means as getting passed, but Christianity is by no means a minority in this country anymore, and this law seems like it is getting supported (and rejected) on the basis of extreme fear of oppression and denial of freedoms. Will this really oppress LGBT groups? or is this just a meme started by libtardism?
>>36303
It will oppress the lgbt community. It wouldn't be right for people to turn blacks away. It wouldn't be right to turn gas away either.
>>36303
No one should be discriminated against, period. Hiding behind religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate is not okay.
>>36303
You should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason if you are a private business
I don't know why gay people want to be able to sue people if they don't want to participate in the ceremony. Because that's what liberal attempts to block the law are about. They want to allow gay people to sue a baker, florist, priest, or musician who just wants their religious beliefs respected by not being FORCED to participate in a ceremony that makes them uncomfortable. Here's a NYT quote about the photographer case mentioned in your article.
>In asking the Supreme Court to hear her challenge to the law, Ms. Huguenin said that she would “gladly serve gays and lesbians — by, for example, providing them with portrait photography,” but that she did not want to tell the stories of same-sex weddings. To make her celebrate something her religion tells her is wrong, she said, would hijack her right to free speech.
Why should a woman who obviously has no problem with gay people be FORCED to participate in their ceremony? Is that freedom?
>>36315
Who are you to determine the just and fair use of one's own property?
>>36330
Yes, what a wonderful world we would live in if people turned away the handicapped, people that weren't the "correct" religion, if women weren't allowed to buy shit from certain businesses and so on.
Sounds like a utopia.
>>36335
Sounds a lot better than the utopia of being forced to do something by the government
>>36303
Private discrimination is a right. Even if it makes you an asshole to turn away gays you should have every right to do it and the public will decide if that puts you out of business
>>36332
Who are you to decide that one group of people should be denied service and we have amendments that say everyone should be treated equally.
Seriously, you dipshits can go in circles all day long with "who knows the truth" and "who are you to do x or y" but neither of you will get anywhere.
The reason you can't allow people to be discriminated in places of public accommodation is because of this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
... if either of you want to make a point worth listening to why don't you 1) sum up the arguments for and against the civil rights act and the handicap laws and 2) see what effects these laws have had on society good or bad and then argue about whether or not some retard should be required to treat gay customers the same as any other set of customers.
>>36343
Its simple, if you don't want to do something nobody should be able to make you
>>36337
>how dare the government make BUSINESSES and state employees treat everyone equally.
>why can't we be more like the middle-east and discriminate allow and support discrimination?
you sound like a great person. I imagine you support the right to treat people unequally based on sound libertarian or religious principles. You are certainly not an edgy 14 year old looking for an excuse to "stick it to the gov and the gays."
>>36345
>state employees
That's different, private businesses should be free to choose when they want to operate
>>36342
the free hand of the market to save the day. If I believe in it enough it will be true.
seriously, gov regulations CAN be a bad thing, but just because some regulations are bad doesn't mean all are bad and we should pray that the free market magically solves the worlds problems.
this kind of extremist position is the same as "private businesses sometimes fail to act in ways that benefit the public, EVERYTHING must be run by the gov."
>>36346
see >>36343
>>36344
brilliant. if only someone would have thought up an argument this smart we wouldn't have the civil rights or handicap laws to deal with. If only those fighting the civil rights and handi laws had you on their team, they would have won for sure.
quick anon, you should hurry up and apply to law school, cause I'm sure every law firm in the country will be dying to hire you. Or alternatively, you should write this down and ask Harvard for a PhD in philosophy.
shit, wait actually, I've heard this argument before.... "if you don't want to do something nobody should be able to make you" - my 4 nephew who doesn't want to eat veggies, put his toys away, or share with his cousin says this all the fucking time.
sorry anon, i really thought you could lead the next intellectual revolution but my 4 year nephew has beaten you to it.
>>36351
Your four year old nephew ows it to his parents to listen to them, like a government employee must follow what the government says but a private entity should remain private
>>36358
just stop talking. Look at the arguments that pro civil rights lawyers came up with and then look at the arguments that the anti-civil right lawyers came up with and report back. until then your "common sense" is not worth listening to nor is it interesting.
>>36366
They didn't say anything that justifies peoples freedom of choice from being removed
>but they deserve to be served
By someone who chooses to, not by someone who is forced to
>>36370
Ugh, it's pretty simple in theory,
>What happened here, Sir?
>I just refuse to serve this man.
>Why?
>This man has a bad reputation and bussines with him would ruin me.
Thats ok.
>What happened here, Sir?
>I just refuse to serve this man.
>Why?
>It's a negro, I don't have to.
That's idiotic discrimination. Sadly it ain't that simple because the moment a member of a minority is accused of anything the fact that it's a minority is going to come up.
>>36380
A little more reading tells me the problem lies in giving private INSTITUTIONS the rights of INDIVIDUALS, so if you don't want to comply fine, but walmart shouldn´t be like that.
>>36343
>is-ought
you is aut
>>36381
>shouldn't
Anon why is it different when a private individual says no and when an extension of that individual says no
>>36330
Lol nope, go find another country because that's some unamerican bullshit
>>36395
it's very american. it was america for ~190 years. you gotta go back, jorge.
As one of those big racists morally opposed to the civil rights acts wholesale annexation of private businesses as "public" there's no way this sticks. There's decades upon decades of court rubber stamping.
Private businesses are anything but.
>>36381
>>36390
Moreover, sometimes an "institution" consists of one person. Like the photographer mentioned in OP's article. That's a "business" of one person - one person in a highly speech/art driven career path. It's not a matter of 'get someone else in the corporation to do it', it's a matter of 'gay people want to force a devout Christian to make their photo book, they refuse to just find a different photo service'. It's all about power to them - can they force another person into giving up their freedoms?
Let's face it, it was trivial for them to get another photographer anyway but they pursued a lawsuit out of spite.
Look up Waco Seige. Giving the religious more rights than they already have would allow psychos to rape their children. Whether or not homosexuals decide to marry each other is not the worst possible thing in the context of immorality. The only good thing that could come of this is rastas finally being able to smoke some weed and have some fucking peace
>>36358
That's fine, but don't have a reaction pic face when the same business down the street is killing your business "because he's not an asshole, anon."
>>36303
>Christianity is by no means a minority in this country anymore,
There is a church on every other street corner in cities. How in the fuck do you figure that Christianity was ever a minority in the US?
>>36347
I have no problem with regulations, but when they take away a fundamental right like freedom of association than it doesn't matter if the regulations have a positive impact.
>>36380
>ugh
>>36303
Saying that a business owner can't deny service to anyone they want is akin to slavery in my book.
>>36575
Thats pretty extreme, but it is a largely unnecessary way of forcing societies mores on groups and individuals. It also violates our traditional understanding of the right to freedom of association
>>36397
So was slavery, and now we consider that shit to be unamerican. Isn't progress great?
>>36591
Indeed.
>>36591
Progress is ending slavery but forcing people to do labor?
How do you resolve that cognitive dissonance?
Because the one forcing them is the state on behalf of a spiteful faggot? Slavery is okay if it's to the state?
That's brain stupid.
The legislation is largely pointless. Before and after passage of the RFRA, businesses could deny service to anyone for no reason. Since proving discrimination toward gay people is usually hard to prove, this legislation is superfluous. Its passage is a sponsorship by the state to discriminate, as religious freedoms aren't encroached upon by preventing discrimination.
>>36687
>as religious freedoms aren't encroached upon by preventing discrimination
You say that matter-of-factly, but that debate is literally what the entire thread is about.
Let me put it another way so you might reconsider your hasty judgment. To discriminate means to choose. So to rephrase your statement, "religious freedoms aren't encroached upon by taking away the right to choose".
Sound a little more contentious now?
It's all fun and games until hundreds of militant hindus or orthodox jews set up shop in your town and elect themselves to city government and take over. It's already happened in parts of NY state and elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryas_Joel,_New_York
>>36692
>Town founded by Hungarian Jews is populated mostly by Hungarian Jews and headed by Hungarian Jews
I really don't see any problem here, there wasn't a takeover at all... Plenty of towns in America have German culture because they were settled by German families.
If anything, the problem with that town isn't the demographics, it's the crippling poverty
>>36692
>United States being a nation of immigrants has a few cherrypicked cities of immigrants that aren't majority Christian.
The Christian Genocide is here guyzzz! We're being persecuted and the end of days is near!
>Despite the U.S. never being 100% Christian since its formation. Mormons and others were never considered Christian and treated as such.
>>36698
>there wasn't any take over at all
Did you even read the article?
>Residents of these communities and local Orange County politicians view the village as encroaching on them.[18] Due to the rapid population growth occurring in Kiryas Joel, resulting almost entirely from the high birth rates of its Hasidic population, the village government has undertaken various annexation efforts to expand its area, to the dismay of the majority of the residents of the surrounding communities. Many of these area residents see the expansion of the high-density residential, commercial village as a threat to the quality of life in the surrounding suburban communities due to suburban sprawl. Other concerns of the surrounding communities are the impact on local aquifers and the projected increased volume of sewage reaching the county’s sewerage treatment plants, already near capacity by 2005.
>>36774
Every city in the United States does that, just so you know. State governments typically give large cities an enormous capacity to "incorporate" (annex) neighboring towns. And they ALWAYS seize upon this because it means more tax dollars. This happens all the time down here in Texas where we have huge cities (some of the most populous in the country) and also thousands of little hundred-person towns.
Hell, I think that Parks & Recreation - a comedy television show - even depicted as much. You would think it would be mainstream knowledge by now.
>>36303
>Christianity is by no means a minority in this country anymore,
You mean ever.
>>36575
You have no idea what slavery means, do you?
I'm fairly sure Uncle Tom wasn't a shift leader at Fudrucker's.
>>36744
No, because then you'll get places in rural areas telling blacks and gays to fuck off. They might actually get more business from that because of rural hick population.
Total free trade doesn't work in eu3, and it doesn't work in real life.
>>36546
>when they take away a fundamental right like freedom of association than it doesn't matter if the regulations have a positive impact.
>>36879
But the difference is those Texas towns are friendly with the surrounding towns and aren't populated by an orthodox jewish cult that doesn't communicate with the outside world.
It happens in Texas too, see
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24216507/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/trouble-west-texas-prairie/
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2005-07-29/281915/
My point originally was only that non-traditional American religions often use laws like the RFRA in unintended and not-obvious ways as a loophole to do shit like this. I remember reading somewhere that this all started in the 70s with some native american indians wanting to legally take peyote and mescaline for sweat lodge rituals or something like that.
>>36744
That's what people said 40 years ago when people were marching for equality; it was wrong then and still is wrong now. It was debated to completion so long ago that there is absolutely nothing new you could add to the arguments, just go read some Supreme Court case law or Congressional arguments around various non-discrimination bills.
>>36889
>because then you'll get places in rural areas telling blacks and gays to fuck of
So?
>>36889
What about that situation do you consider "not working"?
>>36905
Freedom of association is more important than nebulous social justice to many people.
>>36744
>There is no better way to end discrimination than through free trade.
Which is why overt institutional discrimination only ended with passage of the Civil Rights Act.
These laws only punish stupid people. If you don't want to do business with someone, just say it was because they smelled bad or didn't adhere to dress code. That is what clubs do all the time, and the law can't do shit about it.
>>36889
>>36922
>>37006
But the discrimination was mainly cause by the state governments and there 'separate but equal' laws. Discrimination in the US has been hosted by the government.
You can't say that free trade doesn't stop discrimination when the interactions between different groups were essentially outlawed.
>>37076
Sorry for the shitty spelling and typos, I'm on mobile.
>>36330
I feel this. If I ran a local store id want any excuse to kick out white trash crackheads. Ive literally watched these types teach their small children to shoplift
>>36446
You mean that tine the government slaughtered innocents that werent resisting? Wow great example faggot, cult or not killing members of it just because is wrong
>>36303
>anymore
What the fuck are you even talking about? When was crosskikery ever a minority view in America? Is this more of that "war on christians" bullshit, when you faggots are the majority and LITERALLY make war on anyone who doesn't worship your masters' sand-demon?
>>36335
you know what makes that world even more wonderful,
its that few people would actually do that, because it means losing out on customers.
but you should still have the right to do so if you wish, its your loss.
