timschochet
Footballguy
I don't think it's hypocritical to hold the USA to a higher standard than countries in the Middle East.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CowboysFromHell
- Start date
drummer
Footballguy
Who are you trying to fool? You would spread your cheeks for MaxThreshold as long as he liked a post of yoursThat's true, but there are few tricks that I would charge as much as I would jon mx.Tim is a ho. Everyone is his typeI am not Tim's type.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm a high class call girl. Max couldn't afford me.Who are you trying to fool? You would spread your cheeks for MaxThreshold as long as he liked a post of yoursThat's true, but there are few tricks that I would charge as much as I would jon mx.Tim is a ho. Everyone is his typeI am not Tim's type.
rockaction
Footballguy
####### righteous dissent. I don't want to bake your cake if I don't want to, nor do I want to pay for your abortifacients if I don't believe in them. RFRAs are a godsend. Simple as that.
"Religious liberty is the terms of surrender the Right is requesting in the culture war. It is conservative America saying to the cultural and political elites, you have your gay marriage, your no-fault divorce, your obscene music and television, your indoctrinating public schools and your abortion-on-demand. May we please be allowed to not participate in these?
But no. Tolerance isn't the goal. Religious conservatives must atone for their heretical views with acts of contrition: Bake me a cake, photograph my wedding, pay for my abortion and my contraception. - Tim Carney, Washington Examiner
"Religious liberty is the terms of surrender the Right is requesting in the culture war. It is conservative America saying to the cultural and political elites, you have your gay marriage, your no-fault divorce, your obscene music and television, your indoctrinating public schools and your abortion-on-demand. May we please be allowed to not participate in these?
But no. Tolerance isn't the goal. Religious conservatives must atone for their heretical views with acts of contrition: Bake me a cake, photograph my wedding, pay for my abortion and my contraception. - Tim Carney, Washington Examiner
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
I WANT MY CAKE BAKED BY YOU!
You.
Yes, you.
Because you haven't sanctified my wedding. In your heart.
So you must arrange these flowers for the wedding. Because this affair of the heart must be your affair of the heart, and I'd really love a cake and flowers.
Baked and arranged by you. By only you.
Slave.
“Government is simply a word for the things we decide to do together."
You.
Yes, you.
Because you haven't sanctified my wedding. In your heart.
So you must arrange these flowers for the wedding. Because this affair of the heart must be your affair of the heart, and I'd really love a cake and flowers.
Baked and arranged by you. By only you.
Slave.
“Government is simply a word for the things we decide to do together."
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
X
You do NOT have to participate in any of those.
You dont have to get married to a person of the same gender.
You dont have to get divorced.
You dont have to watch television.
You dont have to listen to the radio.
You may send your kids to a private school. Or home school. Though you may not refuse to educate them (minors have their own protections).
You dont have to get an abortion performed on yourself or your spouse.
But should you find yourself wanting to do business (by-and-large in public) then your business must typically provide equal access to all.
And you do NOT have to even own or run a business.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
I wrote a long, long rejoinder to this before you even raised the issue, because I knew it would come up. I didn't post it out of deference to concision and propriety and effect. Let me say this: As soon as a person's business is treated as a privilege granted by the state instead of a natural right granted by God, we've shifted our own understanding of the social contract from a Lockean conception to a Rousseauian bargain.
Didn't want to get poly phi in the thread, and I'm sure one can pull a Locke quote or two that contradicts, but I'd be stunned if the foundation of our property rights and business law at the founding of our country included forced service against religious beliefs.
Indeed, you're more than welcome to prove me wrong; I'm not writing a thesis on it. I'm pretty damn sure I'm right. You're more than welcome to trace a history of public accommodation that I disagree with and is now extended in a million different ways, but it doesn't change the origins of our country, likely up until the CRA of 1964.
Peace. A big red X doesn't suffice for argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Well, where did our modern (by modern I mean 17th century) property rights against the King come from if not from natural law?
rockaction
Footballguy
Perhaps a legal historian can help me.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Not sure that suffices, really.
eta* Actually, contract scholars would tell you it's dead wrong.
X
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
See, here's the thing: for the most part, businesses in Indiana could have rejected participation in gay weddings before this legislation. They didn't need this version of a state RFRA. This bill was a mostly empty nod to religious conservatives who want to give the middle finger to, as they put it, "Big Gay." That's why Pence was surrounded by these idiots at the signing ceremony.
If you can't have a laugh at the stupidity of bigots like that, or understand why people might not look fondly upon a state government who kowtows to said bigots, I don't know what to tell you.
SWC
Bromigo
the scorecard so far is one try to say god supports the law wrong two preten d to be above it all and try to say that anyone who thinks blatent bigotry and hatred is wrong is overreacting wrong three now throw some fancy books on top of it and give some complicated look at me answer for why it is good wrong hey fellas hate is hate and it is always wrong it is ok to actually stand up against it no one will think you are a bad person take that to the bank
rockaction
Footballguy
Now that I've opened my mouth, I'll look at the Atlantic article and the counter articles sure to come from the right. I have a hard time accepting GLAAD's version of the facts as true (which is the link you provided).
I'm wondering if, as your link states, that "likening" homosexual marriage to beastiality and polygamy is a physical or legal claim. In other words, if it were a legal claim, it would be nothing short of what Scalia and company did in Lawrence v. Texas, which my radical feminist professor actually agreed with. It's just…I know these political battles. I've been in them.
Was this an empty move? Was it a preemptive movement against any EP state claims, etc, etc. Was this a preemptive move against any judicial decisions in more liberal areas? I've just seen so much of this maneuvering on both sides of the advocacy radar, I don't buy any of it, on other side.
My overarching view is that the legislature passes a bill because of state EP laws and court mandates. That's how I view it. If this is "truly egregious," according to most mainstream media outlets, does this simply mean that the judiciary might actually agree to be bound by it, unlike other state judiciaries?
There are so many levels to this. There's legislatures, federal law, state legislatures, state judiciaries, and media stuff that all goes along with it. Pardon my skepticism. In the end, all I see is one entity ordering the other to bake a cake.
njherdfan
Footballguy
I think you're right that any sort of law mandating any kind of public accommodation does not comport with a 17th century understanding of natural law. But at the same time, that ship has sailed. The CRA mandates that businesses serve people regardless of race. Under a natural law theory if I don't want to put a ramp entrance into my store I shouldn't have to, and handicapped people can just go elsewhere. The ADA says otherwise.
If your argument is that any sort of government mandated public accommodation is fundamentally wrong, then that's fine, but I think most people who are in favor of this law see it as enshrining a specific right to discriminate against gay people, and they don't have the same qualms about overturning the principles of unregulated commerce that existed 300 years ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
njherdfan
Footballguy
Yeah, I think it's completely empty. The only way a business could be punished for not serving a gay wedding is if gay people are a protected class. Clearly, that's not going to happen any time soon in Indiana. Also, I like the fact that the Governor's office won't even publicly state who was at the signing ceremony.
rockaction
Footballguy
The first bolded sort of is my argument, with lines drawn. I get the resistance to it. I argue against the New Deal in these very threads, all the time.
That said, we, as law students, etc., also draw lines. Extension by analogy doesn't mean a perfect analogous extension. We never do that in law, and it's up to debate and politics to do that, the former of which we're exercising here.
Also with regard to the latter bolded, there were many court strictures about regulation and product merchantability 300 years ago. Stricter than even today. Horowitz wrote extensively on it. But you were not compelled to sell to people you didn't want to sell to. We still retain this notion to this day in many myriad ways. I think Indiana was very afraid of a court-induced EP claim.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Your reason for skepticism- the bolded in particular-doesn't make a lot of sense.
The Indiana legislature passes a bill because they're worried about the Indiana legislature passing a bill? This makes no sense at all. It's not like they headed off future anti-discrimination with this RFRA; if there's subsequent support for passage of an anti-discrimination law that would supersede this RFRA law either explicitly (because they could just say so) or implicitly (based on principles of statutory construction, which favors recency when language seems to be at odds).
And there's no possibility of courts ruling that private businesses, even those considered public accommodations, would be forced to serve all comers without a statute in place saying as much. That's why we had to pass the Civil Rights Act to bar discrimination at hotels and restaurants in the 1960s and Congress had to shoehorn it into the Commerce Clause- because the Constitution alone can't touch a private business that wants to discriminate.
This isn't as complicated as you think. The motivation behind the law is obvious. It was introduced just a few weeks after an appellate court ruling overturning Indiana's gay marriage ban. It was signed in the company of staunch anti-gay advocates. It's not hard to put two and two together here.
And by the way, this is coming from someone who leans towards agreeing with you that we don't need to legislate this stuff and should not force vendors to serve people they don't want to serve. Those laws were needed in the 60s because the lag time in information didn't allow the free market to operate, but these days I think I'd rather let the free market work its magic. Let's have discriminatory businesses exposed on social media as bigots, picketed and boycotted, and customers who visits them anyway photographed and placed on the web for eternal ridicule as patrons of bigots. These people don't deserve the law's help in pulling their heads of their #####. Let's let them suffocate in there.
The Commish
Footballguy
DId we ever get a copy of the legislation posted or are we still just reacting to the 
analysis from our "media"?
ETA: "Decent" write up with snippets of the laws
analysis from our "media"?ETA: "Decent" write up with snippets of the laws
Last edited by a moderator:
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
What I've learned from this thread:
1. LBGT is not a protected class, but should be. This distinguishes them from say, a business that wants to deny service to black people.
2. The truth is somewhere in the middle. With almost every hotly debated issue, I can usually see both sides and eventually end up coming to the conclusion that a compromise / meeting in the middle is the best approach. With this particular issue, I like what I saw posted earlier (I forget who) about not forcing a business owner to condone something they disagree with from a moral perspective, but not allowing them to deny basic service to protected classes of people, which I believe should include LBGT. For example, we shouldn't force a devout religious person to bake a cake that says "Congratulations, Todd and Steve" or the gay Kinkos employee to print a sign that says "God Hates ####". However, the same devout religious baker should not be allowed to deny service to Todd and Steve if they want a simple birthday cake for their friend Bob, and the gay Kinkos employee can't deny service to the WBC member if all they want are copies of a soup recipe.
3. Libertarians have some scary ### ideas.
1. LBGT is not a protected class, but should be. This distinguishes them from say, a business that wants to deny service to black people.
2. The truth is somewhere in the middle. With almost every hotly debated issue, I can usually see both sides and eventually end up coming to the conclusion that a compromise / meeting in the middle is the best approach. With this particular issue, I like what I saw posted earlier (I forget who) about not forcing a business owner to condone something they disagree with from a moral perspective, but not allowing them to deny basic service to protected classes of people, which I believe should include LBGT. For example, we shouldn't force a devout religious person to bake a cake that says "Congratulations, Todd and Steve" or the gay Kinkos employee to print a sign that says "God Hates ####". However, the same devout religious baker should not be allowed to deny service to Todd and Steve if they want a simple birthday cake for their friend Bob, and the gay Kinkos employee can't deny service to the WBC member if all they want are copies of a soup recipe.
3. Libertarians have some scary ### ideas.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
If you're a primary source guy, everything you could ever want to know about it is right here. To see the final version click "enrolled Senate bill"DId we ever get a copy of the legislation posted or are we still just reacting to the
rockaction
Footballguy
No. They're worried about judicial sanctions, so they act preemptively. And I'm kind of right here.
I get what you're saying, but this seems to be following the exact pattern my ignorant ### thought it would. I didn't even know the context, and could figure out immediately why they passed a haphazard-### bill.
State courts rule against gay marriage bans.
Now gay marriage is OK, likely under EP.
EP will now be enforced by court against vendors because once the step is made toward a protected class, it will be judicially enforced. You will bake the cake, like in other jurisdictions. Political pressures are brought to bear on the political class, and they oblige from the right.
Maybe I need to go to bed here, but I think I get it.
I also think your remedy is right, and palatable at least to my politics.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I think I see where you're going and what you're missing.
Gay marriage comes under EP (according to many courts- Supreme Court decision still pending) because issuing marriage licenses a government action. But it can't and won't impact private actors. If it did there could be no country clubs that don't admit Jews, no nightclubs that don't admit ugly/old/fat people, no frats that don't admit women, etc. The only way to extend those sorts of things is through legislation. That's why when we collectively decided we wanted to stop hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race in the 1960s we had to pass the Civil Rights Act even though the Supreme Court had already ruled a decade earlier that public schools can't discriminate. Congress couldn't even point to the Equal Protection Clause as the authorization for the Civil Rights Act ... it had to come up with a whole nutty argument that discrimination burdens interstate commerce and thus Congress was authorized to legislate it away under the Commerce Clause.
Obviously a state constitution could be amended to go further than the federal one and ban discrimination by private actors, but it's hard to imagine that happening in Indiana, and in any case if you could get that kind of consensus together in a particular state you'd be well past what you need to simply overturn the state's RFRA or whatever.
Make sense?
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
I remember this. Thanks for the clarification about state human rights/civil liberties laws that are drafted legislatively. It caused me to go back and look up what the New Mexico and Oregon suits are based on. It seems to be state law, legislatively.
So yes, it makes sense. Those seem to be what the cake baking comes up against. I'm just wondering, though, about Indiana…I'll have to look it up. If it's an empty gesture, then it's an empty gesture and should be condemned as such. (Or praised as political fortification, depending on your view of it.)
The Commish
Footballguy
Thanks!If you're a primary source guy, everything you could ever want to know about it is right here. To see the final version click "enrolled Senate bill"DId we ever get a copy of the legislation posted or are we still just reacting to the
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yup, there would have to be a state or local law banning discrimination against gays. FWIW there are a few places in Indiana that do have such laws, and it's not clear how this law will interact with those. Personally, even for people opposed to anti-discrimination laws at the state/fed level, I don't know that the logic extends to the municipal level. I view those almost like zoning restrictions- communities have a right to define themselves and what sort of businesses they welcome. If you want to run a discriminatory business just open it 5 miles down the road, same way you would if you wanted to open a dildo store or a huge nightclub in a place that didn't want it.
timschochet
Footballguy
Again, those like rockaction and Ivan K who are arguing in defense of this law from the libertarian standpoint of a business' right to choose who it will do business with are doing so in a vacuum. It's ss if they're ignoring the last century altogether, regulation after regulation, restriction after restriction. Suddenly when it comes to gays we have to apply this principle that we haven't applied in decades.
timschochet
Footballguy
And I'm glad you brought up zoning laws, Tobias. How dare cities have zoning laws, and parking restrictions? By what natural right? And why isn't rockaction angrily protesting such laws as a violation of our freedom?
rockaction
Footballguy
I think you've been in enough threads with me to know how laissez-faire I veer and that I'm not just picking and choosing. I don't even like the New Deal.
The only exception I make -- and it's entirely illogical -- is race, and that's because of our nation's history. It's ugly, and our historical embarrassment.
rockaction
Footballguy
Classical liberal. I was just typing that, ironically. Zoning laws are okay by Buckley, he's written convincingly, and they're okay by me.
What's got your dander up this morning?
The Commish
Footballguy
So I read this thing....several times because, well, I'm not a lawyer. I don't see the big deal. It appears rather "toothless". The big difference I see is that "for profit" entities are extended the same benefit as not for profit. The opponents of this thing say that one shouldn't be able to use "religion" as a reason not to serve a person in their establishment. Why?Thanks!If you're a primary source guy, everything you could ever want to know about it is right here. To see the final version click "enrolled Senate bill"DId we ever get a copy of the legislation posted or are we still just reacting to the
First, I struggle to see how an issue filling these criteria would ever make it to court. It seems to me, the only way this makes it to this level of the judicial system is if the customer is adamant about being served by the establishment even though they are fully aware the establishment has no desire to work with them. Why would the customer insist on a partnership like that? The last person I want to work with is one that doesn't want to work with me.
Second, let's say we can justify a rational reason that it makes it to court. Is "religion" as an excuse really bad for the plaintiff in this case? Personally, I'd welcome it...especially in a jury trial. It'd be an avenue to shine a light on blanket bigotry and would go a long way in helping draw the "line" folks are asking about above. FWIW, I agree with the line mentioned above. Bakery? Can't deny a birthday cake to people. Want a cake in the shape of a big dong for a bachelorette party? Sorry, not doing it.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
A little bit of talk from supporters about Indiana being a place that values inclusiveness and welcomes diversity of lifestyles would go a long way for them. Then they can frame the argument about having to value freedom of religious beliefs, even when they can end up being hurtful. Sort of along the lines of the ACLU defending Nazi paraders. That at least would make people think about the difficult times when conflicting freedoms bump up against one another.
But I'm not hearing much along those lines and the absence of it pretty much tells that part of the country that does value inclusiveness to minorities to "stick it." Gay people have been second class citizens in a lot of ways until very recently and some acknowledgment of their understandable sensitivity about this law would really be appreciated.
But I'm not hearing much along those lines and the absence of it pretty much tells that part of the country that does value inclusiveness to minorities to "stick it." Gay people have been second class citizens in a lot of ways until very recently and some acknowledgment of their understandable sensitivity about this law would really be appreciated.
timschochet
Footballguy
Because I think you're picking and choosing. You're not the only one of course; I'm not attacking YOU in particular, just your position. It's as if you've been asleep for the last century and you just woke up. We don't live in that lassez faire world you're defending (we never did but that's a different story.) It's a similar argument to the people who respond to the question of gay marriage by saying "I don't believe the government should be regulating ANY marriage." Well guess what? The government does regulate marriage and always has. So now what? Shall we discriminate against gays based on an idealistic principle which we don't apply anywhere else? That's what the practical results of such a position are, and it's the same here.
rockaction
Footballguy
Eh, you're picking at a bigotry that doesn't exist and trying to expose something that doesn't really exist. It's unbecoming and a bit silly. I actually said in a thread that I would keep "banging keyboards" until I was satisfied that I'd done all I could do against administrative justice and the New Deal. What changed?
Why play a tolerance for racial compulsion against me? Must I be that ideologically rigid and stupid?
I've been talking about no benefits for ANY married couple since '95 and in college. I wasn't even 22. You can say I saw this gay marriage avalanche coming or that I just disagreed with using tax policy and normative incentives as a social construct. I'd go with the latter, frankly, but you can't possibly know that.
Also, personal imputations are a bit unbecoming, no? I don't psychoanalyze your positions.
timschochet
Footballguy
rockaction, I made no personal reference to you. When I wrote "you" I was referring to everyone who has made a similar argument (there are lots here and elsewhere- including me! Not too long ago I held the same position.)
I support what Indiana is doing here and I really think this is a good starting point to start resisting this "pro-gay" movement. I think you can only push so far before the pendulum starts swinging the other way. Of course, Hollywood and the media is going to try and bury this legislature. But I honestly think this is a step in the right direction and hope we can continue to build from here.
rockaction
Footballguy
I'm fine and in a dandy mood, but you did call me out a couple times if you go back through the thread. You can hopefully understand my confusion.
Also, marriage equality vs. non-recognition is still an ongoing debate in the commentariat at reason, which is where I take my cues from. Not the authors, but the diehards. The authors are trying to consciously shape policy, the commenters just say what they want.
This is exactly why I support this bill. The legislature is there and I think on a case-by-case basis this should be enforced. Some guy shouldn't have to bake a wedding cake for two men if he's Christian. Some guy should be able to deny service to two-men if they come into his restaurant kissing and giggling.
But if you get self-respecting homosexuals, the kind that aren't trying to flaunt it and sticking to the status quoe. It would be a complete idiot and jerk move restrict their business. If they aren't making you do anything you morally object to or doing anything that is going to cause a social disturbance, let them be. But there's a line to be drawn.
timschochet
Footballguy
I've posted way too much in this thread. Now that Em has entered the fray I'm out.
You're welcome, fellas. Give me a PM if you ever need me to take out the trash again.
(Just kidding, Tim.)
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Exciting news! We have our first test case to see how market pressures work on bigots. Some pizza joint in northern Indiana has said they won't cater gay weddings. Apparetly they won't refuse service to gays, but they "don't want to be beat over the head to go along with something they [the gays] choose."
It appears that the free exchange of ideas fostered by modern technology is treating their perspective with exactly the level of respect and dignity it warrants.
That's really childish (referring to that Yelp page). Why can't people the right to dislike or disagree with something? Why does it seem 'normal' to pressure all of society into a single belief?
There's probably a million pizza places in that town. Get over one Christian owner's opinion. I'm sure he's more than willing to agree to disagree. So how does the sophisticated gay community respond? By antagonizing him over the internet and putting homosexual pictures on his business' Yelp page.
There's probably a million pizza places in that town. Get over one Christian owner's opinion. I'm sure he's more than willing to agree to disagree. So how does the sophisticated gay community respond? By antagonizing him over the internet and putting homosexual pictures on his business' Yelp page.
Last edited by a moderator:
Scoresman
Footballguy
There is no way in hell a gay wedding is going to be choose a pizza joint as their caterer.
what kind of redneck weddings do they "cater" pizza to.
bigbottom
Footballguy
It's my understanding that there are a number of local city ordinances in Indiana that prohibit such discrimination in places of public accommodation.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Pizza for a wedding reception? How gay is that?
Similar threads
