Arkansas lawmakers pass religious-belief bill

The law is not a complete defense to discrimination. Most of these complaints are nonsense. Muslims are upset?

Your right to live your lifestyle stops when you start demanding that I violate my religious beliefs to accommodate you.

It's not a matter of discrimination. No gays are being prevented from doing anything. It's a matter of forcing people to assist in celebrating a lifestyle they disapprove of.

This reeks of the Sandra Fluke fake controversy over forcing others to pay for her birth control.

Why is so much of the liberal agenda based on forcing people to do things they find morally objectionable?
 
These two-faced politicans are going to have to make a choice. Do they stand with the people who voted them into office or with anti-Christian hate groups. Your choice guys, but we're watching and taking notes.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
The law is not a complete defense to discrimination. Most of these complaints are nonsense. Muslims are upset?

Your right to live your lifestyle stops when you start demanding that I violate my religious beliefs to accommodate you.
More...

Again, same argument as in Loving v Virginia.

Doesn't work.

Sorry.
 
No wonder liberals are always so angry. It's difficult to keep it all this PC-code compliance straight.

On the one hand, it's hateful bigotry for religious people in Indiana not to want to associate with gays on grounds of principle.

On the other however, it's admirable for liberals to boycott Indiana to avoid associating with religious people on grounds of principle.

Kind of like, it's ok for rappers to use the N word, the C word and B word for women and to call white people any insulting thing they want. Let a young (white) college student use the N word however and it is the equivalent of the Holocaust.
 
dbphoenix said:
Again, same argument as in Loving v Virginia.

Doesn't work.

Sorry.
More...

The Loving vs. Virginia state had nothing to do with religious beliefs. Loving and his wife were tried on the grounds that their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored".

This was not a case about a private business denying services on religious grounds. It was about prosecution based on state law that violated civil rights at the federal level. The case however is cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that Loving vs. Virginia has nothing to do with the Indiana religious law. Loving vs. Virginia would in no way be cited as a precedent if the Indiana law was taken to court. The Indiana law is very much in alignment with the similar 1993 Federal law... it just has a few additional items which are creating the furor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
 
dbphoenix said:
Again, same argument as in Loving v Virginia.

Doesn't work.

Sorry.
More...

Loving v. Va was cited by a couple of courts in strained efforts to rule that homo marriage was a constitutional right. The Supreme Court has yet to confrim that view.

This dispute does not deal with preventing gays from doing anything. It merely limits their ability to use legal terrorism to force others to join in their celebrations.

Running a business is not the equivalent of operating a taxicab for example. A common carrier has a legal obligation to accommodate all customers, within limits. A businessman, say a pizza parlor, isn't obligated to serve everyone. They could say no one openly carrying a firearm could enter. Would liberals be organizing a boycott over that?
 
The dispute has to do with discriminating against others on the basis of an alleged religious belief. Groups other than gays see that. Hence the objections. One can come up with all sorts of religious rationalizations for refusing to follow the law. And many have.

Running a business is exactly like operating a taxicab if the business is public. If it's public, it must follow the law. If it doesn't want to follow the law, then it has the option of going private.

Do you know nothing of law?
 
In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances."

In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top