Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

[The Rabbi]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Nice post.
But it wont help. The Left simply believes--believes--that the sole purpose of this law is to enable business owners to post "No Gays Allowed" signs. of course it is a monstrous lie. But that never stopped lefties before.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Nice post.
But it wont help. The Left simply believes--believes--that the sole purpose of this law is to enable business owners to post "No Gays Allowed" signs. of course it is a monstrous lie. But that never stopped lefties before.

They can do more than post the sign, they can act on it, and defend it court with the help of this new law.

 

[Jarhead]

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Probably because this law would allow someone to post their "No Darkies" sign and defend it court not by saying they are racist in business, that's illegal, but because Darkies are spawns of the Devil, and get away with it. They don't even have to have a faith that says that, they simply have to believe it. A tweet would be enough, and they don't even need that much.

First of all, it is rude to call them a derogatory term as you did....twice in your post. I know, you are claiming that you are using a word another would likely use on this board. It is quite transparent.....but putting your hidden racist attitude aside......

It will be quite difficult to prove in a court of law that ones religion calls for the non serving of a black man seeing as there is no religion that has that as one of its "directives".

You seem to ignore that one must prove it was not discrimination in court of law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Actually we have responded with facts and situations. You simply ignore them since they are inconvenient.
As to Hutch, every law comes into effect after the fact. What is your point here?

Wow!
The point? Went right over your head after 60 some pages.

 

[The Rabbi]

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Actually we have responded with facts and situations. You simply ignore them since they are inconvenient.
As to Hutch, every law comes into effect after the fact. What is your point here?

Wow!
The point? Went right over your head after 60 some pages.

/fail.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Probably because this law would allow someone to post their "No Darkies" sign and defend it court not by saying they are racist in business, that's illegal, but because Darkies are spawns of the Devil, and get away with it. They don't even have to have a faith that says that, they simply have to believe it. A tweet would be enough, and they don't even need that much.

First of all, it is rude to call them a derogatory term as you did....twice in your post. I know, you are claiming that you are using a word a this board. It is quite transparent.....but putting your hidden racist attitude aside......

It will be quite difficult to prove in a court of law that ones religion calls for the non serving of a black man seeing as there is no religion that has that as one of its "directives".

You seem to ignore that one must prove it was not discrimination in court of law.

You missed the point, it won't be difficult because this law is written so poorly that just about anything counts as "religion". It doesn't even have to have a name, you just have to believe it.

 

[Jarhead]

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Probably because this law would allow someone to post their "No Darkies" sign and defend it court not by saying they are racist in business, that's illegal, but because Darkies are spawns of the Devil, and get away with it. They don't even have to have a faith that says that, they simply have to believe it. A tweet would be enough, and they don't even need that much.

First of all, it is rude to call them a derogatory term as you did....twice in your post. I know, you are claiming that you are using a word a this board. It is quite transparent.....but putting your hidden racist attitude aside......

It will be quite difficult to prove in a court of law that ones religion calls for the non serving of a black man seeing as there is no religion that has that as one of its "directives".

You seem to ignore that one must prove it was not discrimination in court of law.

You missed the point, it won't be difficult because this law is written so poorly that just about anything counts as "religion". It doesn't even have to have a name, you just have to believe it.

the law should NOT mention a religion...nor should it mention a lifestyle, race, or anything. The law is for everyone.

The point you are missing is that there is a justice system...and that justice system is what is used to determine if discrimination exists in an act.

And if some skinhead is brought to court, he will be laughed at by the judge if he tries to claim he has a religion that does not permit him to serve a black man.

And he will be found guilty of discrimination.

I am a bit concerned that you feel a law should identify certain races, religions and nationalities.

I thought this is the UNITED states of America. No red states no blue states...ONE nation.

Oh yeah....just words...just words.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Actually we have responded with facts and situations. You simply ignore them since they are inconvenient.
As to Hutch, every law comes into effect after the fact. What is your point here?

Wow!
The point? Went right over your head after 60 some pages.

/fail.

Yes you have. My positions are clearly stated while you have nothing to say at all of the purpose or appplication of the law. I call it a pathway to legalized discrimination and you rant about stupid lefties

 

[Jarhead]

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Nice post.
But it wont help. The Left simply believes--believes--that the sole purpose of this law is to enable business owners to post "No Gays Allowed" signs. of course it is a monstrous lie. But that never stopped lefties before.

They can do more than post the sign, they can act on it, and defend it court with the help of this new law.

Yes, they can post the sign.....and yes they can use it as a defense in court.

But they dam well better be able to prove it in court or they will be found guilty.

I have news for you...with or without the law, you will have some assholes out there who will discriminate.

This law allows those that are truly trying to adhere to their religious beliefs to have their first amendment right in tact.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Actually we have responded with facts and situations. You simply ignore them since they are inconvenient.
As to Hutch, every law comes into effect after the fact. What is your point here?

Wow!
The point? Went right over your head after 60 some pages.

/fail.

Yes you have. My positions are clearly stated while you have nothing to say at all of the purpose or appplication of the law. I call it a pathway to legalized discrimination and you rant about stupid lefties

I have posted numerous times on applications of the law that have zero to do with gays or discrimination. You fail to comprehend any of them. Thus your psots are failures.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Unlikely scenario at Best.
Who would go to a kosher establishment asking for non kosher service?
A kosher establishment is obviously offering services that are based on religious practice.
None of the cases that have centered around this issue were religious based. A simple solution would be for a business to advertise as such if they are so value driven.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Unlikely scenario at Best.
Who would go to a kosher establishment asking for non kosher service?
A kosher establishment is obviously offering services that are based on religious practice.
None of the cases that have centered around this issue were religious based. A simple solution would be for a business to advertise as such if they are so value driven.

He actually explained why it would be likely.
The fact that it is unlikely is irrelevant. IT could happen.

 

[Jarhead]

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Probably because this law would allow someone to post their "No Darkies" sign and defend it court not by saying they are racist in business, that's illegal, but because Darkies are spawns of the Devil, and get away with it. They don't even have to have a faith that says that, they simply have to believe it. A tweet would be enough, and they don't even need that much.

First of all, it is rude to call them a derogatory term as you did....twice in your post. I know, you are claiming that you are using a word a this board. It is quite transparent.....but putting your hidden racist attitude aside......

It will be quite difficult to prove in a court of law that ones religion calls for the non serving of a black man seeing as there is no religion that has that as one of its "directives".

You seem to ignore that one must prove it was not discrimination in court of law.

You missed the point, it won't be difficult because this law is written so poorly that just about anything counts as "religion". It doesn't even have to have a name, you just have to believe it.

your concern that it does not identify a religion really bothers me.

You know, a law was passed that protects WOMEN from physically abusive men. I understand why it is wrong, but ANY unprovoked physical is wrong.

But now there is a special law that protects women.

I go to the gym 5 days a week. So does my wife. I am stronger than her and can certainly take her if I wanted to....but I never would.

However, she benches over 150 pounds on a flat bench. My bother in law is120 pounds soaking wet. He has never been to a gym and has legs thinner than my arms.

If he married my wife, he would have no special law protecting him, but she has one protecting her. Yet she can beat the shit out of him if she wanted to.

Seems a law identifying a group is discrimination in itself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Probably because this law would allow someone to post their "No Darkies" sign and defend it court not by saying they are racist in business, that's illegal, but because Darkies are spawns of the Devil, and get away with it. They don't even have to have a faith that says that, they simply have to believe it. A tweet would be enough, and they don't even need that much.

First of all, it is rude to call them a derogatory term as you did....twice in your post. I know, you are claiming that you are using a word a this board. It is quite transparent.....but putting your hidden racist attitude aside......

It will be quite difficult to prove in a court of law that ones religion calls for the non serving of a black man seeing as there is no religion that has that as one of its "directives".

You seem to ignore that one must prove it was not discrimination in court of law.

You missed the point, it won't be difficult because this law is written so poorly that just about anything counts as "religion". It doesn't even have to have a name, you just have to believe it.

the law should NOT mention a religion...nor should it mention a lifestyle, race, or anything. The law is for everyone.

The point you are missing is that there is a justice system...and that justice system is what is used to determine if discrimination exists in an act.

And if some skinhead is brought to court, he will be laughed at by the judge if he tries to claim he has a religion that does not permit him to serve a black man.

And he will be found guilty of discrimination.

I am a bit concerned that you feel a law should identify certain races, religions and nationalities.

I thought this is the UNITED states of America. No red states no blue states...ONE nation.

Oh yeah....just words...just words.

There is already a religion based on race: Creativity religion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, you are already dead wrong.

 

[Jarhead]

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Unlikely scenario at Best.
Who would go to a kosher establishment asking for non kosher service?
A kosher establishment is obviously offering services that are based on religious practice.
None of the cases that have centered around this issue were religious based. A simple solution would be for a business to advertise as such if they are so value driven.

I explained why. He is the best in town.

Something being "not likely" does not mean it is not an example of why the law is necessary

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Nice post.
But it wont help. The Left simply believes--believes--that the sole purpose of this law is to enable business owners to post "No Gays Allowed" signs. of course it is a monstrous lie. But that never stopped lefties before.

They can do more than post the sign, they can act on it, and defend it court with the help of this new law.

Yes, they can post the sign.....and yes they can use it as a defense in court.

But they dam well better be able to prove it in court or they will be found guilty.

I have news for you...with or without the law, you will have some assholes out there who will discriminate.

This law allows those that are truly trying to adhere to their religious beliefs to have their first amendment right in tact.

The first amendment does not give religions carte blanche to break other laws.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Actually we have responded with facts and situations. You simply ignore them since they are inconvenient.
As to Hutch, every law comes into effect after the fact. What is your point here?

Wow!
The point? Went right over your head after 60 some pages.

/fail.

Yes you have. My positions are clearly stated while you have nothing to say at all of the purpose or appplication of the law. I call it a pathway to legalized discrimination and you rant about stupid lefties

I have posted numerous times on applications of the law that have zero to do with gays or discrimination. You fail to comprehend any of them. Thus your psots are failures.

I will begrudgingly accept your surrender.

 

[Jarhead]

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Probably because this law would allow someone to post their "No Darkies" sign and defend it court not by saying they are racist in business, that's illegal, but because Darkies are spawns of the Devil, and get away with it. They don't even have to have a faith that says that, they simply have to believe it. A tweet would be enough, and they don't even need that much.

First of all, it is rude to call them a derogatory term as you did....twice in your post. I know, you are claiming that you are using a word a this board. It is quite transparent.....but putting your hidden racist attitude aside......

It will be quite difficult to prove in a court of law that ones religion calls for the non serving of a black man seeing as there is no religion that has that as one of its "directives".

You seem to ignore that one must prove it was not discrimination in court of law.

You missed the point, it won't be difficult because this law is written so poorly that just about anything counts as "religion". It doesn't even have to have a name, you just have to believe it.

the law should NOT mention a religion...nor should it mention a lifestyle, race, or anything. The law is for everyone.

The point you are missing is that there is a justice system...and that justice system is what is used to determine if discrimination exists in an act.

And if some skinhead is brought to court, he will be laughed at by the judge if he tries to claim he has a religion that does not permit him to serve a black man.

And he will be found guilty of discrimination.

I am a bit concerned that you feel a law should identify certain races, religions and nationalities.

I thought this is the UNITED states of America. No red states no blue states...ONE nation.

Oh yeah....just words...just words.

There is already a religion based on race: Creativity religion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, you are already dead wrong.

I am well aware of the religion. It is not deemed a real religion in a court of law. In the united states, any organization that is based on racism has no legal standing.

I thought you were well aware of the laws of our land.

I guess I was mistaklen.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Unlikely scenario at Best.
Who would go to a kosher establishment asking for non kosher service?
A kosher establishment is obviously offering services that are based on religious practice.
None of the cases that have centered around this issue were religious based. A simple solution would be for a business to advertise as such if they are so value driven.

I explained why. He is the best in town.

Something being "not likely" does not mean it is not an example of why the law is necessary

Kosher is inherintly religious. I think the owner is well within his right to inform the patron that they only specialize in kosher foods. You can't go into a business and demand something they don't offer.
I think bakeries offer cake.

 

[Jarhead]

Actually we have responded with facts and situations. You simply ignore them since they are inconvenient.
As to Hutch, every law comes into effect after the fact. What is your point here?

Wow!
The point? Went right over your head after 60 some pages.

/fail.

Yes you have. My positions are clearly stated while you have nothing to say at all of the purpose or appplication of the law. I call it a pathway to legalized discrimination and you rant about stupid lefties

I have posted numerous times on applications of the law that have zero to do with gays or discrimination. You fail to comprehend any of them. Thus your psots are failures.

I will begrudgingly accept your surrender.

Hutch. I have seen some of your posts. You seem be a reasonable individual.
I have a question for you.....

if a Kosher man refuses to buy from a non kosher deli that is owned by a black man....is the Kosher man discriminating?

And if not.......how do you know?