b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Apr 4, 2015 0:31:09 GMT -5
They take a huge amount out for fees. If you have given to the lady on here with dental issues you would see that.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Apr 4, 2015 2:25:21 GMT -5
If that friends thing didn't pan out, there's always the California Penal System. The two of them could swap.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,123
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 4, 2015 11:14:05 GMT -5
not following what, if anything, that has to do with the OP. or any OTHER subject on this board, for that matter.
|
|
lynnerself
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 11:42:29 GMT -5
Posts: 4,166
|
Post by lynnerself on Apr 4, 2015 15:46:03 GMT -5
How does anyone know if Go Fund me money actually reaches the cause it is supposedly set up for? It seems ripe for fraud.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,123
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 4, 2015 16:26:38 GMT -5
How does anyone know if Go Fund me money actually reaches the cause it is supposedly set up for? It seems ripe for fraud. They don't, but they also don't really care. They gave to this one to make a political statement about supporting the right to discriminate. They don't actually care who's pocket the money ends up in. Neither does GoFundMe, all they care about is skimming off their 5%. to use Paul's logic, this could be 10 people, pressing donate 300 times each. it doesn't say anything, other than that there are people out there that care a lot more about their "right" to bigotry than their own money and time.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Apr 4, 2015 20:34:13 GMT -5
They don't, but they also don't really care. They gave to this one to make a political statement about supporting the right to discriminate. They don't actually care who's pocket the money ends up in. Neither does GoFundMe, all they care about is skimming off their 5%. to use Paul's logic, this could be 10 people, pressing donate 300 times each. it doesn't say anything, other than that there are people out there that care a lot more about their "right" to bigotry than their own money and time. Makes sense- since money is now speech
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 5, 2015 12:18:16 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,123
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 5, 2015 12:25:36 GMT -5
if so, he too has run afoul of the law. edit: see, the law works for the pizza shop, too!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 5, 2015 14:31:55 GMT -5
not following what, if anything, that has to do with the OP. or any OTHER subject on this board, for that matter. Icelandic Woman is bemoaning the "stupidity" of people who donated money to the Memories Pizza funds drive. I believe b2r's point is that there are far stupider things that people (and governments) can spend their money on.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 5, 2015 15:00:16 GMT -5
That is how I took it. (Although to be fair, supporting the right to discriminate is pretty stupid, so the question of "far stupider" is debatable. More stupid, perhaps.) The only thing I would really contest is the use of "stupider" in the first place. Growing usage does not make it right.
(As another aside, I agree that the pizza co-owner (?) did not go out to make a bigoted statement. They were asked a loaded hypothetical question and answered it. That answer may make them bigoted, and it may make them stupid for answering in the first place, but the issue should probably never have been brought to them.)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 5, 2015 15:06:11 GMT -5
This really does reaffirm the stupidity of so many people here in the US. With so many worthy causes they could give money to, like animal causes and veterans organizations and homeless shelters, this is what they are giving money to? Pathetic and sad! This is one of the foulest, most cynical comments I've ever seen you write. These are people making charitable donations to a cause they feel is worthy. These are acts of kindness. Your criticism is foolish and unbecoming of you. Firstly, your assumption that these donations somehow detract from donors' other charitable contributions is utterly baseless. Should we condemn your "stupidity" for buying that new pair of shoes you wanted instead of donating it to a worthy cause? How about that fancy computer you're typing at? Are you reaffirming your stupidity for not buying a cheap used computer and spending the hundreds you'd save on a worthy cause? By your logic, every dollar of disposable income not spent on a veteran or homeless shelter is just another dollar not spent on a worthy cause. Secondly, who are you to judge how people give to charity? Should we condemn your poor sense to give to animal shelters when so many of our fellow human beings are out there starving to death? Are you stupid for giving to your local school's "buy uniforms for the team" funds drive because that same money could be spent on inoculating the poor in Laos? Let people give charitably. Appreciate charity. People are not stupid for wanting to help, and they're not stupid for wanting to help in ways different from how you want to help. Shame on anyone who "liked" your comment as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 19:21:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 18:02:15 GMT -5
This really does reaffirm the stupidity of so many people here in the US. With so many worthy causes they could give money to, like animal causes and veterans organizations and homeless shelters, this is what they are giving money to? Pathetic and sad! This is one of the foulest, most cynical comments I've ever seen you write. These are people making charitable donations to a cause they feel is worthy. These are acts of kindness. Your criticism is foolish and unbecoming of you. Firstly, your assumption that these donations somehow detract from donors' other charitable contributions is utterly baseless. Should we condemn your "stupidity" for buying that new pair of shoes you wanted instead of donating it to a worthy cause? How about that fancy computer you're typing at? Are you reaffirming your stupidity for not buying a cheap used computer and spending the hundreds you'd save on a worthy cause? By your logic, every dollar of disposable income not spent on a veteran or homeless shelter is just another dollar not spent on a worthy cause. Secondly, who are you to judge how people give to charity? Should we condemn your poor sense to give to animal shelters when so many of our fellow human beings are out there starving to death? Are you stupid for giving to your local school's "buy uniforms for the team" funds drive because that same money could be spent on inoculating the poor in Laos?Let people give charitably. Appreciate charity. People are not stupid for wanting to help, and they're not stupid for wanting to help in ways different from how you want to help. Shame on anyone who "liked" your comment as well.Charity should be for good causes. Period. Discrimination and bigotry are not good causes. It's just that simple. If someone wants to donate to a cause of evil... fine. I would never argue against anyone's right to spend their money as they see fit... but don't call it "charity". Shame on you for not knowing that.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 5, 2015 18:15:38 GMT -5
Yes, $842,387 not going to Ted Cruz's presidential campaign.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,123
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 5, 2015 21:00:09 GMT -5
not following what, if anything, that has to do with the OP. or any OTHER subject on this board, for that matter. Icelandic Woman is bemoaning the "stupidity" of people who donated money to the Memories Pizza funds drive. I believe b2r's point is that there are far stupider things that people (and governments) can spend their money on. ah. thanks.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,123
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 5, 2015 21:02:27 GMT -5
This really does reaffirm the stupidity of so many people here in the US. With so many worthy causes they could give money to, like animal causes and veterans organizations and homeless shelters, this is what they are giving money to? Pathetic and sad! This is one of the foulest, most cynical comments I've ever seen you write. These are people making charitable donations to a cause they feel is worthy. These are acts of kindness. Your criticism is foolish and unbecoming of you. Firstly, your assumption that these donations somehow detract from donors' other charitable contributions is utterly baseless. Should we condemn your "stupidity" for buying that new pair of shoes you wanted instead of donating it to a worthy cause? How about that fancy computer you're typing at? Are you reaffirming your stupidity for not buying a cheap used computer and spending the hundreds you'd save on a worthy cause? By your logic, every dollar of disposable income not spent on a veteran or homeless shelter is just another dollar not spent on a worthy cause. Secondly, who are you to judge how people give to charity? Should we condemn your poor sense to give to animal shelters when so many of our fellow human beings are out there starving to death? Are you stupid for giving to your local school's "buy uniforms for the team" funds drive because that same money could be spent on inoculating the poor in Laos? Let people give charitably. Appreciate charity. People are not stupid for wanting to help, and they're not stupid for wanting to help in ways different from how you want to help. Shame on anyone who "liked" your comment as well. i am not ashamed, but only because i perceive this as a "mean girl" campaign against gays. nothing kind about it.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Apr 5, 2015 21:30:28 GMT -5
This really does reaffirm the stupidity of so many people here in the US. With so many worthy causes they could give money to, like animal causes and veterans organizations and homeless shelters, this is what they are giving money to? Pathetic and sad! This is one of the foulest, most cynical comments I've ever seen you write. These are people making charitable donations to a cause they feel is worthy. These are acts of kindness. Your criticism is foolish and unbecoming of you. Firstly, your assumption that these donations somehow detract from donors' other charitable contributions is utterly baseless. Should we condemn your "stupidity" for buying that new pair of shoes you wanted instead of donating it to a worthy cause? How about that fancy computer you're typing at? Are you reaffirming your stupidity for not buying a cheap used computer and spending the hundreds you'd save on a worthy cause? By your logic, every dollar of disposable income not spent on a veteran or homeless shelter is just another dollar not spent on a worthy cause. Secondly, who are you to judge how people give to charity? Should we condemn your poor sense to give to animal shelters when so many of our fellow human beings are out there starving to death? Are you stupid for giving to your local school's "buy uniforms for the team" funds drive because that same money could be spent on inoculating the poor in Laos? Let people give charitably. Appreciate charity. People are not stupid for wanting to help, and they're not stupid for wanting to help in ways different from how you want to help. Shame on anyone who "liked" your comment as well. Acts of kindness? Bigoted assholes- calling it charity is quite offensive.
And BTW I would 100% feed a starving animal over a starving baby. Animals don't have the capacity to be evil- they rely on instinct. Humans on the other hand are capable of the worst evil possible. Animals are pretty much more moral then humans.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 5, 2015 21:40:39 GMT -5
Charity should be for good causes. Period. Discrimination and bigotry are not good causes. It's just that simple. If someone wants to donate to a cause of evil... fine. I would never argue against anyone's right to spend their money as they see fit... but don't call it "charity". Shame on you for not knowing that. The greatest bigots are these so-called warriors for tolerance, demanding that everyone accept as moral and right the very same things they do. More to the point: unless you think hacked websites, trashed business ratings, threats, and being forced to close are an appropriate response to a store owner's "bigotry", it seems to me there's no dispute in this thread that Memories Pizza is being persecuted for their beliefs. One doesn't have to share those beliefs to want to help remedy that wrong. I revile homosexuality, but even I wouldn't be cold-hearted enough to chide the public as "stupid" for donating to a bullied homosexual teen. And I would certainly acknowledge it as charity.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 5, 2015 21:53:57 GMT -5
Charity should be for good causes. Period. Discrimination and bigotry are not good causes. It's just that simple. If someone wants to donate to a cause of evil... fine. I would never argue against anyone's right to spend their money as they see fit... but don't call it "charity". Shame on you for not knowing that. The greatest bigots are these so-called warriors for tolerance, demanding that everyone accept as moral and right the very same things they do.More to the point: unless you think hacked websites, trashed business ratings, threats, and being forced to close are an appropriate response to a store owner's "bigotry", it seems to me there's no dispute in this thread that Memories Pizza is being persecuted for their beliefs. One doesn't have to share those beliefs to want to help remedy that wrong. I revile homosexuality, but even I wouldn't be cold-hearted enough to chide the public as "stupid" for donating to a bullied homosexual teen. And I would certainly acknowledge it as charity. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care at all what behavior anyone considers moral. I do care about equal treatment under the law, and will argue in favor of that every time.
I think Memories Pizza was stupid to answer the question, but there is also no doubt that the opposition to them should have been more honest and reasonable. There is an argument to be made that the donations could be to support a business that did not deserve all of the response they got, rather than that the donors in fact support bigotry and discrimination. Without knowing either way what the donors actually think, the best decision for me is to let it go.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 5, 2015 21:55:33 GMT -5
Acts of kindness? Bigoted assholes- calling it charity is quite offensive.
And BTW I would 100% feed a starving animal over a starving baby. Animals don't have the capacity to be evil- they rely on instinct. Humans on the other hand are capable of the worst evil possible. Animals are pretty much more moral then humans.
The next time you call people "bigoted assholes", try not doing it in the same breath as you denounce humans as worth less than animals. Somebody might then give the slightest care about your opinion on the matter. You know what else animals can't do? Post fictitious OPs without a word of acknowledgement or regret.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 5, 2015 22:08:45 GMT -5
The greatest bigots are these so-called warriors for tolerance, demanding that everyone accept as moral and right the very same things they do.More to the point: unless you think hacked websites, trashed business ratings, threats, and being forced to close are an appropriate response to a store owner's "bigotry", it seems to me there's no dispute in this thread that Memories Pizza is being persecuted for their beliefs. One doesn't have to share those beliefs to want to help remedy that wrong. I revile homosexuality, but even I wouldn't be cold-hearted enough to chide the public as "stupid" for donating to a bullied homosexual teen. And I would certainly acknowledge it as charity. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care at all what behavior anyone considers moral. I do care about equal treatment under the law, and will argue in favor of that every time.
I think Memories Pizza was stupid to answer the question, but there is also no doubt that the opposition to them should have been more honest and reasonable. There is an argument to be made that the donations could be to support a business that did not deserve all of the response they got, rather than that the donors in fact support bigotry and discrimination. Without knowing either way what the donors actually think, the best decision for me is to let it go.
I can't speak for you personally. Nationally, it's far deeper than "equal treatment under the law". You, I, and everyone here knows that this would be a non-event if the circumstances were, e.g., a storeowner claiming she wouldn't sell knives to a religious cult that practiced the sacrifice of animals, even if this cult had protected status under the law. The story has teeth because, in a grand bit of irony, the "tolerant" side of the argument desperately wants to punish an individual for not tolerating that which they vehemently believe should be tolerated. Why do you think the words "bigot", "hate", "idiot", etc. are strewn far and wide throughout these threads? This is a moral issue. "Equal treatment under the law" is a surface issue. You are correct in your assertion that we don't know what the donors are thinking, and that's just as much reason not to condemn them as "idiots".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 19:21:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 23:04:54 GMT -5
The story has teeth because the left needs a story.
Press coverage has also often falsely implied that religious-freedom legislation gives religious businesses a broad right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, when in fact no such right has ever been recognized under the similar legislation that already exists at the federal level and in many states. As The Washington Examiner points out, “The words ‘gay,’ ‘lesbian’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are nowhere to be found in” its “language,” and “no religious freedom bill has been used successfully to defend discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the 22 years since Congress and states began adopting such laws.”
This is not because of the novelty or rarity of such laws: as The Washington Post’s Hunter Schwarz notes, many states have their own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and “Indiana is actually . . . one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” Instead, religious defenses to gay-rights claims tend to fail because the court finds a “compelling interest” justifying regulation, or finds no “substantial burden” on the business owner, which illustrates the limited reach of these religious freedom statutes as applied to discrimination claims. It is not RFRA, but the First Amendment itself, that has occasionally been relied upon to successfully block discrimination lawsuits, such as in the Supreme Court’s Boys Scouts v. Dale decision, which relied on freedom of expressive association to quash a sexual-orientation discrimination lawsuit, and the Ninth Circuit’s Rodriguez v. Maricopa decision, which relied on the First Amendment to quash a racial harassment lawsuit. When a New Mexico wedding photographer objected to filming the civil-commitment ceremony of a gay couple, her strongest defense was rooted in the First Amendment, not RFRA. cei.org/blog/anti-business-myths-pervade-reporting-religious-freedom-legislation
Next
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 19:21:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 23:09:09 GMT -5
Charity should be for good causes. Period. Discrimination and bigotry are not good causes. It's just that simple. If someone wants to donate to a cause of evil... fine. I would never argue against anyone's right to spend their money as they see fit... but don't call it "charity". Shame on you for not knowing that. The greatest bigots are these so-called warriors for tolerance, demanding that everyone accept as moral and right the very same things they do. More to the point: unless you think hacked websites, trashed business ratings, threats, and being forced to close are an appropriate response to a store owner's "bigotry", it seems to me there's no dispute in this thread that Memories Pizza is being persecuted for their beliefs. One doesn't have to share those beliefs to want to help remedy that wrong. I revile homosexuality, but even I wouldn't be cold-hearted enough to chide the public as "stupid" for donating to a bullied homosexual teen. And I would certainly acknowledge it as charity. Yet you chide people here for being against donating to bigotry. As to the unbolded rest of the post... No one is demanding that "everyone accept as moral and right"... anything. They are demanding equal treatment under the law. People are free to BELIEVE whatever they want. They can freely believe that sex is only moral if it's done for procreation, on Sundays, with the lights out, in a specific position, by married people of opposite gender... if that's what floats their boat. What they can't do is discriminate against others because others have a different belief. And no, I don't think that threats or other lawlesness (the hacking you mentioned, for example), are a legitimate, reasonable or justifiable response. Never have I ever said otherwise.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 5, 2015 23:22:55 GMT -5
The word "bigotry" is being thrown around because that is what it is. "Hate" does not necessarily apply, although it could. "Idiot" could also, depending on the thought process at work. For me, it IS equal treatment under the law. The law in that context should not be concerned with what any individual considers moral. And the story SHOULD HAVE teeth because the principle is too important to ignore, or let go. I stand by my previous statements: 1. Discrimination is by definition the denial of rights and liberties. 2. If rights and liberties can be denied to one, they can be denied to any, or all. 3. The moment that rights or liberties are denied, you cease to have a free society in any sense of the term.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 5, 2015 23:30:16 GMT -5
The story has teeth because the left needs a story.
Press coverage has also often falsely implied that religious-freedom legislation gives religious businesses a broad right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, when in fact no such right has ever been recognized under the similar legislation that already exists at the federal level and in many states. As The Washington Examiner points out, “The words ‘gay,’ ‘lesbian’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are nowhere to be found in” its “language,” and “no religious freedom bill has been used successfully to defend discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the 22 years since Congress and states began adopting such laws.”
This is not because of the novelty or rarity of such laws: as The Washington Post’s Hunter Schwarz notes, many states have their own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and “Indiana is actually . . . one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” Instead, religious defenses to gay-rights claims tend to fail because the court finds a “compelling interest” justifying regulation, or finds no “substantial burden” on the business owner, which illustrates the limited reach of these religious freedom statutes as applied to discrimination claims. It is not RFRA, but the First Amendment itself, that has occasionally been relied upon to successfully block discrimination lawsuits, such as in the Supreme Court’s Boys Scouts v. Dale decision, which relied on freedom of expressive association to quash a sexual-orientation discrimination lawsuit, and the Ninth Circuit’s Rodriguez v. Maricopa decision, which relied on the First Amendment to quash a racial harassment lawsuit. When a New Mexico wedding photographer objected to filming the civil-commitment ceremony of a gay couple, her strongest defense was rooted in the First Amendment, not RFRA. cei.org/blog/anti-business-myths-pervade-reporting-religious-freedom-legislation
Next
Don't most of those states (including the federal government) already outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation? And if that is so, isn't it disingenuous to take the tone this article does?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,474
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 5, 2015 23:33:39 GMT -5
The story has teeth because the left needs a story.
Press coverage has also often falsely implied that religious-freedom legislation gives religious businesses a broad right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, when in fact no such right has ever been recognized under the similar legislation that already exists at the federal level and in many states. As The Washington Examiner points out, “The words ‘gay,’ ‘lesbian’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are nowhere to be found in” its “language,” and “no religious freedom bill has been used successfully to defend discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the 22 years since Congress and states began adopting such laws.”
This is not because of the novelty or rarity of such laws: as The Washington Post’s Hunter Schwarz notes, many states have their own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and “Indiana is actually . . . one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” Instead, religious defenses to gay-rights claims tend to fail because the court finds a “compelling interest” justifying regulation, or finds no “substantial burden” on the business owner, which illustrates the limited reach of these religious freedom statutes as applied to discrimination claims. It is not RFRA, but the First Amendment itself, that has occasionally been relied upon to successfully block discrimination lawsuits, such as in the Supreme Court’s Boys Scouts v. Dale decision, which relied on freedom of expressive association to quash a sexual-orientation discrimination lawsuit, and the Ninth Circuit’s Rodriguez v. Maricopa decision, which relied on the First Amendment to quash a racial harassment lawsuit. When a New Mexico wedding photographer objected to filming the civil-commitment ceremony of a gay couple, her strongest defense was rooted in the First Amendment, not RFRA. cei.org/blog/anti-business-myths-pervade-reporting-religious-freedom-legislation
Next
Someone should have told Eric Miller the original Indiana bill signed into law by Governor Pence was not about discriminating against gays and lesbians. Eric Miller is an Indiana lobbyist who pushed hard for the bill and who was personally invited to the the very private signing ceremony in the governor's office when the governor signed the first bill into law. Eric Miller sure thought it was about denying Christian commercial services to gays and lesbians-he says so on his own website. Pretty hard to deny what someone puts on their own website. I posted the below on another thread on the Politics board. The bold highlighting below regarding Eric Miller's website are original to the author of the website: "And standing behind with Pence as he signed the bill were several socially conservative lobbyists, the ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage.
One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that the law would protect businesses from participating in "homosexual marriage.""Indiana's religious freedom law: What you need to knowEric Miller's website is called Advance America. Here is information from Eric Miller's website. VICTORY AT THE STATE HOUSE!
Governor Pence Signs Senate Bill 101!
On Thursday, March 26th Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 101 into law!
Eric Miller, the Founder and Executive Director of Advance America stated: “It is vitally important to protect religious freedom in Indiana. It’s the right thing to do. It was therefore important to pass Senate Bill 101 in 2015 in order to help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs!”
Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!
Here are just three examples where SB 101 will help:
*Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage! *A Christian business should not be punished for refusing to allow a man to use the women’s restroom! *A church should not be punished because they refuse to let the church be used for a homosexual wedding!VICTORY AT THE STATE HOUSE! ADVANCE AMERICA
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,474
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 5, 2015 23:38:10 GMT -5
The greatest bigots are these so-called warriors for tolerance, demanding that everyone accept as moral and right the very same things they do. More to the point: unless you think hacked websites, trashed business ratings, threats, and being forced to close are an appropriate response to a store owner's "bigotry", it seems to me there's no dispute in this thread that Memories Pizza is being persecuted for their beliefs. One doesn't have to share those beliefs to want to help remedy that wrong. I revile homosexuality, but even I wouldn't be cold-hearted enough to chide the public as "stupid" for donating to a bullied homosexual teen. And I would certainly acknowledge it as charity. Yet you chide people here for being against donating to bigotry. As to the unbolded rest of the post... No one is demanding that "everyone accept as moral and right"... anything. They are demanding equal treatment under the law. People are free to BELIEVE whatever they want. They can freely believe that sex is only moral if it's done for procreation, on Sundays, with the lights out, in a specific position, by married people of opposite gender... if that's what floats their boat. What they can't do is discriminate against others because others have a different belief. And no, I don't think that threats or other lawlesness (the hacking you mentioned, for example), are a legitimate, reasonable or justifiable response. Never have I ever said otherwise. The attacks on Sandra Fluke comes to mind.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 19:21:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 23:58:43 GMT -5
Don't most of those states (including the federal government) already outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation? And if that is so, isn't it disingenuous to take the tone this article does? Yes they probably do. The tone that portrayal of this legislation is much ado about nothing? No, but don't let that stop you from another 20 pages or so. Have you found anyone that has been actually been prevented from being discriminated against because of this law? I have. Have you found this law enables discrimination where it has been in effect for the last 20+years? I have not but find them for me if so please.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,474
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 5, 2015 23:59:14 GMT -5
The story has teeth because the left needs a story.
Press coverage has also often falsely implied that religious-freedom legislation gives religious businesses a broad right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, when in fact no such right has ever been recognized under the similar legislation that already exists at the federal level and in many states. As The Washington Examiner points out, “The words ‘gay,’ ‘lesbian’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are nowhere to be found in” its “language,” and “no religious freedom bill has been used successfully to defend discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the 22 years since Congress and states began adopting such laws.”
This is not because of the novelty or rarity of such laws: as The Washington Post’s Hunter Schwarz notes, many states have their own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and “Indiana is actually . . . one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” Instead, religious defenses to gay-rights claims tend to fail because the court finds a “compelling interest” justifying regulation, or finds no “substantial burden” on the business owner, which illustrates the limited reach of these religious freedom statutes as applied to discrimination claims. It is not RFRA, but the First Amendment itself, that has occasionally been relied upon to successfully block discrimination lawsuits, such as in the Supreme Court’s Boys Scouts v. Dale decision, which relied on freedom of expressive association to quash a sexual-orientation discrimination lawsuit, and the Ninth Circuit’s Rodriguez v. Maricopa decision, which relied on the First Amendment to quash a racial harassment lawsuit. When a New Mexico wedding photographer objected to filming the civil-commitment ceremony of a gay couple, her strongest defense was rooted in the First Amendment, not RFRA. cei.org/blog/anti-business-myths-pervade-reporting-religious-freedom-legislation
Next
Don't most of those states (including the federal government) already outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation? And if that is so, isn't it disingenuous to take the tone this article does? There is no federal protection for gays and lesbians regarding commerce, housing or employment. Twenty-two states have state laws protecting the rights of gays and lesbians regarding employment. Only several states have laws protecting gays and lesbians in the areas of commerce as in the wedding cake, florist and photographer cases (Colorado, Oregon and New Mexico).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 19:21:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 0:05:47 GMT -5
Yet you chide people here for being against donating to bigotry. As to the unbolded rest of the post... No one is demanding that "everyone accept as moral and right"... anything. They are demanding equal treatment under the law. People are free to BELIEVE whatever they want. They can freely believe that sex is only moral if it's done for procreation, on Sundays, with the lights out, in a specific position, by married people of opposite gender... if that's what floats their boat. What they can't do is discriminate against others because others have a different belief. And no, I don't think that threats or other lawlesness (the hacking you mentioned, for example), are a legitimate, reasonable or justifiable response. Never have I ever said otherwise. The attacks on Sandra Fluke comes to mind. But... But... But... those weren't attacks. The were just people defending Christian values. *for the record, they were wrong then too.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,474
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 6, 2015 0:07:01 GMT -5
The attacks on Sandra Fluke comes to mind. But... But... But... those weren't attacks. The were just people defending Christian values. *for the record, they were wrong then too. I know.
|
|