Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account
Photo

Gaming and Politics


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#41 ThistledownJohn

ThistledownJohn

    Ghoul

  • Members
  • 532 posts
  • LocationBonne Terre, MO USA

Posted 30 March 2015 - 06:58 AM

Indiana seems to be getting a lot of flack and people can decide to do business or not do business in Indiana if they want but 19 other states have similar laws:

http://www.washingto...-is-boycotting/

 

Bill Clinton signed a similar law as president

"The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote"

http://www.weeklysta...ed_900641.html#

 

The reason that states have been enacting these laws is that in 1997, the SCOTUS decided that the RFRA applied only at the federal level and not to the states.

 

Since that time, these laws have helped in situations like...

1) In Texas, a Native American boy was not allowed to wear long hair because it violated the his school's dress code.
2) In Philadelphia, commercial food trucks were allowed to sell food in a city park,  but religious groups were denied the ability to give food to the homeless there.
3) Medicare in the state of Kansas refused to pay for a Jehovah's Witness' "bloodless" liver transplant.

 

After the SCOTUS decision, I see why states might seek other protection since the RFRA doesn't apply to them.


  • 0

#42 BigJackBrass

BigJackBrass

    Whartson Hall Gamer

  • Administrators
  • 4,601 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationStalybridge

Posted 30 March 2015 - 07:20 AM

http://www.washingto...7f89_story.html

A piece by Apple's Tim Cook in The Washington Post.
  • 0

#43 Pencil-Monkey

Pencil-Monkey

    Kyton

  • Site Artist
  • 5,831 posts

Posted 30 March 2015 - 12:18 PM

On a related note, there's also the Sodomite Suppression Act:

tumblr_nlyqgj2ZVR1qhial9o1_540.jpg
tumblr_nlyqgj2ZVR1qhial9o2_540.jpg
 


  • 0

#44 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Yorkton Gamer & RPGMP3 Professional

  • Administrators
  • 1,238 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationRegina, SK, Canada

Posted 30 March 2015 - 12:49 PM

The reason that states have been enacting these laws is that in 1997, the SCOTUS decided that the RFRA applied only at the federal level and not to the states.

 

Since that time, these laws have helped in situations like...

1) In Texas, a Native American boy was not allowed to wear long hair because it violated the his school's dress code.
2) In Philadelphia, commercial food trucks were allowed to sell food in a city park,  but religious groups were denied the ability to give food to the homeless there.
3) Medicare in the state of Kansas refused to pay for a Jehovah's Witness' "bloodless" liver transplant.

 

After the SCOTUS decision, I see why states might seek other protection since the RFRA doesn't apply to them.

 

This is why it's such a tricky bit of law. On one hand, John has clearly shown some examples where it's obvious that there does need to be some seperation and limit between government interferance with religious practice. On the other hand, as currently penned, the laws allow huge sweeping discrimination under the protection of religious belief.

 

What's kinda sickening is how many 'states' (I refer to either the supporters of creators of the bills) are unapologetic or even supportive/proud of the discriminative loophole that exists in the current law. Again, supporting it for the right reason of religious practice without government interferance is a valid side in my opinion, however the fact that they are being passed without attempts to reduce the discrimination capability despite significant uproar and objection shows that some support it for that aspect as well and appear to be catering to a population with similar ideology.


  • 0

#45 Hal

Hal

    Site Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,091 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 31 March 2015 - 07:06 AM

Just wanted to pop in and say you guys are doing an amazing job at this level-headed discourse business... We appear to be an example for the whole Internet up in here :)

 

Hal :hal:


  • 0

#46 BigJackBrass

BigJackBrass

    Whartson Hall Gamer

  • Administrators
  • 4,601 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationStalybridge

Posted 31 March 2015 - 07:44 AM

STOP SITTING ON THE FENCE, HAL! ;)
  • 0

#47 Aethyr

Aethyr

    Frog

  • Members
  • 340 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationVirginia

Posted 31 March 2015 - 08:08 AM

Just wanted to pop in and say you guys are doing an amazing job at this level-headed discourse business... We appear to be an example for the whole Internet up in here :)

Hal :hal:


I agree. There needs to be a lot more capslock (thanks BJB), more swearing and questioning of parentage, and no one has even hinted at Fascism yet. Oh wait, you said an example 'for' not an example 'of'. My mistake, carry on.
  • 0

#48 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Yorkton Gamer & RPGMP3 Professional

  • Administrators
  • 1,238 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationRegina, SK, Canada

Posted 31 March 2015 - 09:45 AM

Some updates on responces to this law
-San Francisco and State of Washington have banned government paid travel to Indianna
-First Church of Cannibis opens up in Indianna as a state recognized recognized religion. Medicinal and recreational use is illegal in Indianna. This might put the law to the test.

Interesting how much responce this is getting. Is there something unique about Indianna's wording? Is it the first state to pass while those others are still being proposed and discussed?
  • 0

#49 Texan

Texan

    Toad

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationHouston,TX (Westchase)

Posted 31 March 2015 - 11:18 AM

27 states including Indiana have RFRA laws or court decisions that match the Federal law.  These laws do  not grant a license to discriminate, but says the government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

 

1 state, Connecticut, has  a law that states that government shall not "burden a persons's free exercise of religion".  Note the word "substantially" is missing.  In none of these states has a refusal to accommodate a gay person been adjudicated. 


  • -1

#50 BigJackBrass

BigJackBrass

    Whartson Hall Gamer

  • Administrators
  • 4,601 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationStalybridge

Posted 31 March 2015 - 11:38 AM

"Mike Pence said the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) had been "grossly misconstrued" as anti-gay"

 

Lots of pieces in the press about this, with Pence blaming the problem entirely on the media. Although I can understand the claim generally speaking - the media routinely reports in a selective, superficial and distorting way - it's rather undermined in this case if you actually read the bill and what its supporters claim it will do.

 

From that BBC web article:

 

 

"20 US states have such laws but few go as far as Indiana's in giving protection to businesses ...and some of those states have other laws that prevent discrimination against minorities.​"

 

 

That last part is significant.


  • 0

#51 Hafwit 2.0

Hafwit 2.0

    Goblin

  • Members
  • 161 posts
  • LocationSvendborg, Denmark

Posted 31 March 2015 - 03:10 PM

It does seem to to include some weasel-esque words here and there: http://www.indystar....-rfra/70729888/

 

And with the people backing it, I don't believe it isn't anti-LGBT: http://www.glaad.org...ndianas-new-law


  • 0

#52 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Yorkton Gamer & RPGMP3 Professional

  • Administrators
  • 1,238 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationRegina, SK, Canada

Posted 31 March 2015 - 03:50 PM

It does seem to to include some weasel-esque words here and there: http://www.indystar....-rfra/70729888/
 
And with the people backing it, I don't believe it isn't anti-LGBT: http://www.glaad.org...ndianas-new-law


Good relevant articles. And to be honest if the governor isn't willing to put disvrimination protection into law, he deserves the bad responce he's gotten, in my opinion.
  • 0

#53 Texan

Texan

    Toad

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationHouston,TX (Westchase)

Posted 01 April 2015 - 02:51 AM

Indiana does not have laws against discriminating against gays or gender preference so you don't need a religious excuse to discriminate.  That is what people should be protesting about.  I suspect a lot of states do not have laws to prevent discrimination against sexual preference or gender identity or hair color or people with tattoos etc....  Within the  bounds of our constitution, people should have the right to be assholes but they also face the consequences of being an asshole which include boycotting an establishment that discriminates for any reason. 


  • -1

#54 ThistledownJohn

ThistledownJohn

    Ghoul

  • Members
  • 532 posts
  • LocationBonne Terre, MO USA

Posted 02 April 2015 - 11:24 AM

Now, we're here...

 

Note - These people said that while they would not cater a same-sex marriage, they would happy serve gay couples in their restaurant.  Most media outlets omit the "serving gay people in our restaurant" bit.  It took me awhile to find one that didn't...

 

http://www.hlntv.com...133#videoplayer


  • 1

#55 BigJackBrass

BigJackBrass

    Whartson Hall Gamer

  • Administrators
  • 4,601 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationStalybridge

Posted 07 April 2015 - 11:25 AM

Something retweeted into my timeline a little earlier:

 

gaycakegun_zpsezyxzhu0.jpg


  • 2

#56 Pencil-Monkey

Pencil-Monkey

    Kyton

  • Site Artist
  • 5,831 posts

Posted 10 April 2015 - 08:54 AM

tumblr_nm4kgnJEwH1qb05two1_540.jpg


  • 0

#57 Texan

Texan

    Toad

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationHouston,TX (Westchase)

Posted 12 April 2015 - 08:54 AM

Something retweeted into my timeline a little earlier:

 

gaycakegun_zpsezyxzhu0.jpg

Uh actually it is against the  law to sell guns you know are going to be used for illegal purposes or to people prohibited from owning that type of gun or to sell to felons.   If you do sell a gun to someone you know is going to use it in a crime then you can also be held as an accessory to that crime (now you have broken two laws.).  In addition most people/Christians would hold you morally responsible for knowingly selling a gun you know will be used in a moral crime.     Sorry but your attempt at analogy here is a failure.


  • -1

#58 Texan

Texan

    Toad

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationHouston,TX (Westchase)

Posted 12 April 2015 - 09:14 AM

One key to the issue being discussed is that most Christians, Jewish, Muslims etc. bakeries who object to selling you a gay wedding cake would probably sell you a wedding cake, just not one explicitly gay.   Can someone go to a bookstore and demand to purchase gay sex tapes or books or materials that sexually demean women?  Many people, religious or not, believe businesses have to right to  chose what commerce they chose to engage in.  As a libertarian I believe that no one should force you to do business you do not want to engage in, even if that makes you an asshole.  I also realize there are constitutional laws that  may force you to do so.  By choosing not to engage in some business you may suffer both legally and by consumer actions such as boycotting, but the choice is yours to make.


  • 0

#59 Pencil-Monkey

Pencil-Monkey

    Kyton

  • Site Artist
  • 5,831 posts

Posted 13 April 2015 - 02:32 AM



Can someone go to a bookstore and demand to purchase gay sex tapes or books or materials that sexually demean women? 

 

Umm... Are you sure you want to compare consensual gay sexuality with non-consensual straight sexuality?

 

Then again, some books are extremely misogynistic and sexually demeaning to women, but most book stores carry them anyway, because they're popular and sell a lot of copies.

 


Sorry but your attempt at analogy here is a failure.

 

Well, yes, because murder is illegal, and being gay isn't.


  • 0

#60 Texan

Texan

    Toad

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationHouston,TX (Westchase)

Posted 13 April 2015 - 10:13 PM

 

Umm... Are you sure you want to compare consensual gay sexuality with non-consensual straight sexuality?

 

Then again, some books are extremely misogynistic and sexually demeaning to women, but most book stores carry them anyway, because they're popular and sell a lot of copies.

 

 

 

 

Well, yes, because murder is illegal, and being gay isn't.

I'm not comparing the two.  and I was assuming the misogynistic stuff was consensual anyway.   If you are saying someone has to provide a service they don't want to provide then should you force them?   Should Barnes and Noble be required to provide any book/video etc... just because someone wants to purchase it from them?   Lets use gay romance novels then.  Should they  have to stock them because they stock the straight romance novels?  


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Gravityscan Badge