Vegas Free-for-All - Governor Pence finally did it (POL)

Governor Pence finally did it (POL)

RiverRat

Apr 2, 2015
7:47am

Quote

Originally posted by: weggie44
Isn't this law supposed to help Catholics not to be forced to hand out birth control pills and stuff like that? I am protestant and scratch my head at some of the stuff they do too, but I respect there views as I would want them to respect my views....do you really think this law is going to send Indiana back to the 1940's? I am for most laws that keep government out of my house and wallet and give me more freedom
Can you give the uninformed outsider a rational scenario of what you think could happen under this law?

weggie

Back when he was Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich (sp?) mandated that all Illinois pharmacies were required to stock the 'morning after pill' regardless of whether this conflicted with religious beliefs of said pharmacists. Don't recall whether this ever went through the Illinois legislature, but was eventually thrown out by the courts. Story.

forkushV

Apr 2, 2015
7:54am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Here is my question: In a state that has no 'Religious Freedom' law, can a gay couple successfully sue the Catholic (or name your flavor) Church because it refuses to perform marriage services for gay couples? If not, why not?

Is this a church/state first amendment issue applied only to recognized churches but not to businesses or to individuals? Does it apply to services offered by church owned businesses like Hospitals and Medical Centers and Universities?

The Catholic Church can and has refused to marry people for hundreds of years for a variety of reasons and they can continue to do so. This was never even an issue.

When you get to a church owned businesses like a hospital it gets to be a trickier issue. Is the hospital a profit or non-profit enterprise and does the hospital accept state or federal taxpayer funding? If they do it generally it means they have to be willing to serve all taxpayers for services they normally provide.

What about individual employees of said taxpayer funded hospital? What if a doctor or nurse doesn't want to care for a gay patient based on their religious beliefs?

Or patients who are adulterers? Or who take the Lord's name in vain? Or who wear blended fabrics? Or who have tattoos? Or who worship graven images? Or who need psych drugs (Scientology)? Or women who don't wear a burqa?

Ain't religious freedom great?

snidely333

Apr 2, 2015
7:54am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jphelan
Hmmmm........Something you are born with.......and not a life choice.

I worked with a gentleman who became a lady after 15+ years of marriage and 3 children. His wife divorced him and his two boys stopped associating with him for this "life choice", but his daughter was OK with it because she had another person to shop with. ;-)

yeah, I'm bored. I think I"ll become a lady. It's something I've always wanted to do.

You should watch Transparent on Amazon. It's a pretty good show.

chefantwon

Apr 2, 2015
9:05am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
I guess you are a little late to the party yesterday:

Here is the Indiana Speaker of the House confirming Indiana Businesses would be allowed to post signs that said "NO Gays" or something similar. The Indiana Pro Tem of the Senate was with him at the time and acknowledged so as well.

Oh and there is video of it too:

https://youtu.be/WGi-8j2oFx8

And as been repeated more than once the Indiana law is nothing like the Federal Law or the laws of any other state excepting Mississippi. All those other jurisdictions consider sexual preference a protected class and none of those other laws apply to corporations. Indiana's law takes the language from Hobby Lobby and says that for profit corporations can have religious beliefs that allow them to discriminate.

Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: drmilled
And this molehill is slowly becoming a mountain...
Which molehill? Please be specific.

So Forkie is suggesting next Indiana will be hanging blacks, making certain areas white only, making those people of any color other than white sit at the back of the bus, and call all whites masser?...
Nope. Just that businesses will be able to discriminate against citizens, just like in the photo above.

Obviously, the federal RFRA does not allow that kind of evil behavior. People who tell you that the federal and Indiana laws are the same just because they have the same name are playing you for a fool, Boilerman. Very, very successfully.

So Forkie forgets that it is agaisnt Federal Law to discriminate against color, sex, or sexual orientation?

You really need to get that lobotomy....
Really? What law is that? (This should be funny.)

The EEOC covers sexual orientation and the states have their own laws on the books. Some don't specifically state sexual orientation, however the courts have been ciding with the LGBT community. (you forget that a law does not have to specifically state if they cover a certain group for them to be covered under federal law.)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and enforces the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.[149] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[150] Its enforcement provisions are contained in section 2000e-5 of Title 42,[151] and its regulations and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614.[152] Persons wishing to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative remedies by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit in court.[153]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities by federal contractors and subcontractors.[154]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own regulations that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial assistance.[12]

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status or national origin.[155]

State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) offices take the role of the EEOC in administering state statutes.[153]

snidely333

Apr 2, 2015
10:16am

Block User

Indiana for all!

The changes prohibit businesses from using the law as a defense in court for refusing "to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing" to any customers based on "race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."

Boilerman

Apr 2, 2015
11:30am

Block User

Just remember, all those spinning here also spun the "Hands up, don't shoot!" lie. If you can't trust 'em, you can't trust 'em.

alanleroy

Apr 2, 2015
12:18pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh History remembers the 1960's fight as a war between righteous freedom marchers and scumbags who oppressed them. History will remember this era in the same regard. What side will you be remembered to be on?

I've been in favor of gay marriage and gay rights loooong before President Obama flip flopped on it. I wonder what side he'll be remembered to be on....since he's been on both during his presidency.

malibber2

Apr 2, 2015
12:36pm

Block User

Is Pence going to be the remembered as the George Wallace of his era?

forkushV

Apr 2, 2015
3:20pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Is Pence going to be the remembered as the George Wallace of his era?

I don't think so, because he did not defy federal law or authority.

That honor would be long Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who ordered judges in Alabama to defy a federal court order regarding marriage equality. But what else would you expect from a state that still honors American traitors?

Boilerman

Apr 2, 2015
10:14pm

Block User

Indiana attorneys have weighed in on this example. As the new law was originally written, the doctor refusing to treat a gay man would lose his license and be fined. The law would allow him to use the "religious grounds" argument in court, yet he would lose. I doctor refusing to perform abortions on "religious grounds" would be fined and would have his licence pulled, yet he now has the right to utilize the "religious grounds" argument in court. This was not allowed in an Indiana courtroom prior to the change of law.

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Here is my question: In a state that has no 'Religious Freedom' law, can a gay couple successfully sue the Catholic (or name your flavor) Church because it refuses to perform marriage services for gay couples? If not, why not?

Is this a church/state first amendment issue applied only to recognized churches but not to businesses or to individuals? Does it apply to services offered by church owned businesses like Hospitals and Medical Centers and Universities?

The Catholic Church can and has refused to marry people for hundreds of years for a variety of reasons and they can continue to do so. This was never even an issue.

When you get to a church owned businesses like a hospital it gets to be a trickier issue. Is the hospital a profit or non-profit enterprise and does the hospital accept state or federal taxpayer funding? If they do it generally it means they have to be willing to serve all taxpayers for services they normally provide.

What about individual employees of said taxpayer funded hospital? What if a doctor or nurse doesn't want to care for a gay patient based on their religious beliefs?

«‹15 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now