Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Indiana religion law is Jim Crow of our time
Source:
Cincinnati.com
URL Source: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opi ... on-law-jim-crow-time/70617014/
Published: Mar 29, 2015
Author: Ryan Messer
Post Date: 2015-03-29 04:44:12 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 28933
Comments: 127
The arguments for Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act arguments are strikingly similar to the arguments for racial discrimination some 50 years ago. Then, the nation debated whether it was right and just for someone to be barred from service at a lunch counter because of the color of his or her skin. Astonishingly, here we are again, having to combat arguments that it should be legal to bar someone from the same lunch counter based on the gender of the person they love. Let’s tell it like it is: The so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the Jim Crow legislation of our time. Today, African-Americans are protected from discrimination of this kind – and that’s exactly how it should be in the Land of the Free. Alas, LGBT people enjoy no such protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but at least always had trusted their home state legislatures and governors not to turn on them. I take this personally because, as of Thursday, my family and I are not protected from discrimination when we visit family and friends in the state of my birth. This is real and wrong and grieves me deeply. The passage of this discriminatory legislation brings back painful memories in Cincinnati of a charter amendment, commonly known as Article XII, that prohibited City Council from passing any ordinance that would have granted LGBT people equal protection under the law. It was a sorry moment in our city’s history – one in which an entire class of people was singled out for non-protection. The city’s image was damaged throughout the country, and the economic impact was significant, with conventions being canceled and prestigious companies choosing not to do business in our city. I was a resident of Cincinnati at the time, and the passage of the charter amendment created a cloud over the city that ultimately contributed to my decision to leave. I wasn’t alone. Many people I knew moved to cities that they viewed as more welcoming: Chicago, Atlanta, San Diego. I moved to New York. Fortunately, the citizens of Cincinnati rediscovered their essential instinct for justice and repealed Article XII, and I moved back as soon as I could. Cincinnati now is seen as one of those welcoming cities – one dramatically different from what it was. Did we fall into the dream that the rest of American had taken that journey with us? If so, we’ve had a rude awakening. Now I have to question where in Indiana my family can go without discrimination. Can we visit the Indianapolis Children’s Museum? Will a hotel turn us away? Would we be allowed to buy a cupcake at a bakery? If you can, put yourself in our shoes for a moment you can see how unsettling and infuriating this situation is. Maybe the good people of Indiana will come back to their senses as the good people of Cincinnati did some years ago. While they’re pondering what they’ve done, we Cincinnatians should contact the convention organizers who have announced they will pull their meetings out of Indiana and let them know that they are heartily welcome in the Queen City. We should work with the business leaders who have decided not to expand in Indiana and let them know that they are very welcome to locate in our Ohio and Kentucky counties. And we certainly should let all the talented Hoosiers who happen to be LGBT know that they are welcome to live, work, love and play here. Indiana may have lost its sense of justice and good sense for a while but the rest of us understand the human and business cases for diversity and inclusion. Let’s cash in on the progress we’ve made in Cincinnati and elevate our status as a city that welcomes diversity of all kinds and declines to discriminate against any of our citizens.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-44) not displayed.
.
.
.
#45. To: Willie Green (#0)
Should I be able to walk into the gift shop at the local natural history museum's planetarium and demand they sell me a model of the Universe with the Earth at its center? Human reproductive sexuality, Male and Female, was selected for by billions of years of evolution. Deal with it.
Are you afraid meguro might lead you astray and tempt you to indulge in the sins of the flesh? Too bad you don't believe in Darwin, dude. I can assure both you AND meguro that those of us who are truly heterosexual NEVER experience homosexual fantasies. The mere thought is naturally repugnant, and we don't need Holy Scripture to tell us that.
Yep, as naturally repugnant as the odor of rotten food. But the tranhumanist/postgenderists have learned from past experience that sort of natural common sense can be desensitized. It's not surprising such cancerous, cultural, self-destructiveness reflects the #1 objective on the NWO todo list...
It's not. Hell, it's not even conservative.
I agree with Ayn Rand on this one: "In a free society, men are not forced to deal with one another. They do so only by voluntary agreement." Period.
Why should you need a license to bake cakes?
Nah. I just thought he was an asshole to be honest.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf
Murron is not black, but she has a grandkid who is. She (Rebel Gal) posted a photo of herself years ago. It makes no difference, but she needs to be pinged anyway. So... ((((( PING )))))
Don't you love hit piece articles that don't show what the legislation actually says.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, sell decorated cakes, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded. Forcing a baker to decorate a cake with crap offensive to him would be a violation of his rights. Ask the majority rule devotees, like misterwhite. -- They usually claim that food preparers, restaurants, etc -- must be licensed to protect the public's health.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197 First Regular Session 119th General Assembly (2015) PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution. Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101 AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]: Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015. Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter. Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter. Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion. Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision (1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law. Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes. Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter. Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter. Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of
Where's the Jim Crow claim?
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
Before anyone boycotts riding trains through Indiana below link is a better explanation of the law. Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also. http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom- restoration-act- explained_900641.html This is leftist hysteria from not knowing history.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-ii/section-2000a/ §2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation (a) Equal access All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. (b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment. (c) Operations affecting commerce; criteria; “commerce” defined The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this subchapter if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this section; (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of this section, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this section, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country. (d) Support by State action Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this subchapter if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof. (e) Private establishments The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section. (Pub. L. 88–352, title II, §201, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 243.)
I think the claim is that Section 7 is expansive in its definition of person.
I agree, a restaurant has the absolute right to not serve blacks. It also has the absolute right to not serve anyone. It should be the same for every business, but not for the government. Take away the right to refuse to serve a minority and you effectively nationalize everyones business.
native nationalist wears a pillow case on his head in addition to his white diaper. I didn't realize it until I started reading this thread.
Or whites. If I walk into a black bar in a black neighborhood, the owner has every right not to serve me and to ask me to leave. Although he doesn't have to give a reason for doing that, I can think of a half-dozen good ones off the top of my head.
I'm aware of the law. "Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964." I'm saying I don't agree with the ruling because I don't think it interferes with interstate commerce. If I want kosher food, can I demand that all businesses serve it? Or does the free market respond by opening kosher businesses? It's ridiculous to think that any minority cannot find a place to serve him what he wants ... and that it would interfere with interstate commerce.
You need to read through the thread Bill, I'm not the one who suggested banning blacks. I am the one who opposed that idea. I'd say your reading comprehension sucks, you'd better read the thread again William.
The RFRA of Illinois was one of the few votes the emperor cast a vote for , instead of voting present .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Interesting.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
I'm saying I don't agree with the ruling because I don't think it interferes with interstate commerce. If I want kosher food, can I demand that all businesses serve it? Or does the free market respond by opening kosher businesses? It's ridiculous to think that any minority cannot find a place to serve him what he wants ... and that it would interfere with interstate commerce. You use the term interferes with interstate commerce. The law uses the term affects interstate commerce. There is very long standing precedent that someting that affects interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, triggers commerce clause jurisdiction. The Court's definition of affects is ridiculously broad. Activity that "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect,'" triggers the interstate commerce clause jurisdiction. Any national debate would need to focus on a constitutional amendment to force a reversal of that. A law contrary to the Constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS, would be held unconstitutional. Then you would practically need a constitutional convention to get that done because Congress just ain't ever gonna go there, at least not in the foreseeable future. A national discussion of discrimination law could address the problem and legislation could act upon it. Legislation cannot act to change SCOTUS interpretations of the constitution, including those regarding the breadth of jurisdiction, but it can act on prior legislation. I agree with your point about kosher food, and would include halal food in the same context. Also, I would look at forcing a baker to create a special cake for the SAE fraternity at Oklahoma University, complete with verses from the fraternity chant or cakes decorated with a pornographic theme. I do not even see why the discrimination law needs to change. I do not see it as discrimination when a business declines to create a product it does not currently offer for public sale. There is nothing in the law which should be interpreted to require a business to do something contrary to their religious beliefs or which they find morally repugnant. They need only sell the cakes and decorations they offer for sale. I agree with your main point; I disagree with your selection of target. The interstate commerce argument is aimed at federal jurisdiction rather than the regulating law. Precedent expanding jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause predates Heart of Atlanta. The opening salvo of Heart of Atlanta regarding jurisdiction harkens back to precedent from 1824. The power of Congress to deal with these obstructions depends on the meaning of the Commerce Clause. Its meaning was first enunciated 140 years ago by the great 379 U. S. 254 Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824), in these words: [...] 379 U. S. 255 [...] “We are now arrived at the inquiry -- What is this power?” “It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the constitution. . . . If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress . . . is plenary as to those objects [specified in the Constitution], the power over commerce . . . is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States. The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments. [At 22 U. S. 196-197.]” In short, the determinative test of the exercise of power by the Congress under the Commerce Clause is simply whether the activity sought to be regulated is “commerce which concerns more States than one” and has a real and substantial relation to the national interest. Let us now turn to this facet of the problem. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) expanded jurisdiction under the commerce clause further. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/ Location: Roscoe Filburn's Farm Facts of the Case Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. Question Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature? Conclusion Decision: 8 votes for Wickard, 0 vote(s) against Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3; Agricultural Adjustment Act According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2015/2015R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1228 HB1228 - TO ENACT THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/03/arkansas-senate-passes-religious-freedom-bill.php By Dominic Yobbi [JURIST] The Arkansas Senate [official website] on Friday approved a controversial bill [bill backgrounder] intended to protect religious freedoms of businesses. Those supporting the Republican-backed say it will protect religious freedoms for businesses, and those opposed say that businesses may be allowed to go too far with the law and refuse service to homosexuals. The bill states that "governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification." Supporters stated [Reuters report] that a business should not be forced to, for example, cater a same-sex wedding if doing so would violate the religious beliefs of the owner. Those opposed to the bill include local business giants Walmart [corporate website] and Apple [official website]. A Walmart spokesperson stated, "We feel this legislation is counter to this core basic belief and sends the wrong message about Arkansas, as well as the diverse environment which exists in the state." Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights remain controversial throughout the US. Last week the Indiana Senate gave final approval [JURIST report] to a "religious freedom" bill that would allow business owners to turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation. Earlier this month Utah lawmakers unveiled legislation [JURIST report] that aims to balance religious rights and protections against LGBT discrimination in the workplace and housing. In February an Arkansas enacted a bill, similar to the bill enacted Friday in that it prohibits cities and local governments from establishing ordinances with anti-discrimination codes became law [JURIST report] when Asa Hutchinson declined to veto it. Also in February Kansas Governor Sam Brownback rescinded [JURIST report] a number of executive orders by the former governor, including one that protected LGBT state employees from unfair hiring practices, sexual harassment and other types of discrimination at work.
We can debate it. My answer is: the owner of a private business does not have the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason. That's what our law currently is, and I expect that it will upheld. In particular, owners of private business have no constitutional right to bar anyone from service on the basis of the person's race, ethnicity or religion. If you're going to open your doors to public commerce, you can profit from access to the stream of commerce, but there are certain things you cannot do. And forbidding blacks, Hispanics, Muslims or Jews (or Catholics, or Protestants) from using those services is the most historically important of them.
Fine. We'll go with that. "There is very long standing precedent that something that affects interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, triggers commerce clause jurisdiction." The long-standing precedent has been, "has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating." That was true for Wickard, The Shreveport Rate Cases, Raich, and a whole slew of others. What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?
Sure he does. He has the right to liberty. The right to be free. You are taking away his right. You're telling him he must work for others against his will. That their rights are more important than his. I don't see it that way. I disagree with the current law.
What's ridiculous is for anybody think that in America, after a million dead in a Civil War and another century of racial strife and apartheid that only ended with a lot of heavy-handed legislation and Supreme Court rulings, that he still has the right to go into business and discriminate against black people. Perhaps it needs to be stated more clearly: BECAUSE OF America's history of slavery and racial segregation, lynching and brutality against blacks, no America has the constitutionally protected right to discriminate against blacks in any way, or under any circumstances, other than in the privacy of his own home. It is entirely illegal in all of its manifestations in the workplace, or in commerce. That's the truth of it. And unfortunately, given the nasty, stubborn, persistent desire to engage in that sort of behavior, and to defend it and connive at it, the only way to prevent the reinfestation by that particular form of political poison ivy is to kill it every time it pops up, with fire. Too many people died and too much suffering has occurred for us to continue to pretend that Americans have the right to discriminate against blacks. They do not, and if they try, the system will destroy them. And should.
Who said that? Not I. I said in post #6, "The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason." I didn't single out blacks, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that I did.
That's right. I am. He has chosen to enter the stream of commerce by which we all live. Its blood is the American dollar, which is a government creation. It's enforcement mechanism is the police and the courts willingness to enforce contract and property rights. It's a national market: states have not been allowed to impose rules that will materially interfere with the flow of commerce. The huge national market makes all of America more prosperous than it would be. America has a specific bad history concerning blacks. We enslaved them and then segrated them, lynched them and beat them down. And then, once they were legally freed, the evil minds of many Americans sought to keep them down still by private means such as restrictive covenants in the sale of land (you cannot sell to blacks), or in hiring, or in forbidding them service in certain places of business, because they were black. We killed a million people in a Civil War that ended slavery, and we had a long and bitter struggle to end racial apartheid. Because of the stubborn persistence of that evil, to root it out and keep it gone, the personal liberty of white people has to be restricted somewhat. You can still have a business and make money in that grand stream of commerce, but you no longer have the right to say that black people cannot come in, and you do not have the right to refuse them service. If you hate them so much you think it is wrong for you to serve them, then don't go into business. But your right to operate a business as you please is no longer unlimited. BECAUSE white America fucked the blacks so badly for so long, some of your rights have been permanently lost in order to force you to treat blacks as equal. That's the way it is, and that's the way it has to be, because some Americans were too evil to allow it to be any other way, so they ruined it for everybody. Once upon a time, business owners were completely free to do as they pleased. And once upon a time states were sovereign in their rights. But, because the states decided to use their states rights specifically to crush the liberty of one part of the population, the blacks, and because white business owners decided to use their rights as business owners to keep blacks out, and we had to lose a million lives to end slavery, the states no longer are permitted the rights they used to have: the rights to do that sort of thing had to be chopped away, and were. Likewise, because business owners just had to be evil, rules were made that no longer leave them completely free. You're still free to run your business as you please, except that you have no right to discriminate against blacks and remain in business. That's the way it is now, and that's the way that it has to be, because the racist whites were too committed and too stubborn to the principle of equality. So, they ruined it for everybody, and we all lost some of the rights we used to have, because it's the only way to ensure that blacks have the same rights we do. There isn't any other way to do it, and we're not going back.
The nation, historically, ALWAYS singled out blacks. That's what "States Rights" were always fought about: the right to have slaves, to extend slavery, to have fugitive slave acts, and then, to have racial segregation. In the abstract, "states rights" COULD mean a lot of things, but in the reality of American history, "states rights" meant the "right" of the white majority to democratically impose laws to screw the blacks. That's what it meant, and the way it was overcome was by the concentration of federal power to cut down those states rights. Heart of Atlanta was decided specifically because white owners prohibited blacks from staying in their hotels. The government said "nope" and predicated the decision on the Commerce Clause, specifically because everything is involved in commerce, and therefore the federal government has plenary power to legislate against anything, anywhere, that discriminates in any way against blacks. The South was very stubborn in the Civil War and afterwards. But the North was just as stubborn. Those who were determined to keep the blacks down met their match in those who were just as determined to cut ANY such restrictions to pieces. So, while some play an intellectual game of "general rights" and "business owners have the right", others - like me - reply - yes, plenty of rights, but SPECIFICALLY not the right to EVER discriminate against BLACKS in ANYTHING. Because people like me know our history, and we know that that's always where it goes. Always has, still does. America cannot have a completely neutral "Do as you please in commerce" law, because too many people "pleased" for too long to crush down the blacks. And some still will, if they can. Well, they can't, and the rules are written now to remove the ability to even start the argument. Business owners were once completely free. Now they're not. And the reason they're not is because blacks were not free. Because blacks lost their freedom and were held down, to end that, business owners had to lose some of their freedom. They have. And that will stand.
Civil Rights of Blacks, against segregation.
Wow. That sure sounds like we should do everything we can to keep them in business, huh? Yet the law you want to enforce is resulting in these businesses choosing to close rather than serve certain customers. Oops.
So Congress was regulating the commerce of Black Civil Rights. Pure gobbledygook.
Enslaving blacks was bad, but enslaving businesses is good? Well I'm here to say, "Let my business go!"
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I was going to bring this up to give the troll something to chew on but you beat me to it.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Yes they certainly do. Does a church have a right to tell someone to leave?
You can't lose a right. It is a right.
Pure gobbledygook. Pure power.
Comments (86 - 127) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#46. To: A K A Stone (#20)
By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.
#47. To: Willie Green (#46)
(Edited)
The mere thought is naturally repugnant
#48. To: Liberator (#34)
"And btw Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me."
#49. To: A K A Stone (#41)
"Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also?"
#50. To: tpaine (#44)
In my opinion, a licensed wedding
#51. To: Willie Green (#46)
Are you afraid meguro might lead you astray and tempt you to indulge in the sins of the flesh?
#52. To: tomder55, Willie Green (#2)
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA) of 1993 is a federal law aimed at preventing laws that "substantially burden" a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by then Congressman Chuck Schumer in the House ,and Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy in the Senate ,and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate .It was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
107 STAT. 1488 PUBLIC LAW 103-141—NOV. 16,1993
Public Law 103-141
103d Congress
An Act
To protect the free exercise of religion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993".
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise
of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in
the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious
exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious
exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious
exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that
the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed
by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal
court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances
between religious liberty and competing prior governmental
interests.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application
in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially
burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious
exercise is substantially burdened by government.
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially burden
a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from
a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection
(b).
(b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially burden a per-
son'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 compel
ling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial Relief.—A person whose religious exercise has
been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation
as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate
relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense
under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing
under article III of the Constitution.
SEC. 4. ATTORNEYS FEES.
(a) Judicial Proceedings.—Section 722 of the Revised Stat
utes (42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by inserting "the Religious Free
dom Restoration Act of 1993 " before "or title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964".
(b) Administrative Proceedings.—Section 504(b)(l)(C) of title
5, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking "and" at the end of clause (ii);
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (iii)
and inserting ", and"; and
(3) by inserting "(iv) the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993;" after clause (iii).
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act—
(1) the term "government" includes a branch, department,
agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting
under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivi
sion of a State;
(2) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and
possession of the United States;
(3) the term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of
going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and
(4) the term "exercise of religion means the exercise of
religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—This Act applies to all Federal and State
law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or
otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of
this Act.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Federal statutory law adopted
after the date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act
unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference
to this Act.
(c) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious
belief.
SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret,
or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibit
ing laws respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in
this section as the "Establishment Clause"). Granting government
funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under
the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this
Act. As used in this section, the term "granting", used with respect
to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include
the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
Approved November 16, 1993.
#53. To: nativist nationalist, Murron (#30)
(Edited)
If Murron were not here we would be poorer for her absence, so banning blacks would not make for a better forum, but one of lower value
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#54. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#55. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#50)
Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?
Why should you need a license to bake cakes?
#56. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone (#54)
(Edited)
Don't you love hit piece articles that don't show what the legislation actually says.
style type. style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2014 Regular Session and 2014 Second Regular Technical Session of the General Assembly. (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws
respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
(1) State government.
(1) An individual.
(A) may sue and be sued; and
(i) an individual; or
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and
(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter.
action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
#57. To: nolu chan (#56)
#58. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, willie green (#56)
#59. To: misterwhite, Willie Green (#6)
The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS - 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (2012)
#60. To: redleghunter (#57)
Where's the Jim Crow claim?
#61. To: misterwhite (#6)
#62. To: hondo68 (#53)
Murron is not black, but she has a grandkid who is.
#63. To: jeremiad (#61)
"I agree, a restaurant has the absolute right to not serve blacks."
#64. To: nolu chan (#59)
#65. To: Fred Mertz (#62)
#66. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, A K A Stone, willie green (#58)
Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also.
#67. To: tomder55 (#66)
#68. To: misterwhite (#64)
"Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
7. The Power of Congress Over Interstate Travel.
Wickard v. Filburn
#69. To: tomder55, redleghunter, A K A Stone, willie green (#66)
Arkansas Senate approves 'religious freedom' bill
Jurist
Monday 30 March 2015 at 8:07 AM ET
#70. To: misterwhite (#6)
The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.
#71. To: nolu chan (#68)
(Edited)
"The law uses the term affects interstate commerce."
#72. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
"the owner of a private business does not have the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason."
#73. To: misterwhite (#64)
It's ridiculous to think that any minority cannot find a place to serve him what he wants ... and that it would interfere with interstate commerce.
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
"that he still has the right to go into business and discriminate against black people."
#75. To: misterwhite (#72)
You are taking away his right. You're telling him he must work for others against his will. That their rights are more important than his.
#76. To: misterwhite (#74)
(Edited)
I didn't single out blacks, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that I did.
#77. To: misterwhite (#71)
What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?
#78. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
He has chosen to enter the stream of commerce by which we all live. Its blood is the American dollar, which is a government creation. It's enforcement mechanism is the police and the courts willingness to enforce contract and property rights. It's a national market: states have not been allowed to impose rules that will materially interfere with the flow of commerce. The huge national market makes all of America more prosperous than it would be.
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
"Civil Rights of Blacks, against segregation."
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#76)
"Business owners were once completely free. Now they're not."
#81. To: A K A Stone, Willie Green, Liberator (#40)
Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for them.
#82. To: redleghunter (#58)
Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also.
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
My answer is: the owner of a private business does not have the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.
#84. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
and we all lost some of the rights
#85. To: misterwhite (#79)
So Congress was regulating the commerce of Black Civil Rights.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]