Arkansas passes "Indiana religion" bill

[DrLeftover]

WASHINGTON -- Arkansas passed a religious freedom bill on Tuesday that is similar to an Indiana law that has faced national backlash for legalizing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The bill cleared the Arkansas Legislature and now heads to the governor's desk, where it is expected to be signed. Like the Indiana law, the Arkansas legislation allows a person who feels his or her exercise of religion has been “substantially burdened” to cite that argument as a claim or defense in a private lawsuit. The legislation also grants corporations the right to religious freedom. This language is not in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and critics say it could be used to override existing anti-discrimination protections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/31/arkansas-religious-freedom_n_6979166.html

 

[Webster]

Well, there's another state I won't be visiting anytime soon....here's a question for the religious liberty crowd: since did when your right to religious liberty trump another individual's right to be treated equally before the law?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

So me choosing not to say photograph someones wedding is interfering with someones rights? What about my right to decide who I want to provide a service for if I might find it offensive (NOT ME IN THIS CASE JUST A EXAMPLE.) I mean where does it end? What if I in my job I won't enter a home because I am not comfortable with the situation in the home for my possible safety and I am told that is discrimination and should enter all homes no matter what my feeling are for my personal safety. I mean without these laws it becomes a slippery slope.

 

[Dee]

I'm honestly not surprised this is happening. Disappointed, yes, but nt surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if, when it passes, we start to see certain businesses refusing to

So me choosing not to say photograph someones wedding is interfering with someones rights? What about my right to decide who I want to provide a service for if I might find it offensive (NOT ME IN THIS CASE JUST A EXAMPLE.) I mean where does it end? What if I in my job I won't enter a home because I am not comfortable with the situation in the home for my possible safety and I am told that is discrimination and should enter all homes no matter what my feeling are for my personal safety. I mean without these laws it becomes a slippery slope.

What about that couple's right to hire a business to photograph their wedding? Are your rights more important than their rights? The idea of a home situation is different as that is a property with personal identifying information, but when you allow people to claim their religious rights were violated, guaranteed there is going to be infringing of other people's rights to seek out a business transaction without making it about sexual orientation, gender, another religious practice, etc. Since when did hiring someone/a business entity to do a service or provide a product become so much about what someone else does in their personal life? As long as it's not bringing physical harm to the person or detrimental harm that could tarnish the business's image, then I don't understand what the issue is.

 

[Webster]

What about my right to decide who I want to provide a service for if I might find it offensive (NOT ME IN THIS CASE JUST A EXAMPLE.)

Not if it trumps the public's right to be treated equally before the law...it also doesn't help to offer a good or a service to all but one group or another; either offer your goods & services to all or get out of that business...period, full stop.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I'm honestly not surprised this is happening. Disappointed, yes, but nt surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if, when it passes, we start to see certain businesses refusing to


What about that couple's right to hire a business to photograph their wedding? Are your rights more important than their rights?


Yes! It is my business! Just like there rights would be more important then mine if I wanted to do there wedding and they picked someone else.



The idea of a home situation is different as that is a property with personal identifying information, but when you allow people to claim their religious rights were violated, guaranteed there is going to be infringing of other people's rights to seek out a business transaction without making it about sexual orientation, gender, another religious practice, etc.

It is not different in the slightest. I am denying a service that someone wants. It is exactly the same.


Since when did hiring someone/a business entity to do a service or provide a product become so much about what someone else does in their personal life?


Who cares! They don't want to do it and that is all that matters whatever the reason is.


As long as it's not bringing physical harm to the person or detrimental harm that could tarnish the business's image, then I don't understand what the issue is.

The issue is in this case it is against everything they stand for.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Not if it trumps the public's right to be treated equally before the law...it also doesn't help to offer a good or a service to all but one group or another; either offer your goods & services to all or get out of that business...period, full stop.

Yes my privately owned business certainly does trump someone else who wants me to do or make a product against my principles.

 

[Dee]

Yes my privately owned business certainly does trump someone else who wants me to do or make a product against my principles.

Welp, you can't argue with stupid.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Welp, you can't argue with stupid.

Yup common sense and personal rights escapes many.

 

[Dee]

Yup common sense and personal rights escapes many.

Your idea of common sense is extremely warped by your conservative leaders telling you what you want to hear. It's understandable that you'd have such an ignorant point of view about how things should be and not why certain things shouldn't happen.

 

[Webster]

Yes my privately owned business certainly does trump someone else who wants me to do or make a product against my principles.

Yeah, I'm sure that florist in Washington state and that photographer in New Mexico tried the same argument....they lost.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Your idea of common sense is extremely warped by your conservative leaders telling you what you want to hear. It's understandable that you'd have such an ignorant point of view about how things should be and not why certain things shouldn't happen.

My idea of common sense is quite normal which includes freedom. Its pieces of crap liberal and progressive ideas that got us to this point trying to force there version of morality on all of us. Well sense I am far more then just a conservative but a mix of many ideas you will need to be more specific on who my leaders are. LOL!

Whats even more funny is the people saying how other people should run there business would be singing the double standard tune if this was the KKK wanting a bakery to make a cake for a KKK party from a black bakery owner. Or a Jewish Holocaust survivor that owns a flower shop and skin heads wanted it for a NAZI wedding. Then the righteous would not be as strong for something you don't believe in. These opinions that you have more rights then a business owner on how to run there business is quite revolting and quite scary.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Yeah, I'm sure that florist in Washington state and that photographer in New Mexico tried the same argument....they lost.

And take a look at who is running those states to see why that is. Scummy progressive liberals.

 

[Dee]

My idea of common sense is quite normal which includes freedom.

You're missing one pertinent piece of the puzzle, though. Yes, your idea of common sense includes freedom, but that means freedom to discriminate and treat other people with prejudice and hate, which is essentially what these bills are allowing certain people to do. But we tried to put an end to that several decades ago and we're still fighting to keep it from happening. I just find it odd that you think the government should be allowed to do certain things that are absolutely and completely horrendous, and yet they shouldn't do other things that actually try to help.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

You're missing one pertinent piece of the puzzle, though. Yes, your idea of common sense includes freedom, but that means freedom to discriminate and treat other people with prejudice and hate, which is essentially what these bills are allowing certain people to do. But we tried to put an end to that several decades ago and we're still fighting to keep it from happening. I just find it odd that you think the government should be allowed to do certain things that are absolutely and completely horrendous, and yet they shouldn't do other things that actually try to help.

Except this and the other similar bills in other states do no such thing. There is a huge difference between a owner deciding to make a specific product and a business owner not selling a commonly made or stocked product to a specific person. But yes if a owner of a business chooses to act in such a manner which involves being racist I may not like it but it should be there right. You see I trust the majority of the people to do the right thing on there own without having the heavy hand of government imposing there morals on someones property.

How can you find that odd when I believe government should be allowed to do very little in terms of controlling our lives. So you might want to provide specifics on that quote.

 

[Dee]

Except this and the other similar bills in other states do no such thing. There is a huge difference between a owner deciding to make a specific product and a business owner not selling a commonly made or stocked product to a specific person. But yes if a owner of a business chooses to act in such a manner which involves being racist I may not like it but it should be there right. You see I trust the majority of the people to do the right thing on there own without having the heavy hand of government imposing there morals on someones property.

How can you find that odd when I believe government should be allowed to do very little in terms of controlling our lives. So you might want to provide specifics on that quote.

You said it yourself just in the last sentence. Government should be allowed to do "very little", which doesn't mean absolutely nothing at all. I take that as you WANT government intervention in some manner, but on a very miniscule scale. However, your support for government intervention and regulations about this and other stuff in the past just don't make sense to me and come off as highly hypocritical.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

You said it yourself just in the last sentence. Government should be allowed to do "very little", which doesn't mean absolutely nothing at all. I take that as you WANT government intervention in some manner, but on a very miniscule scale. However, your support for government intervention and regulations about this and other stuff in the past just don't make sense to me and come off as highly hypocritical.

I do not want any government intervention in this so I do not know what is hypocritical? Now if the owner of these establishments makes foods that makes them sick or the flowers are say full of bugs and pesticides that make the people sick then yes call me a hypocrite they should be held be responsible.

But as for the subject I really liked this commenter and he pretty much nailed it.

I have been to bakeries, florists, and pizza shops.
Nobody has ever asked me what I intended to do with them or where I would do it.
Now were I to walk in and announce that I intended to do something that the people in the establishment found obnoxious I should expect to be shown the door. They are not slaves, and no one has the right to force them into involuntary servitude.
If a person desires to be an obnoxious lout, they have that right. However, they do not have the right to force others to cater to their behavior.
Read more at http://iotwreport.com/?p=280374#rIcqD4pxDBwV7jvB.99

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

You said it yourself just in the last sentence. Government should be allowed to do "very little", which doesn't mean absolutely nothing at all. I take that as you WANT government intervention in some manner, but on a very miniscule scale. However, your support for government intervention and regulations about this and other stuff in the past just don't make sense to me and come off as highly hypocritical.

And I noticed you avoided the above.

Whats even more funny is the people saying how other people should run there business would be singing the double standard tune if this was the KKK wanting abakery to make a cake for a KKKparty from a black bakery owner. Or a Jewish Holocaust survivor that owns a flower shop and skin heads wanted it for a NAZIwedding. Then the righteous would not be as strong forsomething youdon't believe in.

Or how about a gay painter being asked to paint a portrait of God striking down a gay couple with a bolt of lightning? Even though there probably couldn't be anything more offensive to this gay painters values. I'm betting the hypocrisy will then be a mile long.

 

[Dee]

And I noticed you avoided the above.

Whats even more funny is the people saying how other people should run there business would be singing the double standard tune if this was the KKK wanting abakery to make a cake for a KKKparty from a black bakery owner. Or a Jewish Holocaust survivor that owns a flower shop and skin heads wanted it for a NAZIwedding. Then the righteous would not be as strong forsomething youdon't believe in.

Or how about a gay painter being asked to paint a portrait of God striking down a gay couple with a bolt of lightning? Even though there probably couldn't be anything more offensive to this gay painters values. I'm betting the hypocrisy will then be a mile long.

Those examples are different, though. Black and/or gay people did not hunt down straight people and hang them from a tree, and neither did Jewish people capture, torture, and kill German people in mass numbers. The only reason religious people, if you want to go ahead with this specific example, would deny doing business for someone is because of a ridiculous quote they misinterpreted from the bible or whatever religion the bill protects (guaranteed probably only Christianity given how prejudice this country and the states adopting it still are). The bible and many other religions preach and teach love, acceptance, treating other people with respect and leaving the judgment up to God or whatever god they worship, not you as a sinful human yourself, which in that case would be hypocritical and taking on the job of your righteous one. That is why I ignored your ridiculous comment because that is what it is: ridiculous.

So please, throw more examples of actual human suffering at me and then we can talk about how this bill would actually work.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Those examples are different, though. Black and/or gay people did not hunt down straight people and hang them from a tree, and neither did Jewish people capture, torture, and kill German people in mass numbers. The only reason religious people, if you want to go ahead with this specific example, would deny doing business for someone is because of a ridiculous quote they misinterpreted from the bible or whatever religion the bill protects (guaranteed probably only Christianity given how prejudice this country and the states adopting it still are). The bible and many other religions preach and teach love, acceptance, treating other people with respect and leaving the judgment up to God or whatever god they worship, not you as a sinful human yourself, which in that case would be hypocritical and taking on the job of your righteous one. That is why I ignored your ridiculous comment because that is what it is: ridiculous.

So please, throw more examples of actual human suffering at me and then we can talk about how this bill would actually work.

Oh!! I see only you and government can pick, choose and define what people might find offensive or against there belief system or values. Now that's true socialist thinking.

I'm a a athiest so me I don't get it with this gay thing but I can respect there right to decide what to do with their business.

It would be like the organization called CAIR. Some think they are the organization of peace where I see them as everything defining evil. If the president of that organization asked me to do work at their home I would go out of business before I compromised my principles.