Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
Is there a right to be free of condemnation in the Bill of Rights?  There is a right to the free exercise of religion.

The late Arizona law sought to protect the exercise of religion and the freedom of conscience from an assault similar to that dealt by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

I am a definite believer in the Bill of Rights. I also definitely believe in religious freedom as long as it doesn't belittle, discriminate, humiliate or persecute others for living their lives the way they see fit. I am a very Spiritual person but I would never dream of not doing business just because of someone's lifestyle that I don't agree with. They have every right to be able to use my services as long as they can pay for it and if they can't I will even cut breaks. I know I am trans which is an alternate lifestyle in which some do not agree with or out and out hate and there are lifestyles that I don't agree with. But they have every much the same right to live the way they see fit as I have the same right. With that said I am a business person and green is green and provides for my living and hopefully retirement.

Believe me, I am not taking this bill personally but rather very skeptically. In good conscience? "Judge not lest ye be judged" "Do not take the Lord's name in vain" are passages that ring true to my heart from the Bible. If there was a transgender that wanted Christ to pray for him or her for some malady besides being transgender, what would Jesus do? Deny that person compassion just because he or she were transgendered? WWJD I see a lot or used to see it a lot but proclaiming proudly and contemplating it are two different things entirely. On a lighter note though Jesus did hang with the sinners way more than the saints.

Quote from: Hikari on February 27, 2014, 04:06:43 PM
I can't understand how this is such a political issue are people really in here quoting the Federalist papers? (I consider it a dubious sign when people start quoting political papers as if they were somehow law, which happens far too often)

It is simple, if you operate a for profit business and you think that blacks originate from the descendants of Caine and are servants of Satan and you refuse to serve them you are breaking the law (and are also crazy). If you operate a Church or a Church business (like a Catholic School for example) then you can discriminate because you are a religious institution.... So why should blacks have protections and not LGBT people?

If religious freedom gives you the "freedom" to cripple our civic institutions (and yes, with the way our country is ran for profit companies are not only civic institutions, they form the backbone of civic participation) Then I am absolutely opposed to such "Freedom". If someone wants to discriminate against me because I am Trans, Lesbian, White, or even Atheist that person better be part of a church or some other exclusive affinity group, not a for profit enterprise.

As to the specific point, this bill was about taking democratic rights away from the cities of Arizona, several of whom have passed nondiscrimination laws. This entire thing was just another example of rural politicians trying to override the democratic processes of urban areas, because they can't seem to stand just discriminating against the LGBT community in their own back yard they need to do it in urban areas too.

The Federalist Papers are authoritatively quoted by the Supreme Court because they represent the observations and views of two of the persons (Madison and Hamilton) who were responsible for much of the Constitution's original content.  Furthermore, these papers record the nature of the debates in the Philadelphia convention, and the process of ratification by state conventions of the people.  That means they record the prevailing arguments of the day and the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.

The debates in the First Congress tell us about the crafting of the Bill of Rights. Both are important tools in understanding what these fundamental guarantees mean.

As Justice Antonin Scalia notes, the Constitution is not a "living" document.  It is an "enduring" document.

Quote from: Hikari on February 27, 2014, 05:15:42 PM
The NFL acted perfectly consistently with seeking the most profits. I am sure the NFL is made up of a majority of Christians, so it wasn't discrimination against Christians, it was protecting their brand from someone who says very controversial things. The NFL wouldn't want Jeremiah Wright either, and it isn't because he is a Christian, but because he is a liability to their brand....

This is the exact same motivation for the NFL to threaten to move the Superbowl as well, they viewed keeping it in Arizona as a business liability because they viewed the bill as antiLGBT and discrimination isn't popular. These are rational business decisions, not some sort of malice towards Christians.

So you do support discriminating against controversial things, like gay-marriage? Interesting.

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 06:54:24 PM
The Federalist Papers are authoritatively quoted by the Supreme Court because they represent the observations and views of two of the persons (Madison and Hamilton) who were responsible for much of the Constitution's original content. 

This thread has been very entertaining but it's gotten past the point where it ceases to make any sense.  The Federalist Papers is an important work, but it's not law. The Constitution, however, IS law.

Let's break this thing down to the basics -

Person 1 (Joe) says "I don't want to sell wedding cakes to this guy because I suspect he's gay and that would be a violation of my religious beliefs, and my religious expression is constitutionally protected."

Person 2 (Bob) says "My partner and I are committing to each other in a church ceremony. We're decent, religious people and our church sanctions this even though same sex marriage is not legal or recognized by the state, and my religious expression is constitutionally protected."

Bob wants to be treated just like any other customer, Jim wants to deny Bob equal treatment.  Two people with claims to religious freedom, but they're in conflict. So who's right?  Who takes precedence?

Neither, if the argument is solely religious. The 1st Amendment prohibits making a law that respects one over the other, so these interests would cancel each other out based merely on religious merit. This then falls to other laws to break the tie. As I've pointed out, the 9th Amendment answers this issue quite nicely by protecting Bob's civil rights.

Do Jim's rights become infringed? No, despite the fact that conservative media crybabies are saying that it does. Making Jim sell the cake to Bob just means that Jim is doing his job and treating everyone the same, and that's all the law requires.  He suffers no loss of equal status (but Bob would if Jim made him have to find a gay bakery), he receives no unfair or inequal treatment (but Bob would if Jim prevails), and he continues to have full access to all the rights and benefits of society (but Bob would not if Jim continues to unlawfully restrict him). 

Making Jim do his job does not deprive him of any rights.  Discrimination is not a religious right, it's not a religious value, there is no doctrinal commandment in any of the holy texts I have ever read that tell followers to mistreat their fellow man because they sin in a different way.

I must admit I haven't read this whole thread, geez 4 whole pages since I posted this last night!

Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 09:56:04 PM
This thread has been very entertaining but it's gotten past the point where it ceases to make any sense.  The Federalist Papers is an important work, but it's not law. The Constitution, however, IS law.

Here though the Constitution is interpreted using a variety of methods, one of them being the "historical" method. While these types of documents aren't law, they're often extremely influential in deciding what our constitution means. A few of the Supreme Court justices prefer the historical method over other methods and don't view it Constitution as a "living document", so it's often best to research how these docs would apply in the historical method in order to have a better guesstimate as to what these justices will decide.

It might seem silly, but if you read many Supreme Court cases, concurrences, and dissents, you'll see the Federalist Papers, letters, diaries, etc. quoted.

Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 09:56:04 PM
This thread has been very entertaining but it's gotten past the point where it ceases to make any sense.  The Federalist Papers is an important work, but it's not law. The Constitution, however, IS law.

Let's break this thing down to the basics -

Person 1 (Joe) says "I don't want to sell wedding cakes to this guy because I suspect he's gay and that would be a violation of my religious beliefs, and my religious expression is constitutionally protected."

Person 2 (Bob) says "My partner and I are committing to each other in a church ceremony. We're decent, religious people and our church sanctions this even though same sex marriage is not legal or recognized by the state, and my religious expression is constitutionally protected."

Bob wants to be treated just like any other customer, Jim wants to deny Bob equal treatment.  Two people with claims to religious freedom, but they're in conflict. So who's right?  Who takes precedence?

Neither, if the argument is solely religious. The 1st Amendment prohibits making a law that respects one over the other, so these interests would cancel each other out based merely on religious merit. This then falls to other laws to break the tie. As I've pointed out, the 9th Amendment answers this issue quite nicely by protecting Bob's civil rights.

Do Jim's rights become infringed? No, despite the fact that conservative media crybabies are saying that it does. Making Jim sell the cake to Bob just means that Jim is doing his job and treating everyone the same, and that's all the law requires.  He suffers no loss of equal status (but Bob would if Jim made him have to find a gay bakery), he receives no unfair or inequal treatment (but Bob would if Jim prevails), and he continues to have full access to all the rights and benefits of society (but Bob would not if Jim continues to unlawfully restrict him). 

Making Jim do his job does not deprive him of any rights.  Discrimination is not a religious right, it's not a religious value, there is no doctrinal commandment in any of the holy texts I have ever read that tell followers to mistreat their fellow man because they sin in a different way.

Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 10:22:37 PM

Yep.

QuoteDo Jim's rights become infringed? No, despite the fact that conservative media crybabies are saying that it does. Making Jim sell the cake to Bob just means that Jim is doing his job and treating everyone the same, and that's all the law requires....

Making Jim do his job does not deprive him of any rights.

"Making Jim do his job" equals coercion, and coercion is the very antithesis of free choice.

Here is an interesting take on the issue from the Daily Kos - LOLZ

Can the state compel an "artist to paint a picture"?

Arlene's Flowers' attorney is arguing that floral arranging is a form of artistic expression, and is therefore protected speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. To wit:

    "[The lawsuit] is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. The state cannot require a florist to express appreciation for, or acceptance of gay marriage, any more than the state can require a musician to write a song about it, or an artist to paint a picture."

Setting aside the question of whether or not flower arranging is artistic expression (I think it is), what about the case of an artist that paints wedding portraits as a regular course of business? Is the First Amendment in play here? Can the state of Washington fine an artist $2000 for refusing to paint a picture?

Flower arrangements are artistic expression.
Photography is artistic expression.
Cake decorating is artistic expression.
Portraiture is artistic express.

Same First Amendment.  Same protections.  Same reason - freedom of conscience.

Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 07:41:57 PM
So you do support discriminating against controversial things, like gay-marriage? Interesting.

First I was talking about the NFL at no point did I make mention of what I support furthermore support of same sex marriage isn't very controversial. There might be some fundamentalists who oppose it but by and large for profit institutions (technically the NFL is a non profit but I say they act like a for profit company) can support things like gay marriage and get a small publicity boost rather than scores of protesters outside.

A company would be however foolish to think that the things said on conservative (or liberal) talk radio represent any sort of majority viewpoint. The reason why the NFL didn't embrace LGBT players and fans 20 years ago is because it would create controversy and rock the boat, now whatever controversy would be rather limited and they are surely betting that the tide of history is on the side of lgbt people and do t want to get cast in a negative light for being a hold out.

Quote from: Hikari on February 28, 2014, 03:08:49 AM
First I was talking about the NFL at no point did I make mention of what I support furthermore support of same sex marriage isn't very controversial. There might be some fundamentalists who oppose it but by and large for profit institutions (technically the NFL is a non profit but I say they act like a for profit company) can support things like gay marriage and get a small publicity boost rather than scores of protesters outside.

A company would be however foolish to think that the things said on conservative (or liberal) talk radio represent any sort of majority viewpoint. The reason why the NFL didn't embrace LGBT players and fans 20 years ago is because it would create controversy and rock the boat, now whatever controversy would be rather limited and they are surely betting that the tide of history is on the side of lgbt people and do t want to get cast in a negative light for being a hold out.

Really, gay marriage isn't controversial? It's hugely controversial. So, as long as viewpoints are rare, it's ok to discriminate? Liberals have done their best to polarize Rush Limbaugh and define him as controversial, but his views are quite mainstream. I don't play that game though.

You appear to be making a case for discrimination on the basis of what you feel others should believe. I'm suggesting there are beliefs people hold that may prevent them from taking part in certain activities. I don't share their beliefs, but their beliefs aren't for me to judge per se. This isn't about what you or I believe.

QuoteA company would be however foolish to think that the things said on conservative (or liberal) talk radio represent any sort of majority viewpoint.

Twice as many self identify as conservative than they do liberal.

I find your mindset a little scary, a lot actually. You seem entirely willing to discriminate against things you simply disagree, things you deem not okay. I'm not religious and I support gay marriage, I don't support these bills. But it's concerning how many people just seem closed minded regarding other's beliefs. Truly scary.

Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 07:03:24 AM
Really, gay marriage isn't controversial? It's hugely controversial. So, as long as viewpoints are rare, it's ok to discriminate? Liberals have done their best to polarize Rush Limbaugh and define him as controversial, but his views are quite mainstream. I don't play that game though.

If you don't think that Rush is controversial, moreover even think he is mainstream then I have to say we must live in worlds where there are simply different facts. I suppose there isn't much point in talking at that point, because if the world you live in operates of a different set of facts then I don't see how we could ever do anything but talk past each other. Maybe I should start adopting different facts too and start thinking that Rachel Maddow and Robert Reich are somehow people with mainstream views; it would certainly make the world easier to deal with.

Tell me one radical non-mainstream view he has. You're fond of communism, yes your world is different than mine. Duh?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak for me.

*****

At what point will this not be OK? At what point will this shift from good to bad? At what point will this false claim of religious liberty actually begin to look like the hate and discrimination it truly is?  Will it be when they identify any of us as transgender and refuse to treat us equally because it is also is against their "religious beliefs"?

If "they" are coming for the socialists, by definition it's a liberating force for those oppressed by these thugs and it's a good thing.

In reality, a free people have their freedoms taken one by one by the elites who assume the role of masters. This bill, although poorly designed and poorly thought out was aimed at preventing the loss of freedom of religion.

Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 03:50:13 PM
Tell me one radical non-mainstream view he has. You're fond of communism, yes your world is different than mine. Duh?

I am pretty sure thinking feminists are somehow "femnazis" isn't very mainstream.

My world view is very different than yours but, locally there are quite a few people I know who consider the concept of property itself to be theft. So while I understand my views aren't mainstream they aren't really all that far left in my community. I suspect we very well might be living in basically different worlds.

Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 04:45:19 PMIn reality, a free people have their freedoms taken one by one by the elites who assume the role of masters.

Yeah . . . you really didn't get it, did you? That's the whole point of this thread.

Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 04:45:19 PMThis bill, although poorly designed and poorly thought out was aimed at preventing the loss of freedom of religion.

It was aimed at legalizing inequality.  How much longer will you continue to try to make hate and discrimination sound noble and holy?

Quote from: Hikari on February 28, 2014, 05:36:24 PM
I am pretty sure thinking feminists are somehow "femnazis" isn't very mainstream.

Why any woman or transwoman would want to align herself with Rush Limbaugh is beyond me.  That makes about as much sense as Barack Obama wanting to join the KKK or Jews aiding the Third Reich.  Just sayin'...

  This thread seems to be getting quite polarized. People have different opinions, and that's okay, but remember to keep things nice. 

Since this has turned into a cat fight, topic locked.