|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
Letter to Christians in Indiana and elsewhere
Mar 28, 2015, 7:59 PM
|
|
http://johnpavlovitz.com/2015/03/28/a-letter-to-christians-in-indiana-from-jesus/
"I've seen what’s been going on there lately. Actually, I’ve been watching you all along and I really need to let you know something, just in case you misunderstand:
This isn’t what I had planned.
This wasn’t the Church I set the table for.
It wasn’t the dream I had for you, when I spoke in those parables about the Kingdom; about my Kingdom.
It was all supposed to be so very different."
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [111574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73751
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Letter to Christians in Indiana and elsewhere
Mar 28, 2015, 8:06 PM
|
|
I figured Jesus would have written this letter to the evangelicals a long time ago. But there are 60 million strong and Politicians love to divide them against main stream america, thus the cultural war they preach about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Re: Letter to Christians in Indiana and elsewhere
Mar 28, 2015, 9:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Letter to Christians in Indiana and elsewhere
Mar 28, 2015, 9:08 PM
|
|
Is it signed by Jesus? If not, is someone trying to profit off a signature?
That's one thing that ticks me off about mega churches, the Pastors are usually more like a rock star than he is a preacher of God's word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7013]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5127
Joined: 8/30/14
|
Religion is a business, like any other business. Some
Mar 30, 2015, 9:51 AM
|
|
CEO's are more ethical than others. But the bottom line is the bottom line. Profit, not Prophet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1723]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1842
Joined: 12/22/11
|
So this guy gets letters from Jesus
Mar 30, 2015, 9:47 AM
|
|
and he waste the time worrying about gays being able to buy cakes!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Apparently he doesn't know anything about the law
Mar 30, 2015, 11:35 AM
|
|
The ignorance about RFRAs I've seen has been kind of astounding. Unfortunately, some of the media has been pretty feckless in their reporting on the issue, so it's hard to blame people for thinking laws like the one passed in Indiana are "anti-gay" or some other nonsense.
The facts are that basically the same law was passed federally (unanimously in the House and with only 3 "no" votes in the Senate) in 1993 and either the same law or the same protections exist in 30 other states. Congress thought RFRA would apply to all the states when the law was passed, but the Supreme Court ruled that it would only apply to things the federal government regulates. Thus, after the ruling, a bunch of states* either passed state versions of RFRA or state courts made ruling that set precedents similar to the one mandated in the law.
The law doesn't say that businesses can just turn away gay people. What the law does is make it clear that any government burdening of religious freedom needs to come from a compelling interest of the state, and that the government needs to use the least restrictive means possible in accomplishing its compelling interest. So there's no guarantee that somebody claiming a religious exemption will win because of RFRA. And if there were, and if there were a bunch of people looking to turn away the business of gays, wouldn't you think there'd be an epidemic of discrimination in the 30 other states with similar protections?
*Barack Obama voted for a version of the same law as a state senator in Illinois.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7013]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5127
Joined: 8/30/14
|
hoosier daddy?***
Mar 30, 2015, 11:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Isn't the issue that Indiana's version is too broad?
Mar 30, 2015, 3:28 PM
[ in reply to Apparently he doesn't know anything about the law ] |
|
http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf
https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/
Section 9, which reads:
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.
That's supposedly different than the federal law which involved the federal government, Indiana's doesn't.
As for why there isn't an epidemic of discrimination in (30) other states, do those other states have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation? Illinois does(Thanks Obama). Because Indiana apparently doesn't which makes this case more unique and why those other states aren't facing the same outrage as Indiana.
This expansion of RFRAs power comes from 1.Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case that broadened RFRAs power and 2.States losing the battle against same sex marriages
Same as VoterId started appearing because minorities and young people suddenly started voting, you suddenly see the broadening of RFRAs when the gay issue started to turn against Republican arguments. Democrats do it too, (we were just talking about something the democrats were doing at the state levels but forgive me I can't remember what it was.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
"Same as VoterId started appearing because minorities...
Mar 30, 2015, 3:49 PM
|
|
and young people suddenly started voting"
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
"in larger numbers, effecting elections"
Mar 30, 2015, 4:08 PM
|
|
I should have clarified.
why do you think VoterID suddenly became a leading issue for republicans?
Certainly isn't because of fraud....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
It isn't?***
Mar 30, 2015, 4:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
It isn't.
Mar 30, 2015, 5:41 PM
|
|
In almost all studies done on fraud (at least in person fraud, which VoterID is about) there was almost none found. So, when weighed against the potential of votes lost because of the new VoterID laws, it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to that VoterID is a pointless idea...unless there is another strategic reason for wanting votes suppressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I try to respect all well-formed positions, but I have 0...
Mar 30, 2015, 8:30 PM
|
|
respect for the position that having to provide an ID (which is freely issued) will suppress voting. So I'm not going to argue the point. In my mind, that is a baseless and, frankly, stupid opinion.
So I'm going to choose not to beat this dead horse with you....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: I try to respect all well-formed positions, but I have 0...
Mar 30, 2015, 8:36 PM
|
|
As I posted a few weeks ago, some of the same people against voterID were ok with having to have an ID to buy a freaking bottle of Drano.
If a man can't get an ID in order to vote, how the hell can he get an ID in order to buy Drano?
I guess if a poor man gets a stopped up toilet, he is just #### out of luck 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I'm not sure that makes the case you think it makes
Mar 30, 2015, 3:52 PM
[ in reply to Isn't the issue that Indiana's version is too broad? ] |
|
If Indiana doesn't already have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation- as many other states with RFRAs don't- then why hasn't there already been a rash of discrimination there? People should be boycotting every state without explicit protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation, based on that argument. Further, although RFRA's on the books in a number of states (with and without protections based on sexual orientation), it's never been used in the way some fear it will be used, and even if it were it seems clear that the person claiming a religious freedom objection would fail in court based on the test established in RFRA.
And, actually, the whole need for RFRA's is to protect freedoms that have been "on the losing side." The original federal RFRA was passed because Native Americans and some others were consistently coming up on the losing side of court cases, while Congress clearly felt the need to clarify its more expansive view of religious freedom. But RFRA didn't mean that we all suddenly decided to become peyote users, or even that many more people would become peyote users, or that peyote use would become more acceptable. Now that it appears that gay marriage is coming to every state regardless of whether people want it or not, there needs to be a liberal way of providing dissenters with legal recourse. RFRA does that, and it does it without ensuring that the religious objector will always win.
So laws like this being passed now could be seen by those on the gay advocacy side as sign of surrender with certain terms. However, it seems they're determined to take as much ground as they can while they have momentum and the other side looks weak.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Because this law is different than the other states
Mar 30, 2015, 4:03 PM
|
|
and the reason for the "fear" despite it never being used is because it's never been broadened as it is now. It seems calculated not to protect religious freedom but to discriminate, otherwise why broaden it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I just don't see how you can make that conclusion
Mar 30, 2015, 4:25 PM
|
|
As I pointed out on the front page, the Courts of Appeals with jurisdiction over more than half the states already say that the federal RFRA applies to parties in private suits where someone could be protected from federal enforcement. Hobby Lobby established that the federal RFRA applies to businesses, as well. In states where the RFRA's aren't explicitly applicable to private parties or businesses, private parties or businesses aren't explicitly excluded from coverage, and therefore it isn't clear whether they're covered or not. So what Indiana's law does is simply clarify that RFRA's coverage in the state is as broad as federal coverage is in most states.
What's more RFRA doesn't ensure that either side will win when it's invoked. All it does is give a religious objector a legal defense. But that defense has to show, in Indiana's case, that the person's religious beliefs are "substantially burdened" and that the state has a less restrictive means of accomplishing its compelling interest. I don't know how someone could look at that and decide that means people are going to turn gay people away from lunch counters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
So you are admitting Indiana's bill is b/c of gay advocacy?
Mar 30, 2015, 4:24 PM
[ in reply to I'm not sure that makes the case you think it makes ] |
|
That's more than I've seen any other advocate for the bill say.
"But RFRA didn't mean that we all suddenly decided to become peyote users, or even that many more people would become peyote users, or that peyote use would become more acceptable."
Are you using the "gay rights" argument in advocacy of this specific RFRA bill that just happens to be about allowing private discrimination of gays? Either that's ironic or brilliant on your part.
I'm not arguing against RFRAs, I'm arguing against this specific broadening of it. As traditionally, RFRAs have been about with the Government as one of the players, whereas Indiana's verison is about private V private.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
The federal RFRA applies to private parties...
Mar 30, 2015, 4:43 PM
|
|
in most states already, and could apply to every state with a RFRA, dependent on how the law is interpreted (the federal law didn't explicitly protect people in private lawsuits, but Courts of Appeals with jurisdiction over half the states ruled it did anyway).
I'm also not saying that the need for clarified language in RFRAs comes primarily because of gay advocacy, but that lawsuits by gay couples intending to require people to provide services to help celebrate their weddings have become increasingly common, and are likely to become more common if more states are required to recognize gay marriage. There needs to be clear legislative language clarifying that business owners do not have to violate their religious beliefs by providing goods for particular events. The test established by RFRA makes it clear that people may not discriminate based on a person's being because there's no substantial burden to the business owner's religious freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Doesn't the circuit covering Indiana not allow RFRA...
Mar 30, 2015, 5:37 PM
|
|
to be used as defense in private parties (New Mexico case)? So if (when) this case is brought to that level, will it survive?
And didn't the Hobby Lobby case only apply to government agency? I need to research all the federal cases involving RFRA more, but that's the gist I remember.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73751
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
