Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

[The Human Q-Tip]

Let me clarify:

"Clarify" -- gourimoko's attempt to get away with making false accusations while pretending it was someone else's fault. And even in your clarification, you misrepresented my position yet again. Classic.

To the extent you want to re-discuss the issue of gay marriage, there was a specific thread for that. I'll bump it so this thread doesn't get cluttered up with an irrelevant argument that you're just trying to use to detract from the reality that you had no freaking clue what you were talking about on this issue.

Now, please continue telling everyone else how the 14th Amendment bars discrimination by private individuals. I'm still waiting for that response.

ETA: Actually, I'm not going to bump that thread because I just realized you didn't directly link the quote, and I don't want to waste time looking for that old thread, and then searching it for the particular quote and context. Feel free to bump it yourself, though, since you obviously went looking for it.

As a matter of common courtesy, though, if you're going to resurrect quotes from an old thread, you should quote the person using the quote function so that there is a direct link to that thread, and to the posts in question.

 

[NasstyNate]

I think all/most of us would agree with that. But opposing government regulation of private sector discrimination does not necessarily make you a bigot, nor does it mean you actually support or are willing to tolerate personally those discriminatory acts. It may just mean you're someone who wants to limit the role of government period.

This is, of course, 100% correct.

However, it's the principle that not everyone who wants limited government regulation is a bigot, but everyone who is a bigot wants limited government regulation. Whether you agree with the bigot's motivation or not, you want the same ends. And we have a rich history of people dressing up bigotry as principled stances against government regulation, from the Civil War on down to these "religious freedom" laws. So it isn't hard to see why you (those free of bigotry) get grouped in with them when you are constantly standing next to each other.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is, of course, 100% correct.

However, it's the principle that not everyone who wants limited government regulation is a bigot, but everyone who is a bigot wants limited government regulation.

Actually, that's not true. There are bigots who want the government to discriminate as well. Back of the bus, separate public drinking fountains, separate schools, etc., etc. etc..

Whether you agree with the bigot's motivation or not, you want the same ends.

That's not true either. A bigot affirmatively desires the "end" of actual discrimination. A non-bigot who opposes discrimination will support boycotts, ostracism, and other voluntary measures that combat discrimination, and desires the same "end" you do -- no discrimination.

And the logic of "if you support the same laws as 'X', you desire the same ends as well", is simply flawed. I don't support the government sticking a bug on my computer so it can legally monitor everything I do. Which happens to be a position with which terrorists and pedophiles agree as well. Does that mean we both desire the same "ends"?

 

[NasstyNate]

Now, please continue telling everyone else how the 14th Amendment bars discrimination by private individuals. I'm still waiting for that response.

And you thought Title VII applies to the Indiana law and suggested the proper fix would be for Congress to pass the Employment Non Discrimination Act, which would have no effect considering it deals with employment and not public accommodation. So maybe not cast the first stone?

 

[NasstyNate]

Actually, that's not true. There are bigots who want the government to discriminate as well. Back of the bus, separate public drinking fountains, separate schools, etc., etc. etc..

Quite right. But I think your minor nitpick casts aside the spirit of the point.

That's not true either. A bigot affirmatively desires the "end" of actual discrimination. A non-bigot who opposes discrimination will support boycotts, ostracism, and other voluntary measures that combat discrimination, and desires the same "end" you do -- no discrimination.

Bigots want to end discrimination? Huh?

And the logic of "if you support the same laws as 'X', you desire the same ends as well", is simply flawed. I don't support the government sticking a bug on my computer so it can legally monitor everything I do. Which happens to be a position with which terrorists and pedophiles agree as well. Does that mean we both desire the same "ends"?

How could you have possibly read this from my post? Have you seamlessly pivoted to arguing against people in the real world as opposed to the forum again?

 

[RonG]

I don't know what is more embarrassing the law signed by the governor and the reasons for it or the people in here trying to defend it. As a Christian I am embarrassed, as a proud veteran and father of a young man on active duty I am embarrassed, as the father of a gay son I am embarrassed.

The way the law was passed and signed into law private hospitals and doctors could refuse medical care based on sexual preference. That is so wrong, so far off from what was taught by Christ it is shameful. All sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord accept blasphemy. To twist the words of God to create hate or push your agenda is blasphemy.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Bigots want to end discrimination? Huh?

I think you misread my post. You said:

Whether you agree with the bigot's motivation or not, you want the same ends.

I then pointed our how a bigot who wants limited government regulation does not want the same "ends" as a non-bigot who wants limited government regulation:

A non-bigot who opposes discrimination will support boycotts, ostracism, and other voluntary measures that combat discrimination, and desires the same "end" you do -- no discrimination.

That was my point.

How could you have possibly read this from my post? Have you seamlessly pivoted to arguing against people in the real world as opposed to the forum again?

I'm saying that opposition to government regulation does not remotely mean that you support a discriminator result, or that you don't support other means of combatting discrimination. And while you recognized that, you then went to the "but all bigots want limited government regulation" argument, which I think is an unfair smear against those who are not bigoted but support less government. So, try it this way:

Cratylus argued upthread that sellers should have the same legal right as buyers to deal, or not deal, with someone for any reason they choose. You believe that "sellers" should not be able to discriminate legally on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. Right?

But how about the morality of discrimination by buyers/individuals? Is it morally right to not hire a contractor just because they happen to be black, or gay? To boycott a particular restaurant because the waiters are black, or gay? To not use a black electrician because you just don't like black people? Such discrimination could have a very real impact on someone's livelihood. I assume we'd all agree those actions are immoral.

But, do you support making those actions illegal as well? Because surely, bigots also want to retain the legal freedom not to patronize minority establishments. And if both you and bigots believe that buyers should have the legal right to discriminate, then the statement you made above could be applied to you as well:

However, it's the principle that not everyone who wants limited government regulation is a bigot, but everyone who is a bigot wants limited government regulation. Whether you agree with the bigot's motivation or not, you want the same ends.

So, if you don't want to make buyer discrimination illegal -- don't you want the same ends as bigots?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I
The way the law was passed and signed into law private hospitals and doctors could refuse medical care based on sexual preference.

They could do that before this law.

 

[The Oi]

They could do that before this law.

This is true.

What, in your opinion, is the value of the new law? In what situations would you see it being useful? And in those cases, what protection would it offer that other laws already didn't?

I'm not angling for anything here. I'm curious.

 

[gourimoko]

One because AA have a unique history in this country and two because, well, quite frankly, AA need all the paternalism they can get.

Wow..

Do I think the Civil Rights Act should be applied to gays, women, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, or anyone besides AA? No, no, no, no, no and no.

.....

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is true.

What, in your opinion, is the value of the new law? In what situations would you see it being useful? And in those cases, what protection would it offer that other laws already didn't?

I'm not angling for anything here. I'm curious.

I think the law was born primarily out of three motives. One is fine, two are problematic.

One motive is the same motive that has driven similar laws on the federal level and in many other states. Namely, that some government prohibitions perhaps should not be applied if they conflict with legitimate religious beliefs. That's the stuff for Native Americans, and a bunch of other stuff to which most people probably wouldn't object.

The second motive is simply pandering by passing a symbolic law that accomplishes nothing.

The third motive is similar to the reason so many people are outraged -- the mistaken belief that laws/court decisions that legalize gay marriage will also compel private individuals to participate in/facilitate such marriages.

The practical effect of such a law is zero unless the state already has, or were to subsequently pass, a law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation. But Indiana (and most other states) don't have such a law. And it's the lack of such a law that should be the real focus of the protestors.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I'll grasp the nettle here. I would only be in favor of the Civil Rights Act if it was applied specifically and explicitly to African-Americans. One because AA have a unique history in this country and two because, well, quite frankly, AA need all the paternalism they can get.

Do I think the Civil Rights Act should be applied to gays, women, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, or anyone besides AA? No, no, no, no, no and no.

I daresay that if the men that voted for the Civil Rights Act knew of the long-term ramifications of their vote- as a bludgeon to destroy freedom of association and freedom of conscience- a lot of them wouldn't have voted for it.

 

[GreasySpread36]

Wow..."

The correct Progressive reply is, "Wow, just wow."

 

[The Oi]

LOL at the paternalism comment that I missed the first time around! That's the most racist thing I've seen in the thread so far!!!

 

[gourimoko]

The correct Progressive reply is, "Wow, just wow."

What you said, by all accounts, is racist man...

"African-Americans need all the paternalism they can get."

Are you serious?

I'm floored honestly.....

p.s.
Before anyone does guilt by association I know for a fact that was not Cratylus' point.