The Fox, Elagiac, and Raw Sugar are all separate people. Further attempts to derail this discussion by making claims or digs on other people will not be tolerated.

Now get back to your regularly scheduled fox business.

I think we should have another Metalution.

Tru is into BDSM?


This might be a problem.....

Quote from: Icy on March 30, 2015, 07:05:42 PM

But the law is not like the other 19 (At least?) states. Compare the language yourself.

I've read it. Nowhere does it explicitly apply to disputes between private citizens. In fact, the word 'citizen' isn't even in the text, and 'private' only refers to private employers, in which it states the bill doesn't give cause to private employees. It very explicitly states it's relating to government entities.

Third, the state RFRA bills do not, in fact, mirror the language of the federal RFRA. The
federal RFRA and most other state RFRAs provide that in order to pass constitutional muster the
alleged burden on the exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs must be “in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest.” Some versions of the state RFRA now pending before the
Indiana Legislature, by contrast, set forth that the state must demonstrate that “applying the
burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental
interest; . . .” This difference in language, creating a much higher burden for the state in defending the application of otherwise generally applicable laws in cases where there is an
alleged burden on religious liberty rights, is extremely important. This higher burden will be
particularly critical in cases where RFRA rights might be asserted as a defense to a claim of
discrimination; the RFRA claimant will be encouraged to assert a range of ways, including the
market, in which application of the anti-discrimination law is non-essential. Further, the
definition of “person” under the proposed RFRA differs substantially from that contained in the
federal RFRA, affording standing to assert religious liberty rights to a much broader class of
entities than that currently recognized by federal law.

In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably
demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create
confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights
in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This
confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers,
landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting
in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious
justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their
employer’s, their landlord’s, their local shopkeeper’s, or a police officer’s private religious
beliefs. As we have learned on the federal level, RFRAs do not “open a door” to conversation,
but rather invite new conflict that takes the form of litigation. This collision of public rights and
individual religious beliefs will produce a flood of litigation, whereby Indiana courts will be
asked to rebalance what has been a workable and respectful harmony of rights and
responsibilities in a pluralistic society.33

Quote from: Icy on March 30, 2015, 06:38:35 PM

The fuck did Algeria come into this equation?

OT: Ukraine out of those three.

Former French colony, formerly a part of France proper, French minority, and it's right on the African side of the Mediterranean.

Quote from: Mad Max on March 30, 2015, 12:23:37 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 29, 2015, 05:07:39 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on March 29, 2015, 05:01:31 PM

Genuine question:

I know the Bible says gays aren't cool. But what exactly is the religious belief where you're not allowed to serve/interact/share a community with gays?

There isn't one. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's not about not wanting to serve gay people, it's about not wanting to participate in activities which are contrary to one's convictions.

..but if there isn't anything about denying services to gays in your religion, then it isn't a violation of your religious freedom.

Surely you can see how being legally obligated to perform a service for a cause that is highly contradictory to one's convictions is a violation of that freedom.

Quote from: GethKhilafah on March 29, 2015, 05:15:28 PM

You know how easy it is to just use this as an excuse to disallow gays or minorities into your establishments, right?

So?

If you don't like it, be a responsible consumer and boycott the business.

Quote from: Icy on March 26, 2015, 09:27:27 PM

Ted Cruz's viability as a Presidential candidate is similar to that of Santorum in 2012. He's going to stay in as long as possible, win a handful of electorates, but have no chance of winning.

This sentiment is the exact reason I made this thread. Cruz makes a living off of people underestimating him.

Whether you agree with his stance, there's no doubt that he's a strong politician. In his rookie year in the Senate he went behind senior Republican leadership and held a pseudo-filibuster against the ACA, and single-handedly forced a government shutdown.