Incidentally, the last time I used my bank’s coin-counter, it kept rejecting one dime. I checked it out and it’s from 1967, the second-to-last year they contained actual silver. It’s worth maybe a buck, now, but I seem to have misplaced it. It might be in my car’s ashtray.
Can’t say I’ve ever run into one, no, so there’s definitely an untapped market there. Nor have I ever seen “leave a penny, pick a penny” plates around here, now that I think of it.
Coinstar.
Georgia Legislators Admit It: “Religious Liberty” Bill Is About Anti-Gay Discrimination
Not really a surprise. It was surprising in this case it was actually a Republican who exposed the plot by other Republicans.
Similar to voter ID. Sooner or later the real intent is admitted to.
Correct.
We went through there a couple years ago, but did not stop, as it was late and we had a room waiting in Show-Low. From what I could tell, it was one of those places that is along the way to (or from) somewhere, rather than actually being somewhere itself.
Are you going to boycott all of the other 19 states that have passed a RFRA or similar? And the federal government?
[QUOTE=BigAppleBucky]
Georgia Legislators Admit It: “Religious Liberty” Bill Is About Anti-Gay Discrimination
Not really a surprise. It was surprising in this case it was actually a Republican who exposed the plot by other Republicans.
Similar to voter ID. Sooner or later the real intent is admitted to.
[/QUOTE]
Insinuating the guy who threw a wrench in the works of their “religious freedom” bill did so because he’s Jewish is a class act, too.
These laws are being portrayed in the press as anti-gay laws but all they really are is a way for us to settle things like wedding planners having to do gay marriages in court. What I think is a stupid liberal idea is forcing people to violate their religion in such a direct and personal way.
We’d been told that religious rights would not be under threat if we agreed to gay marriage, but as with anything liberals say, it was just a bargaining position that expired the moment liberals got an advantage on the issue. Now it’s a full court press and everyone better get on board or face the consequences.
Religious right aren’t under threat. The “right” to conduct one’s for-profit business in a discriminatory way has been shaved a bit, I admit.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If you don’t want to have to plan gay weddings, don’t be a wedding planner ; the same way your recourse is to not become a restaurateur should you not be able to stomach the idea of having to feed black people.
“But I really *really *believe gays are icky” is really *really *not reasonable grounds to call for exemption from law. If religion didn’t fly as an out to anti-segregation laws (and believe me, they tried), why should it fly now ?
Perhaps we can get the supporters of the law added to a certain California ballot initiative? :rolleyes: Ride them out of town to CA; or perhaps in a water pipeline!
Works for me. I give no person a pass on civilized behavior because of their delusions.
It does snow in Arizona. The only time I ever experienced a white Christmas was in Sedona. (And I don’t mean because of Sheriff Joe.)
People have the right to conduct their for profit business according to their religious values. Especially if they aren’t a corporation, but just a person providing a service. We don’t even need to get into the religious aspect of it, the right of independent contractors to choose who they will work for and which jobs they will take is pretty much established. That’s why everyone complains about cab drivers not picking up black people, but no one can do anything about it.
There are Christian and Jewish and Muslim wedding planners that exclusively plan such religious weddings. Making them do gay weddings is just one step away from making the churches and mosques themselves have to do it.
Tell ya what though, let’s codify this new concept: all private contractors MUST take all business offered to them on a first come first serve basis. This would also go for landlords or private homeowners renting out rooms. It would especially apply to attorneys.
Apparently this has limits. I’m not inclined to be sympathetic. Personal taste.
In any case, all the bills do is reaffirm that in order to burden religious practice, government must prove a compelling interest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. All it does is insure that if localities ban discrimination, that they have to justify it in court. In the vast majority of cases, the courts will rule for the government I’d bet. But there will be some cases where a religious person has to get so involved in behavior they find sinful that it is a serious burden on religious practice. I used the example of wedding planners to highlight where this is probably the case. A wedding planner actively aids a couple in getting married. They are essential to the process once hired. Expecting a wedding planner to actively aid in the committing of a sin would be like forcing lawyers to take cases they are morally opposed to. So unless you plan to force progressive lawyers to represent banks against consumers…
My sympathy is still not being stirred, probably because I consider religion to be so absurdly unnecessary that it follows that a religious person is also absurdly unnecessary (the religious part of them, anyway), so if the religious part of them feels all oppressed or whatever… big deal.
Personally, I think the First Amendment would be of more use if it read Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and doesn’t want to hear about it at all so just keep it to yourself, okay? What you do in private is none of our beeswax, just don’t come whining to us that other Americans are making your god or whatever cry or whatever.
We’ve discussed this in other threads – religious wedding planners can still only plan religious weddings of a certain type/theme/etc. if that’s what they want, but they can’t discriminate against certain couples based on sexual orientation (or race/religion/etc.). So they can advertise “Christian weddings”, and only do Christian weddings, but they can’t turn away a gay couple that wants a Christian wedding because they’re gay. They can’t turn away a Jewish couple that wants a Christian wedding because they’re Jewish.
If you offer a service, you have to offer that service to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.
Or at least that’s how it should be.
As explained by others already, this is indeed a very stupid slippery slope argument, oh well, at least we fulfilled the quota for the day for this thread. 
Fear not, not very likely that all bigotry in the private sector will be forbidden. (Of course since this is the one wonders why this is a fear for you) Not all states are doing that, but even in red states like Arizona there are places like Phoenix where it is now illegal to fire people just because they are gay.
Back then the opponents to the rule predicted endless lawsuits, turns out that there is actually less discrimination over here and very only few outspoken and influential bigots were the ones who lost.