The country that authored the Declaration of Independence had legal slavery, restricted the vote to landowners in many cases, and was not willing to recognize homosexual marriage either.
I do not believe that’s the benchmark you’re seeking.
So you’re saying that homosexual marriage was something that the founding fathers discussed and debated and then rejected? :dubious:
No – I’m saying that I’m confident that not a one of them believed the Declaration aspired to authorize same-sex marriage.
IMHO businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone. They opened the business, it’s their livelihood and their ass on the line if the business fails. At some point government interference in business can get to a point where you question if you’re really running a your own business or if it’s just a rented government franchise.
Now where businesses get in trouble is being too specific on why they refuse service. Maybe you’re a photographer who happens to be a member of PETA and are being asked to photograph junior’s first deer field dressing, or maybe you’re a liberal democrat print shop owner and are asked to print flyers for Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign. Maybe it’s not wise to turn down paying jobs, but shouldn’t that be the prerogative of the private business owner to decide who they do business with, for whatever reason?
In the long run if a business really doesn’t want to do business with you why do you believe you have a right to force a business transaction, and do you really want work from someone who is not happy they have to serve you?
What if you live in a small town or the countryside, where you don’t have the option of taking your business elsewhere without substantial sacrifice? Or moving, which is also a substantial sacrifice? Without government interference, the burden of accommodation shifts onto the minorities.
No. It’s a much bigger burden not be able to buy goods than to have to sell goods at a profit to people you don’t like.
Then too bad. Citizens don’t have guarantees that they can get a particular good or service any time and anywhere. Maybe the only flower shop in town goes out of business, or maybe they can’t get carnations from their supplier. The government isn’t going to step in when either of those happens.
A business transaction is between two willing parties, and I believe a free market society depends on that.
You know, gays buy food as well as cut flowers. If you don’t believe society would cut marginalized members off from basics and necessities, I suggest you talk to some older black people about what life was like in the 50s and before.
We have guarantees that someone can’t prevent you from buying a house or a meal or gasoline based on the color of your skin or whether you wear a kippah. Eventually, that will include whether you are attracted to people of the same sex.
WTF? You just said it didn’t matter. YouJUST SAID THIS.
So really, in real life, the law doesn’t give a flying fuck about what the Founding Fathers intended if we can show that that law allows it. Both sides of whatever issue use it to their advantage, but in this case, only people who think the law is some religion-protecting freedom law wants to parse every word because they think it’ll get them an advantage
A free society depends on all people being able to conduct business anywhere they want. Blacks in the first half of the 20th century used to have to buy books that would guide them toward businesses willing to take their money. We’re not going back to those days, only this time singling out gays.
The train on that debate left the station in 1964. It’s certainly a valid viewpoint, and is an interesting debate in an abstract sense, but the fact of the matter is we are not going back to pre-1964 days.
You’re extremely confused.
Both links you provide go to my saying that the law in Indiana as presently constituted (there is an amendment en route now) would not allow such discrimination. That is absolutely correct.
it also has nothing to do with “the ideals in the Declaration of Independence,” which is the subject of posts 281, 282, and 283.
Moreover, the Declaration itself is aspirational in nature and has no legal force at all.
Got it?
I’m 50, and was never taught that. I don’t think of that as something taught to ‘my generation.’ I’d have said it skews older than 50, at least.
Not that homophobia wasn’t mainstream when I was high school and college - it certainly was - but I don’t remember people believing it wasn’t innate in some people.
So it looks as though Indiana intends to pass a measure amending their just-adopted RFRA to say, explicitly, that it does not authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public; and it does not establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public.
Does that change now remove the objections to it?
What do you think the new law changed, Bricker? That is, before the (as yet unpassed, unsigned, maybe even unwritten) amendment.
What was legal or illegal before the law passed, that is now the opposite?
Remains to be seen. On paper, in a theoretical unbiased, easily accessible court of law, I guess so - I don’t know what the amendment will say, yet.
But the reality might be different, too. Small mom-and-pop idiot companies might still discriminate, believing (as apparently Eric Miller did, though you disagree) that they can do all sorts of things around refusing gays, even with the new amendment in place.
Before the state RFRA, Indiana could pass a law of general applicability, even if it burdened religious exercise. For example, the state could criminalize peyote use, even though it’s used in Native American religious rituals, without justifying their action or seeking to make it as narrowly burdensome as possible.
After the state RFRA was passed, Indiana would have to justify the peyote ban and show that it was in furtherance of a compelling government interest and that it was the most narrowly-tailored method of accomplishing that interest.
I was quoting it. Link.
It’s hard to understand how they might believe that, since the amendment clearly and unambiguiously says the Indiana RFRA:
a rewrite in progress. who knows what will come of it.
Indiana lawmakers announce proposed religious law changes
http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-lawmakers-announce-proposed-religious-law-changes-132057903.html
The public backlash against the RFRA laws is the free market at its finest. The Indiana law, like the Arizona law before it, will not be defeated by votes from the political opposition. It will not be struck down by the courts. No, the very people that pushed to get it passed will be forced to walk it back, just like Jan Brewer did in Arizona. It will be a choice between repealing or substantially changing the law or economic devastation.
Because, as it turns out, most people really do not want to obtain products and services from someone that refuses to provide them equally to everyone. People and organizations that host conventions and sports events take the term “host” very seriously and do not want to patronize venues that are allowed to discriminate against their guests. In fact, the free market backlash forces businesses to “declare” themselves — hence all the “We Serve Everyone” and “Open for Business–For Everyone” signage that pops up in the aftermath of these controversies. It must be hard to be the only business on the block without these signs - it makes quiet bigotry impossible.
It’s kind of amazing when the same crowd that raves about the infallibility of the free markets suddenly feel differently when Adam smith’s invisible hand decides to bitch-slap them.