Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

Okay, I don't think we can have this discussion, then. We seem to be dealing with opposite sets of physical reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The mistake you make is using a racist stereo-type, that pigeon holes everyone, based on the color of skin. You lump all blacks under the label of slavery, even though no slaves are alive today and there are black millionaires. The whites alive today never owned slaves, with many of these people working for civil rights. There is no magical connection between different points in time, mediated by skin color. This may be part of a religious belief. King wanted to be judge by content of character; case by case, and not color of skin. This applies to white and black so there is no distinction; all people.

The democrats did the opposite, and tried to use skin color, sex, and sexual preference, to decide guilt and benefits. This approach was not about character coming first. In the ghettos, democratic politics does not address violence, drugs, unwed mothers, children without father and high unemployment; character flaws. Rather all the problems are due to skin color; time extrapolation magic. This approach was designed to divide and segregate, since if you don't address character nothing will change. If you can loot and be protected by color, why become honest with oneself?

We could have had a voluntary quota system, where white straight males choose to give their places, for those they felt needed a helping hand. You seem to care, so you could have make this choice. If the democrats are not all talk, they alone could have satisfied a free choice quota system.

If we removed the force of law, and made it voluntary, people who feel illogically judged would feel less resentment. The democrats needed the division to generate and manipulate emotions. The blacks have segregated themselves based on color of skin; block vote, just like the good ole boy democrats always wanted it.

The strategy of stereo typing by color of skin, sex or sexual preference to attribute guilt and reward, allows people with flawed character to get away with being bullies, if they meet the stereo-type of the color code. Looting is justified based on color of skin. This has created a dual standard, buffered by stereo-typing, but is not supported by character. A militant gay group can gang up a single religious person, and this is called fair. I am under the negative side of the dual standard so all my logic has to be racist and bigoted by default.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All I see here is YOU stereotyping minorities. Looting, drug abuse, unemployment-- traits of black people? Really? Militant "bullying" a trait of gay people? It's YOUR side that propagates stereotypes based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, not our side. As if there are inherent character flaws in these minority groups by sheer virtue of their being black or female or gay..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In all the posts you have made on this site Wellwisher, the only one stereotyping is you my friend. Spidergoat’s reference to historical facts isn’t stereotyping. It’s just referencing historical fact.

You mean like when Democrats oppressed minorities by passing and signing civil rights bills into law. That is a ridiculous but popular myth these days in your Republican circles. How dare them damn Democrats pass laws which ensures civil liberties and helps the nation’s poorest citizens wither they be black, white or any other color put food on their tables, keep a roof over their heads and better themselves…the audacity of “dem” Democrats!

And if you think Democrats are saying or if you think Martin Luther said the all the problems faced by racial minorities are the result of skin color; then you clearly haven’t been listening to them. Having worked in the ghettos in the 70’s, the era of the “welfare queen” I can tell you welfare queens were very real. I can tell you first hand the policies Democrats first enacted to aid the poor, were far from perfect. But it was a start. And you are conveniently ignoring all the changes in social welfare which have occurred since and signed into law by a very Democratic president.

Again, acknowledging a fact isn’t stereotyping, racial groups prior to The Civil Rights Act of 1964 were disadvantaged because of racial stereotyping. Affirmative Action was the racial quota system first implemented to bring those disadvantaged racial groups into the American middle class. It is now more of an artifact and the quotas have vanished. However some institutions can and do consider race in hiring and school admissions. And unfortunately, racism still persists in all races. Racists don't just come in one color.

If voluntary programs worked, Affirmative Action wouldn’t have been necessary. That is why Affirmative Action was instituted. There is some economic and social advantage in diversity. Diversity can be strength (e.g. Ferguson).

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-conservative-religious-protection-law-20150403-story.html#page=1

 

Yeah ... right. "People more intelligent than me refuse to succumb to my pigheaded fantasies about the cosmos! I'm being persecuted!"

 

I was looking at the bigger picture, from Lincoln to now. The Democrats came aboard very late in the process and created a mythology that creates the illusions they were the originators of civil rights.

Democrat pundits pretend that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957, Pub.L. 85–315, 71 Stat. 634, enacted September 9, 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation passed by Congress in the United States since the 1866 and 1875 Acts.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat.335–337),[2] sometimes called Enforcement Act or Force Act, was a United States federal law enacted during the Reconstruction Era that guaranteed African Americans equal treatment in public accommodations, public transportation, and prohibited exclusion from jury service. The Supreme Court decided the act was unconstitutional in 1883.

Provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were later reenacted during the Civil Rights Movement in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 relying upon the Commerce Clause contained in Article One of the Constitution of the United States.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was also Congress's show of support for the Supreme Court's Brown decisions.[1] The Brown v. Board of Education (1954), eventually led to the integration of public schools. Following the Supreme Court ruling, Southern whites in Virginia began a "Massive Resistance." Violence against blacks rose there and in other states, as in Little Rock, Arkansas, where that year President Dwight D. Eisenhower had ordered in federal troops to protect nine children integrating a public school, the first time the federal government had sent troops to the South since Reconstruction.[2] There had been continued physical assaults against suspected activists and bombings of schools and churches in the South. The administration of Eisenhower proposed legislation to protect the right to vote by African Americans.

The Democratic party was the original slavery and segregation party, due to the higher need for slaves in the agricultural south. These southern states became republican, closer to modern times, after integration took root and legal segregation departed. The democrats misrepresent these states, by transposing two different times as though connected.

In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election, 1860 formalized the split. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.

In the more modern times, the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative, as the Democrats were becoming more liberal. Democratic incumbents, however, still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate (although not huge) amount of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control began to implode, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. By the mid-1990s, however, the political value of the race card was evaporating and many Republicans began to court African Americans by playing on their vast dedication to Christian conservatism.[6]

 

You know, I've just been exposed to a new concept here: the existential conflation of a select group of politicians responsible for making the law with the population of Homo sapiens sapiens from which that group is drawn. I think maybe, in criticizing this new law, we're falling into the trap of criticizing human beings from Indiana, which is just bigoted as all heck. What is so special or distinct about human beings from Indiana as to make them different from those in France, or Britain, or Alabama, or Spokane? Have you people no shame?

/sarc off

 

Well even the “bigger picture” doesn’t help you.

If that were the case, then why did Berry Goldwater, the Republican presidential nominee in 64, vehemently oppose The Civil Rights Act of 1964? If Republicans are the big civil rights advocates you claim they are, then why have Republicans illegally purged mostly minority voters from voting roles? Why have Republicans redistricted congressional districts to disenfranchise minority voters? Why have Republicans moved voting places in minority precincts to inaccessible locations? Why have Republicans reduced voting hours in minority precincts? Why have Republicans made voting more difficult for minority voters with silly voter ID laws that have disenfranchised millions of mostly minority voters under the guise of preventing voter fraud?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0402/Court-rules-Florida-voter-purge-illegal-but-will-it-stop-GOP-voting-tweaks

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/voter-id-laws-minorities-111721.html

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud

And why did Martin Luther King send a telegram to President Eisenhower expressing his disappointment?

“At the time, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was 28 years old and a developing leader in the civil rights movement; he spoke out against white supremacists. Segregationists had burned African-American churches, centers of education and organizing related to voter registration, and physically attacked African Americans, including women, who were activists. King sent a telegram to President Eisenhower to make a speech to the South, asking him to use "the weight of your great office to point out to the people of the South the moral nature of the problem". Eisenhower responded, "I don’t know what another speech would do about the thing right now."
Disappointed, King sent another telegram to the President, stating that Eisenhower's comments were "a profound disappointment to the millions of Americans of goodwill, north and south, who earnestly are looking to you for leadership and guidance in this period of inevitable social change". He tried to set up a meeting with President Eisenhower, but was given a meeting with Vice President Richard Nixon, which lasted two hours. Nixon was reported to have been impressed with King and told the president that he might enjoy meeting with him in the future.[9]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957

The fact is the Grand Old Party which used to be the Republican Party, hasn’t been so grand in recent decades. As has been repeatedly explained to you by a number of individuals, the Republican Party of today is only similar in name to the party before 1960. Unfortunately, the glory days of the Republican Party are long gone. The Republican Party of today and Democratic Party of today are not the same parties of the 50’s and earlier periods.

 

"Former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina on Thursday blasted Apple CEO Tim Cook's opposition to Indiana's religious freedom law as "hypocrisy."


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ceos-hypocrisy-over-indiana-religious-freedom

 

Well here is the difference, those other countries are not the USA. They are dictatorial states where Cook has little influence. But one cannot say the same, at least no yet, about Indiana. Cook's choices are severely limited in dictatorial states, either he moves into those markets or knockoffs move in and in either case, Cook has little political influence in those countries. However, Cook does have some influence in the US and in Indiana. So he is using it. So it really isn't hypocritical when you look beneath the surface. If memory serves, Cook is gay. So he is hardly hypocritical on gay discrimination. He is just strategically using his influence where it can be effective and not wasting it where it will not be effective.

I am not surprised these subtleties are lost on Carly. After all, she was ousted by HP's board for performance issues and now she is just another Republican seeking attention and saying silly things to garner that attention.

 

Poor baby...He's perfectly free to be consistent, alas, expediency trumps integrity.

 

Well, he is being consistent. If this Republican sponsored law is passed. It will make running his business very difficult in those states as any of his employees can trump corporate policy with a religious objection. How can you run a large company when any employee can trump corporate policy with a religious objection? You can’t, and that is one reason why corporations are very concerned with these Republican sponsored laws.
Those other countries Fiorina references don’t have religious freedom laws like the one passed in Indiana, Kansas, and other Republican controlled states. While those countries make it illegal to be or practice homosexuality, they don’t have religious freedom laws which can whimsically trump corporate policies under the guise of religious freedom. In order to run a successful company an employer needs to be able to make policies and consistently and efficiently exercise those policies. These religious freedom laws gum up the gears of corporate efficiency and profitability. That’s why Cook and other major businesses are leaving Indiana, and they are not being hypocritical. If those "other countries" had religious freedom laws like those being pushed by Republicans I am sure Cook and other business leaders would need to rethink their presence in those countries to see if they could comply with the law and remain a profitable business.

 

"A legal brief recently submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court warns that forcing states to recognize same-sex “marriage” could bring God’s judgment upon the nation.'

http://christiannews.net/2015/04/11...iage-could-bring-gods-judgment-on-the-nation/

 

It really is an amazing brief↱ that overlooks a few basic things like reality. But the conclusion of the argument summary (pp. 4-5) is the stuff of legend:

Inevitably, a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage will usher in an unprecedented coarsening of community moral standards, spawning an agressive impulse to force the American people not just to tolerate all forms of sexual misbehavior, but to embrace and encourage pagan practices that threaten to "defile" the land, and risk God's judgment.​

Everything about the argument presumes that equality invalidates itself; by their argument, supremacism = equality.

Furthermore, the entire argument generally overlooks 2012, when voters in three states specifically authorized gay marriage.

There is a reason why the homophobes are screeching; it is the same reason even Justice Thomas knows it's over―this is what it comes to.

Thank you, Photizo ... that brief is awesome.

Meanwhile, here are some more stupid arguments, via Matt Baume↱ for Huffington Post:

Four states will have to defend their marriage bans before the U.S. Supreme Court this month, and all four are still scrambling to figure out exactly how they're going to pull that off. They filed a series of briefs with the court last week that are full of weird claims and arguments that just don't make sense. Kentucky says that its marriage ban doesn't discriminate, since gay couples are still free to marry someone of the opposite sex. This is exactly the same argument that was used to justify bans on interracial marriage, and it's essentially saying: "You're free to do whatever you want, as long as you actually do something else."

Michigan's brief is even crazier. They say that gaining marriage equality through a court order, rather than a popular vote, would be demeaning to gay couples. So, thanks, Michigan, for your concern. Tennessee is sticking with the argument that if gay couples can get married, then straight couples will stop raising children in stable families, somehow. And Ohio says that overturning the marriage ban would cause the people who voted for it to feel isolated.​

So, what we have lined up for the Supreme Court argument:

• Kentucky: Straight people aren't allowed to enter gay marriages either. (See "The Gay Fray"↗ for other comment on this point.)

• Michigan: Ruling in favor of gay marriage would denigrate gay people.

• Ohio: Ruling in favor of gay marriage would make homophobes feel badly.

• Tennessee: If homosexuals can marry, heterosexuals will stop raising children in stable families.​

This is what it comes to. There is a reason even Justice Thomas knows it's over↱.

At this point, the only real question is what tantrum Scalia is going to throw. After that, look to Alito. Thomas will break if Alito does. And Roberts will have to stretch to the limits of his credibility to go along. Ginsburg will eat Kennedy's soul if he screws this up. We're looking at 6-3, 8-1, or 9-0.

But think about that: Seventeen days until the Big Show. And then, what, six weeks? Two months? Until the tally is complete? And then it will be over.

What kind of show will the homophobes put on then? Will they start a civil war, as James Dobson↱ suggests? Or perhaps redouble their efforts to destroy transgendered people?

This show is about to be over. The supremacist sequel looks like it's going to be awful.
____________________

Notes:

Olson, William J., et al. "Brief Amicus Curiae of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Pastor Chuck Baldwin in Support of the Respondents". DeBoer v. Snyder. Supreme Court of the United States. 3 April 2015. LawAndFreedom.com. 11 April 2015. http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/DeBoer Public Advocate amicus brief2.pdf

Baume, Matt. "The Four Worst Anti-Gay Marriage Arguments Ever". The Huffington Post. 7 April 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 11 April 2015. http://huff.to/1O4knUN

Tashman, Brian. "James Dobson: Gay Marriage Will Lead To Civil War". Right Wing Watch. 8 April 2015. RightWingWatch.org. 11 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1EmVpgR

 

True that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wonder if the religious right would be more open to gay marriage if it was restricted to same-race couples?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I mean, y'know, slippery slopes and all that. If we let two men of different ethnicities get married, next thing we know they'd be demanding the right to marry a communist! *shudders*

 

The Indiana law was needed due to the dual standard of liberalism. In the dual standard, only males can be sexist. Only whites can be racist. Only heterosexuals can be homophobes; homosexuals are not heterophobic. My spell checker does not even recognize the word heterophobe because the dual standard will not coin that phrase. There is no such word as religiophobia, even though there is a constant demonstration of this irrational fear of religion; defensive rage. This behavior is OK because it is covered under the dual standard. The protected groups get a pass on behavior, that non protected groups do not get.

I always come back to the quota system because this is easy to see. A set of law was created that essentially judged people by their sex, race, and sexual preference and not the content of their character; case by case. This law is based on the Democratic party template used by the KKK. The preferred groups get a different set of laws, that allow them to always have the front of the bus. In Ferguson, those who committed perjury, protecting the mythology, will not be prosecuted by the justice department, due to their race, just like the glory days of the old KKK.

The biggest problem with the dual standard, are the leaders of the Democratic party, are mostly white, straight and male. As spokesmen for the dual standard the members place them under its umbrella, allowing crime to go unpunished due to the dual standard. The IRS scandal was way worse that Nixon and Watergate, yet nobody lost their job thanks to the dual standard that allows crime. A black President and a female head of the IRS are protected by the dual standard to the point where even their crimes will not be recognized or punished. The white, male and straight democrats also get away with crime, because they are with the struggle.

I realize the liberals who are used to getting away with things, via the dual standard, are threatened by the Indiana Law, because it is a first step toward fairness.

 

Well thanks to you spell checker you finally got something right. Religophobia isn’t a word. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a word meaning one who fears religion. Because there is, it’s theophobia. Just because you spell checker doesn’t recognize a word, it doesn’t mean the word doesn’t exist. It just means you are either not using the correct word (e.g. religiophobia) or you spell checker is a dated.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theophobia
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heterophobia

Where in the Indiana law does it do anything with respect to a double standard? It doesn’t. What the Indiana law does do is give legal grounds to discriminate against gay or anyone else for that matter based on a religious belief. Gays aren’t even mentioned in the Indiana law. The law would allow discrimination based on sexual preference, race, religion, or anything else for that matter. And it makes running a business very difficult because the religious belief of any employee could at any moment trump corporate policy. That has nothing to do with your machinations about liberals or mythical double standards.

Wow, do drugs much?