The tide that’s coming in is a tsunami…
8 Likes
You should be confused because it doesn’t. The specifically speaks about government activity and has nothing to do with individuals or with business refusing services of individuals.
Nowhere in the law does it say people can use religious faith to discriminate.
Maybe they should also ask Hillary since her husband signed the same law as President and Obama voted for a similar as a State Senator.
Having managed, coached, led many teams in an array of sports–
There are always those times when you get schooled badly-- because of your own mistakes.
One of my favorite adages applies here-- to the state of Indiana and Gov Mike Pence.
The only thing worse-- than getting your ass kicked?
Is kicking your own ass!
jw1
5 Likes
Is it that time already?
Let’s visit anything Bill may have done on HRC.
jw1
7 Likes
The reporting on this interview quotes him as saying this, and my head still hurts. The guy is making it up as he goes because he’s been fed his lines by ALEC who haven’t updated his talking points…
“The issue here is, you know, is tolerance a two-way street or not?”
5 Likes
Clinton Derangement Syndrome kicking in a bit early, Justine? It’s still 2015
11 Likes
Good on AFSCME. The bigots really need to wake up and smell the coffee.
5 Likes
Nice try…but give this one a look before your next derp:
…becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious
state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute
has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First,
the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a
right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t
contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except
South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd
language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially
burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of
this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim
or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana
statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free
exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of
legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s
decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in
which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to
give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’
statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
20 Likes
Please tell me the NCAA (housed in Indianapolis, IIRC) didn’t really confuse ‘affect’ with ‘effect’.
And the athletes should wear pink triangles on their uniforms. If the NCAA really believes this.
1 Like
Same cowardly bullshit the bigots (such as yourself) trotted out to justify stopping black people from eating at the lunch counter (public accommodation).
9 Likes
Ahem:
There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law.
[…}
The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
9 Likes
“The National College Athletic Association, which hosts its Final Four March Madness games in Indianapolis, said it was “especially concerned about how this legislation could effect our student-athletes and employees.””
“affect,” not “effect.” Jeez, I’d expect anyone associated with College to avoid this particular pet peeve of mine…
5 Likes
Exactly. From your linked article:
No one, I think, would ever have denied that Maurice Bessinger was a man of faith.
And he wasn’t particularly a “still, small voice” man either; he wanted everybody in earshot to know that slavery had been God’s will, that desegregation was Satan’s work, and the federal government was the Antichrist. God wanted only whites to eat at Bessinger’s six Piggie Park barbecue joints; so His servant Maurice took that fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1968 decided that his religious freedom argument was “patently frivolous.”
Our resident Fright-Wing™ Troll is cowardly parroting the same bullshit Maurice Bessinger argued. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.
9 Likes
These assholes are trying to replace the Constitution and rule of law with (their interpretation of) the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
4 Likes
Key word: Athletic
Reminds me of the old joke: What is the first name shared by the dumbest teacher in every school? Coach
7 Likes
The RFRA that Obama signed pertains to individuals and not-for-profit churches, not businesses who are being given license to discriminate under Indiana’s new law. Nice try though.
12 Likes
I sure hope so
2 Likes
Good for you!
Hit these pricks where it hurts the most! NOT in their bibles, but in their wallets!!
2 Likes
Thank you, George, for some serious research.
Now, who among you commenters is willing to put in the time – as opposed to just sounding off among the like-minded – to actually write to Mark Emmert insisting that the NCAA carry through on his “concern” and actually boycott Indiana? (Yes, the logistics are too complicated at this late date, but we have to send a message, for now and in the future.)
For what it’s worth, I’m from Michigan’s UP and have two dogs in this fight, MSU and Wisconsin. But I refuse to watch this year’s Final Four for the first time ever. If you don’t believe this is serious business I really don’t know what you’re doing on this site. Will you join me? Not likes, promises. I am starting my letter now. How about you?