|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 9, 2017 16:19:10 GMT -6
Being a total bandwagon fan, where the Pacers are concerned, I don't expect to be paying any attention to them for quite some time. How would they possibly compile a championship contending roster within the next 5 or 6 years? I do not see any plausible path to that. It would take a miracle of drafting. They are probably just good enough to stay out of the upper lottery levels. The hell with them. The bandwagon fan is understandable. The good news is not that good. Not a lot to be excited about. They may end up in a year in a better place than I expected. They are shedding some bad contracts and will have young players who should play hard instead of bad contracts, including PG, plus a number of overpaid vets who just never seemed to be in synch or had much desire to play together. I never expected some PG team would attract what they needed to win, even in the East.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 17:40:28 GMT -6
It clearly was intended to nullify laws passed in Bloomington, Lafayette, Indy, and other places. It was a flawed law on many grounds, and gave a religious exemption for anyone who simply asserted he had a religious reason to disobey almost any law... It doesn't even pertain to the same fucking area of law. Sheesh................No wonder you washed out as an attorney.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 9, 2017 19:47:42 GMT -6
Text of lawIt is fairly clear you are wrong that the laws are unrelated. Certainly a attorney can understand it easily while apparently you aren't clear on it. I suggest you could read the commentary in news publications which explain how the law would hamper enforcement of city and state statutes regarding discrimination. There is substantial debate on the law, but NO DEBATE that it would make enforcement of civil rights legislation very hard regarding sexual preference, gender or any other discrimination conceivably if an individual says such discrimination is part of his religious belief. That is the very purpose of the law. See Section 10 for how the RFRA would essentially overrule ANY city statute, and even most state statute, conceivably even criminal statutes, which don't mention the RFRA. For example, in Indiana there is no law forbidding, on the basis of sexual preference, engaging in discrimination in employment. In Bloomington the city passed such a protection. However, a corporation or individual could use this law as a defense. See section 8 where the interference would count UNLESS the city could prove it had a compelling reason for applying the law and it was the least burden possible. Not that it is unreasonable burden but literally any burden would be defense if there was some less restrictive burden possible. Sec 5 says "exercise of religion includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." That says "any" however trivial or peripheral to the persons belief...VERY broad. Sec 7 says corporations can have religious beliefs. VERY general, not limited to religious institutions or businesses dealing with religious matters.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 10, 2017 7:02:32 GMT -6
The problem with RFRA is the religious aspect. You shouldn't have to point to specific religious objections in order to not have to interact with someone. In a free society you would be allowed to decide who you will and will not interact with.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 10, 2017 8:11:51 GMT -6
The problem with RFRA is the religious aspect. You shouldn't have to point to specific religious objections in order to not have to interact with someone. In a free society you would be allowed to decide who you will and will not interact with. As far as I can see that is true here in all private matters. I see your point. But. We have a society that is the most free in the world, and I don't see an alternative to having some laws, we are not living in a perfect world, laws may be needed in the real world. The interactions governed by this law are those in business and commerce. That's different than private interaction. Anyway, we have gone way beyond this thread's original topic. We should probably not discuss the philosophy at any length and violate this forum's rules and laws! However, in line with our topic, I don't think we are all that backward, I like living in Indiana! It is not perfect, though. But like it or not, right or wrong about this law, Indiana is viewed as a little backward. When I travel all over the country on legal business, I see this. Left and Right coasts, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Minneapolis and other places, where I do legal work. I do not believe Ohio, in contrast, suffers from the same reputation so much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 8:20:25 GMT -6
Text of lawIt is fairly clear you are wrong that the laws are unrelated. Good Lord almost all laws are in some way related. That isn't germane to this discussion. The question is whether or not RIFRA had the intent and actionable legal standing to supersede local anti discrimination ordinances. The answer to both is a huge NO. It wasn't in any way designed to do the above, yet was seized upon by left wing zealots looking for a wedge issue leading into the 2016 Presidential Campaign. You know if the left would drop this whole comic book good vs. evil mantra, grow-up and realize people might just have a differing viewpoint without harmful intent this country might be able to move forward. Now please explain why the LBGT community didn't throw a hissy fit when Oregon, Connecticut and other blue states passed carbon copy legislation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 8:24:23 GMT -6
The problem with RFRA is the religious aspect. You shouldn't have to point to specific religious objections in order to not have to interact with someone. In a free society you would be allowed to decide who you will and will not interact with. The interactions governed by this law are those in business and commerce. That's different than private interaction. Good God, business transactions ARE private sector interactions. Sheeesh........................How stupid are you ?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 10, 2017 9:06:25 GMT -6
The interactions governed by this law are those in business and commerce. That's different than private interaction. Good God, business transactions ARE private sector interactions. If you do not wish to socialize with someone who drinks or does not practice your religion, that is different from opening a business to the public and refusing to deal with someone because you believe their lifestyle violates your religious belief. I'd say generally that is "none of your business." And it is a matter of public concern.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 10, 2017 9:16:43 GMT -6
Good God, business transactions ARE private sector interactions. If you do not wish to socialize with someone who drinks or does not practice your religion, that is different from opening a business to the public and refusing to deal with someone because you believe their lifestyle violates your religious belief. I'd say generally that is "none of your business." And it is a matter of public concern. What does "opening a business to the public" mean? What other type of business is there?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 10, 2017 9:36:54 GMT -6
Text of lawIt is fairly clear you are wrong that the laws are unrelated. Good Lord almost all laws are in some way related. That isn't germane to this discussion......Now please explain why the LBGT community didn't throw a hissy fit when Oregon, Connecticut and other blue states passed carbon copy legislation. YOU said the laws were NOT related, how is not germane to disagree? If it was NOT the intent to overrule local laws, as you claim, but it has that result, the law is flawed. Amendments, and alternative versions of the law were proposed(some by GOP members) that would have made the burden on local law less stringent, or would give the LGBT community some statewide protection or allow local protection and balance the rights in important ways. These alternatives were not even allowed to be voted on in most cases. BTW, those other states have protections for LGBT, mostly statewide. That makes a difference in impact.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jul 10, 2017 10:09:40 GMT -6
BTW, those other states have protections for LGBT, mostly statewide. That makes a difference in impact. Not sure why the LGBT community needs protection. Each of us has to live with the consequences of the choices we make.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 10, 2017 10:14:52 GMT -6
If you do not wish to socialize with someone who drinks or does not practice your religion, that is different from opening a business to the public and refusing to deal with someone because you believe their lifestyle violates your religious belief. I'd say generally that is "none of your business." And it is a matter of public concern. What does "opening a business to the public" mean? What other type of business is there? Good point. We live in a world that is in large part not completely "private." I don't see these businesses that want to discriminate advertising their preference to discriminate, publicly advertising their practice of doing so, for example calling themselves "private" clubs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 10:27:34 GMT -6
Good Lord almost all laws are in some way related. That isn't germane to this discussion......Now please explain why the LBGT community didn't throw a hissy fit when Oregon, Connecticut and other blue states passed carbon copy legislation. YOU said the laws were NOT related, how is not germane to disagree? If it was NOT the intent to overrule local laws, as you claim, but it has that result, the law is flawed. Ummmmm...................I never said they weren't related. The local anti discrimination ordinances were never infringed upon or in jeopardy, and once again you have proven yourself an idiot. Congratulations.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 10, 2017 10:29:51 GMT -6
What does "opening a business to the public" mean? What other type of business is there? Good point. We live in a world that is in large part not completely "private." I don't see these businesses that want to discriminate advertising their preference to discriminate, publicly advertising their practice of doing so, for example calling themselves "private" clubs. So you don't know what opening a business to the public means either? EDIT: How about this - What differences between business/commercial interactions and social interactions support your claim that the government should be allowed to dictate business/commercial interactions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 10:31:36 GMT -6
Good God, business transactions ARE private sector interactions. If you do not wish to socialize with someone who drinks or does not practice your religion, that is different from opening a business to the public and refusing to deal with someone because you believe their lifestyle violates your religious belief. I'd say generally that is "none of your business." And it is a matter of public concern. If I operate a tavern, and a child molester walks in the door, I have every right to tell him to move on and refuse service. I don't see any difference if it's based on religion or just a personal dislike. Or If I walk into a tavern that is frequented by a motorcycle gang and the owner tells me to hit the road he also has every right to do so.
|
|