CrimsonWeltall

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ May 4, 2015 -> 02:12 PM) Apparently a bunch of dudes wearing sheets armed with knives is enough to kill multiple Unsullied and one of the greatest knights to ever live. So much for combat training! They had a lot of dudes and weren't doing the typical "ok let's attack him one at a time" garbage most tv/movie henchmen do. Still, kinda lame death for Selmy

QUOTE (Brian @ May 4, 2015 -> 12:45 PM) Reading that Max Kellerman is getting heat for his post fight interview with Pac. I didn't see anything to get down on him about. Post fight interviews are always awkward. So much adrenaline and emotion from the fighters, winners or losers. Probably more so than any other sport. It seemed like typical questions until Manny revealed that he thought he won. I don't blame Kellerman for jumping on that note, trying to figure out why Manny thought that despite being significantly outlanded. If Manny's corner was telling him he was up (or even), and that was part of the reason he was showing no urgency in the final rounds, that's noteworthy.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Apr 20, 2015 -> 09:49 PM) Episode III was a good movie. I'd rank it as the third best in the series; not as good as the first original two, but significantly above RotJ. Only Eps 1 and 2 were crap. Episode III was crap too. Anakin's turn to Vader could hardly have been handled worse. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2015 -> 03:11 PM) Yes, that's something I'd oppose because the public provides the access to your store in the first place, via roads, transportation, etc. Thanks for the clarification.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2015 -> 03:02 PM) Yes. So if a gay couple agreed to pick up their cake at the bakery, rather than have it delivered to the venue, you would oppose the business refusing them service?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2015 -> 01:56 PM) It can be anything...maybe you had a really terrible experience with your local Plumbers Union and they want you to cater their annual ball...doesn't matter. The point is/was, they aren't refusing to serve gay people in their restaurant, they're refusing to cater to EXTERNAL parties they happen to disagree with. To clarify: your distinction is whether or not the business person has to travel to a location other than their store?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 07:58 PM) The guy who authored RFRA in Indiana is also seeing his business get hit. http://www.nuvo.net/FoodDrinkBlog/archives...-out-mister-ice Meanwhile, Memories Pizza has received $225,000 in donations in less than 24 hours. http://www.gofundme.com/Memoriespizza

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 06:08 PM) I can give the specific example of "fundamentalist mormonism", where one leader of that sect, in his deeply held beliefs, holds onto the original mormon teaching of dark skin as a curse from god and rails against marriage between the races in terms I'm not going to use right now. You don't even have to get that specific and go into the Curse of Ham. For a long time, many, many people believed the general religious principle that "God created the races to be separate".

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 04:43 PM) There are laws in place protecting race discrimination. There are no laws (federally) on sexuality. That's a huge difference. That difference isn't related to whether or not the act of serving a black person could be a burden on someone's belief.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 05:37 PM) At some point you brought that up and I said it doesn't work because what religious practice would be substantially burdened in that situation? They have a religious belief against races interacting. Forcing them to interact is a substantial burden on their beliefs. It's no different.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 11:26 PM) They wish to not perform in or for a wedding. They're not performing in a wedding. They're baking a cake and then giving it to someone. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 11:26 PM) The store in the link above said they have no problem serving gay people, they will serve anyone They will serve gay people *some* products, and refuse to serve gay people other products. If one is allowed to refuse service for any set of available products, they can just as easily make that set include every product. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 11:26 PM) , just don;t want to be endorsing something they believe is against their religion. Now if they said 'gays stay out, all of you', that would be closer to your analogy. Those particular bakers didn't refuse service for every product, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 12:20 AM) How is the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake being intolerant? He's refusing service to someone based on their uncontrolled attribute that has zero affect on the product/service. It's no different than rejecting black customers, or Christian customers, or Mexican customers. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 12:20 AM) SO why try and force someone to do something against their will? Because this form of discrimination is bad for society, and people shouldn't have to worry about getting service at public accommodations.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 11:12 PM) If only the tolerance crowd weren't so damned intolerant of those that disagree with them, some states might not feel compelled to do these things. How exactly is the tolerance crowd supposed to be tolerant of intolerance? If they tolerated intolerance, they wouldn't be the tolerance crowd.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 07:08 PM) Either (a) the law doesn't actually allow that or (b) Pence has pledged that if the law does allow that, it will be altered so that it doesn't Pence and the legislative leadership are claiming that they meant the scope to be much narrower, so we'll see what the final result is. Yeah, they "meant" it to be much narrower after the backlash. Pence had 3 strong anti-gay voices standing right behind him at the signing ceremony. Those guys weren't there at random.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 31, 2015 -> 04:03 PM) If I were in office i'd have no problem enacted legislation to curb emissions, prevent dumping into public water ways, making liability easier to prove, upping fines, etc. None of that costs money. I'm not saying there would be zero cost, but you can still be fiscally conservative about it. Nope, you're a Commie now.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 08:08 PM) It seems to me, and I know y'all will correct me if I am wrong, that a socially liberal yet fiscally conservative party could do very well at election time. So will that ever happen? Will it be the GOP becoming more liberal on social issues or the Dems becoming more conservative with our tax dollars? Sounds like the Libertarian Party, which hasn't managed to get 1% of the votes in the last 8 presidential elections. I don't see either of the two major parties making significant movement towards that - it conflicts with their basic narratives.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 04:49 PM) The Indiana based Church of Cannabis has now been incorporated and its sincerely held belief is that their religion has the right to use marijuana. Bravo, stoners

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:13 PM) You're suggesting no limits at all? There has to be something, somewhere. Otherwise people would claim religious practice for any act that might violate a law. Speeding? I'm a devote follower of the God of Sound and i'm mandated to travel as closely to the speed of sound as possible. Drugs? I'm a follower of The White Powder Order, which requires me to do 5 bumps every day at work. The list goes on. People CAN claim religious practice for any act. That doesn't bother me at all. The relevant factor is whether or not the government has a legitimate, rationale interest in prohibiting that act. If 10% of the population suddenly converted to that Religion of Sound and wanted to travel really fast, would you argue that speeding laws should be overturned because their high-speed belief has become more common?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:06 PM) I'm saying that wouldn't be a very realistic or believable claim. How popular the practice/belief is will be a factor to consider in determining the credibility/severity of the belief in question. That's some shaky ground. A belief loses popularity and suddenly isn't protected anymore...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:53 PM) Sure it does. You can't very well claim that I can sell my slave or stone someone to death as per my Christian practice when no one does that. Its a factor to consider. Of course you can claim that. The government will respond that it has a legitimate interest in prohibiting slavery and personal executioners that override your claim. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:53 PM) Again, sure you can. How many times have you said X. Do you teach it? Does your church teach it? How long has the belief been held, etc. etc. It'll be a factual analysis, and it's going to be on the Plaintiff to establish it. This would be wildly unfair to people with minority beliefs that simply aren't popular or established within a formal religious framework. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:53 PM) Again, the federal government already protects religious practice. The states are just molding these laws after the federal law. So there is case law on the books about what constitutes religious practice and what types of practice deserve protection, or at least factors to consider in making that analysis. This particular IN law is written vaguely like the federal law, but some of its supporters are clearly acting as if it has powers to allow discrimination (and want it to do so).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:39 PM) How many people practice it? Does it matter? Does a religious belief need a certain level of popularity before it becomes protected? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:39 PM) How important is it to the religious traditions of Christianity? A court is going to decide that. They have in cases involving the use of federally banned drugs, facial hair of inmates, requests of inmates for prayer materials, etc. It's not some unknown issue. We can determine if someone's claim is credible or not to decide whether it would be a substantial burden. A court can make a judgment call on whether something is a substantial burden. It can't reasonably determine if someone's belief is credible or non-credible. It's not like religious beliefs necessarily have any ties to reality or good judgment. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:39 PM) And for the third time, GOOD! Let someone make that claim. Let's see Twitter and 24/7 cable news do a story about the local restaurant that refuses to serve black people because he doesn't want to mix races. It's nice that you're probably right in the instance of race, but you're not with sexual orientation. The businesses which have discriminated against gay people have gotten big outpourings of support from similar-minded people.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:28 PM) So what? If i'm gay i'm sure as hell not wanting to serve a person like that. I should be able to tell the guy go f*** himself. But currently that person would be, arguably, in violation of the law for discrimination based on the customer's religion. So your analogy fails. It's not about content. If a gay business owner discriminated against a person purely because they were a Christian, yes, they would be in violation of the law.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:16 PM) You can make that claim sure. But I have a hard time believing a person will successfully argue that service of a black person would be a substantial burden due to their disagreement with miscgenation. Is that even a commonly recognized issue these days? If not, just because you, individually, have that belief doesn't mean it falls under the religious practice/freedom umbrella. I'm confident a court's analysis would get to that conclusion given their past opinions on religious practices that are counter to federal laws. I don't see how you can argue that "God wants the races separate" isn't an established religious belief. Serving black people would be as much a violation to people with that belief as serving gay people would be to a strongly anti-gay Christian. How can we expect the courts to just arbitrarily decide which beliefs count as legitimate?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 07:07 PM) Let's flip the switch here: a gay person runs a copy shop. A crazy, homophobic anti-gay religious person comes in and wants to order 1000 "death to queers" posters. I think that gay person should be able to say go jump in a lake. Anti-discrimination laws are about protecting the customer, not any content a customer might request. The gay people being rejected by bakers and florists aren't asking for any products that the businesses didn't already produce.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 04:27 PM) So if someone claims that their religion states all Mexicans and Africans are sinners, they can refuse to serve them? I don't see how that's any different. Sure, you can claim anything is against your religion.