Religous Freedom being used as an argument to support discrimination

Posted by Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago to Legislation
168 comments | Share | Flag

New Arizona legislation could give business owners the right to discriminate against anyone they want, as long as they have a religious reason for doing so. If this passes, it would effectively destroy the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as all other Civil Rights and equal protection laws.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The 9th Amendment reads as follows:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    In other words, even though a specific list of rights is established by the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10), that list should not be used to deny people of other rights which are not listed in the Bill of Rights. This simply means that the Bill of Rights should not be considered a complete or comprehensive list of all the people's rights, and that the people still have other rights not listed therein.

    This does not imply that discrimination is a protected right, and I'm not quite sure how you arrived at that misguided interpretation. All it's saying is that the Bill of Rights should not be considered comprehensive or complete in its coverage.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Constitution and its amendments are not merely "laws". Laws are subject to the Constitution. Amendments alter the Constitution itself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    History books are lovely, but sometimes it takes the passage of time away from a historical event or period before honest analyze and an unbiased critical examination can occur. It was well into the seventies before we openly discussed the Holocaust. Did you know that? No, because you didn’t live the experience of the era. That information won’t come from a history book. After the Selma riots, white mainstream America stopped openly supporting black progression because of the emerging of black militant groups, such as the Black Panthers Party and the Nation of Islam. Rob, beat, kill Whitey was heard everywhere. The Black Panthers had a lot to do with the increase of blacks on welfare. I contribute the jump in numbers in the sixties to this militant group. Check out their original bylaws. They promoted through their literature and organized through major cities, encouraging all blacks to go on welfare (a rule) because they said whites owed them, so no one in their community should work for the ‘man’. I lived through that period. I was jumped twice in high school and survived three riots. I’m not from the deep South. I’m from the DC area. All the incidents were due to the phenomena called blow back. The history books are currently silent about this uncomfortable time in our history. Perhaps someone seeking a doctrine fifty years from now will take a chance and relay the facts more accurately. I have to laugh at Obama when he threw his grandmother under the bus saying she use to be afraid and cross the street when she saw a group of black men. He spoke in ignorance of her life experience. Just like you are doing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How did the law then get passed in the first place?
    Again, your default position is to give the government blanket authority, except where specifically prohibited, where the reality is that the gov't is prohibited authority except were specifically granted.

    And, the law you defend violates the 1st Amendment to the Constitution... which is the fundamental underpinning of our society.

    We are a republic and not a democracy for a reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Back in the 1990s, a friend I did business with presented me with a copy of the software for which I'd designed the user interface. On the back, the packaging bragged about donating a portion of the sales to the Nature Conservancy, an organization with which I fundamentally disagree.
    I joked that it was a good thing it was a gift, because if they're donating to the Nature Conservancy, I wouldn't buy it.

    Another friend exploded, angrily asserting that they had a perfect right to spend the money from the sales of their product any way they wished. He was older than me, and I would normally have been intimidated by his outburst.

    But I said to him, calmly, that if they advertise what they do with the money they get from their sales, in hopes of increasing those sales by appealing to would-be purchasers.. then they should also then expect to lose sales for the same advertising.

    He quietly conceded my point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The only "limits" to religious freedom are the same to the "limits" in exercising any other fundamental right... that's when the exercise of the right violates the rights of another.

    You do NOT have a right to do business with me.

    There can be only one true religion; if you don't believe yours is it, why do you follow it? Those secularists who refuse to allow that kind of "discrimination", one treating one's own religious beliefs as true and all others as mythological, are opposed to the 1st Amendment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Theoretically, yes. However, if a majority of the people dislike a particular law, then they can engage in a collective effort to repeal the law, or to elect new representatives.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    actually, I always stop and look at the facts. interesting. I am not for a war on drugs. I want them legalized. It would be a mistake to suggest that welfare is not part of the problem. pays more for two living apart than together, how can that not be a factor?
    Disproportionate arrest ? Blacks also are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime. I will post a Sowell article on point
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, the 9th Amendment protects members and controllers of religious organizations' right to discriminate.

    Rights are not granted by the government.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll admit I don't get this drug argument? Are we blaming a substance or the law against the substance?
    Either way... since your for laws that force do goodery why would you be against drug laws.
    If it's the drug...people own their bodies they can put in them what they choose....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So, if the nanny state decides that lighting candles in a church is harmful to "the environment", and therefore the general public, they can stop the religious practice?

    A church ringing its bells on Sunday can be considered noise pollution by the nanny state, and therefore harmful to the general public, and therefore the gov't can silence them?

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That which is most good for the general public is determined by government officials who are elected by the people.

    That's how a republic works. People elect representatives, and those representatives decide on the laws. If the people dislike the laws that their representatives create, they can vote for new representatives at the next election, or in more severe cases, impeach the representatives on the spot.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, here's what you do...
    Save your money, and start a lawn-care company.
    Or a construction company.
    Or get a McDonald's franchise.

    Homeless people are generally homeless for a reason. And it's not discrimination.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You answer the other questions I've asked that you haven't answered and I'll answer this one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not necessarily; a business that refuses customers based on race might do outstanding... until a competing business comes along that doesn't. And it might still do well, if that competing business has foolish business practices.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hmm, that's a good point. But then there is another question that we naturally have to ask: "Is it even possible to write an accurate history without that record being distorted by your own world view?"

    I suppose the old saying that "History is written by the victors" does have a great deal of truth to it. But if we're going to study history at all, it will obviously be necessary to read such material. Though if we can find historical records written by the defeated, that would obviously help to shed new light on a controversial topic (this is difficult for ancient history, but relatively easy for more modern history). Though if a history book simply presents the facts without taking a side on the issue, that's generally the most accurate approach (though it does tend to make the reading a bit stale).

    But even if the history book you're reading is written by a historical revisionist with an agenda, it's still possible to distill some real history from it. You just have to be aware that the author has an agenda, and learn to separate the facts from the author's propaganda.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo