News:

The characteristic feature of the loser is to bemoan, in general terms, mankind's flaws, biases, contradictions and irrationality-without exploiting them for fun and profit

Main Menu

Kentucky Legalizes weed (for Rastafarians)

Started by Pergamos, March 26, 2013, 08:13:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 4
User actions

Pergamos

March 26, 2013, 08:13:53 PM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/26/186904/kentucky-house-overrides-religious.html#storylink=cpy

The press seems mainly concerned with the possible ramifications as far as discrimination goes, but this seems like it would have a LOT more potential results, including but not limited to legalizing sacred sacraments.

The Good Reverend Roger

#1
March 26, 2013, 08:16:27 PM
QuoteMore than 50 organizations had opposed the bill, arguing that it could lead to more discrimination and could overrule ordinances in Lexington, Louisville, Covington and Vicco that protect gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination.

No, it means people can go back to firing people for being Gay.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Anna Mae Bollocks

#2
March 26, 2013, 08:21:49 PM
 :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:

Yeah, sounds about right.
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

Pergamos

#3
March 26, 2013, 08:21:54 PM Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 08:24:39 PM by Pergamos
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 26, 2013, 08:16:27 PM
QuoteMore than 50 organizations had opposed the bill, arguing that it could lead to more discrimination and could overrule ordinances in Lexington, Louisville, Covington and Vicco that protect gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination.

No, it means people can go back to firing people for being Gay.

Yeah, as i said, the press is mostly concerned with potential discrimination.   If you read the bill though it's really short, and doesn't specify what sort of religious freedom it is protecting.  It protects all the freedoms.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/HB279.htm

that's a link to the bill's amendments, and there's a link on that page to download the bill itself.  It's only like a paragraph long.  It reads as follows.

Quote
AN ACT relating to construction of the law.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
SECTION 1.   A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 446 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

The Good Reverend Roger

#4
March 26, 2013, 08:23:37 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 26, 2013, 08:21:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 26, 2013, 08:16:27 PM
QuoteMore than 50 organizations had opposed the bill, arguing that it could lead to more discrimination and could overrule ordinances in Lexington, Louisville, Covington and Vicco that protect gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination.

No, it means people can go back to firing people for being Gay.

Yeah, as i said, the press is mostly concerned with potential discrimination.   If you read the bill though it's really short, and doesn't specify what sort of religious freedom it is protecting.  It protects all the freedoms.

Yeah, we're talking about Kentucky.  "All religions" mean "whichever denomination of Christianity you prefer."

And "potential discrimination" means "that discrimination that will take place the first business day after the law takes effect."
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#5
March 26, 2013, 08:26:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 26, 2013, 08:16:27 PM
QuoteMore than 50 organizations had opposed the bill, arguing that it could lead to more discrimination and could overrule ordinances in Lexington, Louisville, Covington and Vicco that protect gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination.

No, it means people can go back to firing people for being Gay.

Bingo.

"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#6
March 26, 2013, 08:31:38 PM
Pergamos, the bill specifies "State laws and ordinances". That means it wouldn't take precedence over Federal laws like, say, those prohibiting polygamy or marijuana.

It would, however, allow religiously-run medical organizations to deny services that are against their religion's "deeply held beliefs".
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

The Good Reverend Roger

#7
March 26, 2013, 08:34:30 PM
I mean, we all know that Kentucky is famed for religious tolerance.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/another_mosque_project_comes_under_fire_in_kentucky.php

And they would never deny their fellow man/woman their rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-marriage-150009470.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-ky-initiative-gay-marriage_x.htm

Or anything like that.  No, this law was passed so that all the Rastafarians in Kentucky can worship in peace.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

#8
March 26, 2013, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 08:31:38 PM
Pergamos, the bill specifies "State laws and ordinances". That means it wouldn't take precedence over Federal laws like, say, those prohibiting polygamy or marijuana.

It would, however, allow religiously-run medical organizations to deny services that are against their religion's "deeply held beliefs".

YES.  SO NO MORE GETTING YOUR SLUT PILLS AT WALGREENS.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Pergamos

#9
March 26, 2013, 08:44:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 08:31:38 PM
Pergamos, the bill specifies "State laws and ordinances". That means it wouldn't take precedence over Federal laws like, say, those prohibiting polygamy or marijuana.

It would, however, allow religiously-run medical organizations to deny services that are against their religion's "deeply held beliefs".

It doesn't say anything about state laws and ordinances in the text of the bill.  I'd assume that arresting someone is "substantially burdening their exercise of religion"

The Good Reverend Roger

#10
March 26, 2013, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 26, 2013, 08:44:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 08:31:38 PM
Pergamos, the bill specifies "State laws and ordinances". That means it wouldn't take precedence over Federal laws like, say, those prohibiting polygamy or marijuana.

It would, however, allow religiously-run medical organizations to deny services that are against their religion's "deeply held beliefs".

It doesn't say anything about state laws and ordinances in the text of the bill.  I'd assume that arresting someone is "substantially burdening their exercise of religion"

Well, Permagos, you just keep on believing, in this best of all possible worlds.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#11
March 26, 2013, 08:45:12 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 26, 2013, 08:44:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 08:31:38 PM
Pergamos, the bill specifies "State laws and ordinances". That means it wouldn't take precedence over Federal laws like, say, those prohibiting polygamy or marijuana.

It would, however, allow religiously-run medical organizations to deny services that are against their religion's "deeply held beliefs".

It doesn't say anything about state laws and ordinances in the text of the bill.  I'd assume that arresting someone is "substantially burdening their exercise of religion"

It's a State bill.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

Pergamos

#12
March 26, 2013, 08:46:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 26, 2013, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 26, 2013, 08:44:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 08:31:38 PM
Pergamos, the bill specifies "State laws and ordinances". That means it wouldn't take precedence over Federal laws like, say, those prohibiting polygamy or marijuana.

It would, however, allow religiously-run medical organizations to deny services that are against their religion's "deeply held beliefs".

It doesn't say anything about state laws and ordinances in the text of the bill.  I'd assume that arresting someone is "substantially burdening their exercise of religion"

Well, Permagos, you just keep on believing, in this best of all possible worlds.

I'm just hoping some litigation happy Rastafarian uses it to challenge an arrest. 

The Good Reverend Roger

#13
March 26, 2013, 08:46:46 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 08:45:12 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 26, 2013, 08:44:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 08:31:38 PM
Pergamos, the bill specifies "State laws and ordinances". That means it wouldn't take precedence over Federal laws like, say, those prohibiting polygamy or marijuana.

It would, however, allow religiously-run medical organizations to deny services that are against their religion's "deeply held beliefs".

It doesn't say anything about state laws and ordinances in the text of the bill.  I'd assume that arresting someone is "substantially burdening their exercise of religion"

It's a State bill.

And, AMAZINGLY, it comes out right after Covington, Lexington, etc, passed bans on discrimination against Gay people.

Obviously a coincidence.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

#14
March 26, 2013, 08:47:24 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 26, 2013, 08:46:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 26, 2013, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 26, 2013, 08:44:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 08:31:38 PM
Pergamos, the bill specifies "State laws and ordinances". That means it wouldn't take precedence over Federal laws like, say, those prohibiting polygamy or marijuana.

It would, however, allow religiously-run medical organizations to deny services that are against their religion's "deeply held beliefs".

It doesn't say anything about state laws and ordinances in the text of the bill.  I'd assume that arresting someone is "substantially burdening their exercise of religion"

Well, Permagos, you just keep on believing, in this best of all possible worlds.

I'm just hoping some litigation happy Rastafarian uses it to challenge an arrest.

I don't think I've ever heard of a litigation-happy Rastafarian.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 4
User actions