And now Kansas is getting into the act

[Junkenstein]

I would suggest that if you really do believe in those 4 pillars you probably spend a significant effort keeping yourself out of court.

[Telarus]

Except it's not funny.

Every single time a post about people in America using a generalised religious discrimination clause involves people looking for reasons to play along or subvert it. That's missing the point, because the point is this is never going to be applied equally or apply to all religious preferences, the intended design of these laws are to enshrine certain mainstream religious preferences over others.

For people who are meant to be smart, it sure is fucking depressing to see.

Excellent point.

[Salty]

This is a very good point. Remember the church of satan guy and his idea to subvert a similar fucked up law?

How far did he get?

Fucking with repressive laws tends to accomplish little. You either need mass appeal against such action (Unlikely as we're talking about the US here) or it will generally become acceptable to the popular mindset. The fact the law passed anyway indicates that it is acceptable to the general population.

He got further than anyone...

...which is to say he spent the last decades of his life in seclusion and Black House was turned into condos 3 years ago or so.

Ha. Ha.

[Salty]

So, yeah.
6 years.



ETA: This ougt to be in its own seperate.thread. I will think on it amd do just that.
Is it just me, or is there a rise of willful ignorance in the Info Age?

It seems, since people can pick and choose patterns out of huge swathes of data, many are choosing to ignore the ample amounts of logical, science based.variety, because they can. There are large online communities that cater to their preconceived notions and amolify them. People take pride in creationsism a bit more because it no longer comes from one moldy old, difficult to parse book, or a preacher who may or may not have charisma.

There are a lot more rational people for much the same reason, but...anti-vaccers in droves.

[LMNO]

Luckily, all it will take are a few brave people and a lawyer looking to make a name.  Based upon Windsor, I think all state supreme courts at this point have ruled in favor of equality.

[Junkenstein]

Alty, I was thinking about the other church of satan guy, alive, did something relatively recently along similar lines. I forget his name but it was something awful Evil Mcbadperson or whatever. I actually forgot about Laveys various idiocies but I'm sure misguided fucking with the legal system will feature somewhere and further illustrate the point.

[Pergamos]

Not to mention that if someone from the Church of Euthenasia (if Korda is even still doing that) tried to "subvert" the law, they'd have to bring a suit against the state, and keep appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court, and then win.

Which, when I do a rough probability estimate, no one who really believes in the Four Pillars of "Suicide, Abortion, Cannabalism, and Sodomy" could ever afford to do, or even be taken seriously in a court of law.

Seems like the straights that he or she chose not to srve wuld be the ones that would have to bring suit.

[Pergamos]

Alty, I was thinking about the other church of satan guy, alive, did something relatively recently along similar lines. I forget his name but it was something awful Evil Mcbadperson or whatever. I actually forgot about Laveys various idiocies but I'm sure misguided fucking with the legal system will feature somewhere and further illustrate the point.

The one trying to build a state at that courthouse with the ten commandments?

[Faust]

Except it's not funny.

Every single time a post about people in America using a generalised religious discrimination clause involves people looking for reasons to play along or subvert it. That's missing the point, because the point is this is never going to be applied equally or apply to all religious preferences, the intended design of these laws are to enshrine certain mainstream religious preferences over others.

For people who are meant to be smart, it sure is fucking depressing to see.

You are right of course, and I should take more of an interest in it what with Ireland renewing the Blaspheme law two years ago. It just shows the secular grip on the entire legal and cultural systems. Over the last few weeks we have seen our media buckle and pay out a sum to the Iona institute when a guest correctly called out a homophobic journalist on air as being a homophobe.

I'd call him worse then that: worthless, a bigot, devoid of journalistic ability or integrity, excrement. But calling him a homophobe when he has a long documented history of homophobia is apparently taboo.

[Bruno]

Why go to all the trouble to make it a religious exemption? Why not just "Because I don't want to." What's wrong with that?

Why the need for an elaborate explanation involving very old stories?

What makes something a religion? What about sincerely held philosophical beliefs?  Does it have to involve beliefs concerning the afterlife, or can you just believe anything you can't prove?

It really makes much more sense when you look at it as just people trying to grant themselves special privileges.

[Junkenstein]

Why go to all the trouble to make it a religious exemption? Why not just "Because I don't want to." What's wrong with that?

I'd say that it adds another layer of argument from authority. Beliefs are given legitimacy just because they've been around for long enough and it's an effort to protect themselves against the modern age. "We're right because law and jebus" works much better as a method of control because it lets you drag the argument down from reality and invoke an arbitrary authority figure which agrees with you.

It's like a get out of jail free card in the legal system and it will inevitably be used in all sorts of fucked up ways.

[Cain]

Luckily, all it will take are a few brave people and a lawyer looking to make a name.  Based upon Windsor, I think all state supreme courts at this point have ruled in favor of equality.

Tru dat.  Despite valiant attempts at standing athwart history, yelling "SODOMITES R GOIN 2 HELL LOLZ", this aint gonna work.  I think even the Kansas Senate has said they're not going to pass this.

Why go to all the trouble to make it a religious exemption? Why not just "Because I don't want to." What's wrong with that?

Because people can argue against that, with things like "well if it's a public service then maybe people have to a right to that service, regardless of where they stick their dick and if people loathe homosexuals that much maybe they should get jobs where they don't have to interact with them?"

But if God's involved, well then, it's a moral obligation.  People aren't just being contrary bigots, they have deep and strongly held religious convictions as to why their bigotry must be excused.  Do you hate freedom of religion?  You thought-policing bigot, you.  For shame.

The real irony is the Bible says nothing about homosexuality anyway, and when correctly translated, that pesky Leviticus article really says "men are not allowed to use a woman's bed for guy-only sexytiem".  Because Hebrew property rights with regard to women are, apparently, pretty damn strict and stuff, and using her bed like that is considered a violation of her ownership.  Oh, and there is Paul, but I think we can all agree, Paul had some...problems.

[Bruno]

I think maybe some people are afraid that clergy will have to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

I'm not sure how I feel about forcing people to perform services for something that is against their religion. If it's just flowers for their wedding, then sure, just sell them the damn flowers. But then where should I draw the line? Is performing the actual ceremony the only exempt service, or do we allow a caterer to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or a ceremonial goat sacrifice to Satan.

Shall we force Muslims to serve falafels at anti-muslim rallys, as well?

[Cain]

Did you even read the text of the introduced bill?

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement;

Yeah, this is clearly just about people being worried that clergy will be forced to gaymarry people.  Totally not about reducing homosexuals to second class citizens.

And this section:

othing in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto, shall be
construed to authorize any governmental discrimination or penalty against
any individual or religious entity based upon its performance, facilitation
or support of any celebrations of same-gender unions or relationships.

may read like this law is an excuse for discriminatory bodies to still get government funds without any pesky problems concerning declining services.  But it's not.  Because GAY MARRIAGE OMG

[Pæs]

Thanks for clarifications ITT, Cain. Hadn't had a chance to check the full text, so was casually skimming this thread after every update, good to see those quotes.


For a given definition of "good", of course.