http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/26/186904/kentucky-house-overrides-religious.html#storylink=cpy (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.
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.
:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Yeah, sounds about right.
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 (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.
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."
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.
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 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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on 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.
Santo Daime succesfully got a religious exemption for ayahuasca, without a bill like this to lean on even, so I can certainly see it happening.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 26, 2013, 08:50:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on 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.
Santo Daime succesfully got a religious exemption for ayahuasca, without a bill like this to lean on even, so I can certainly see it happening.
Excellent. And in the meantime, all those homosexuals can GTFO and women can just SHUT THEIR LEGS if they don't want kids.
Progress: It's a wonderful thing.
I mean, sure, thousands of people will be shat on for being who they are, but there's a potential that maybe, possibly, some guy might challenge a weed bust based on this, and he has a realistically NONEXISTENT chance of winning it that state, but statistically, it's a greater-than-zero chance, so let's DO THIS THING.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 26, 2013, 08:50:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on 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.
Santo Daime succesfully got a religious exemption for ayahuasca, without a bill like this to lean on even, so I can certainly see it happening.
In Kentucky.
A Rastafarian.
And you still somehow seem to be assuming that this bill is intended to supercede Federal law. ALL Federal laws, because it doesn't specify any.
Pretty sure it's not.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 09:00:58 PM
In Kentucky.
A Rastafarian.
See my sig for clarification.
TGRR,
Is reasonably certain they'd assume it was some form of Islam and go full potato.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 26, 2013, 09:06:05 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 26, 2013, 09:00:58 PM
In Kentucky.
A Rastafarian.
See my sig for clarification.
TGRR,
Is reasonably certain they'd assume it was some form of Islam and go full potato.
:lulz:
Pergamos, I have one very simple question for you.
Have you COMPLETELY lost the plot?
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
Also probably won't happen, because the Feds (and most states) only give a fuck about polygamy if there are allegations of forced marriages and/or child abuse.
There is, however, a current Supreme-Court challenge of the anti-polygamy laws in Utah.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 02:40:14 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Hey, I like it when stupid intolerant people do things that bite them in the ass. Just let me laugh at all the misery will you? It sucks for gays and women and other human beings in the state of Kentucky, but did anyone expect things there not to suck for them?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 02:31:25 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
Also probably won't happen, because the Feds (and most states) only give a fuck about polygamy if there are allegations of forced marriages and/or child abuse.
There is, however, a current Supreme-Court challenge of the anti-polygamy laws in Utah.
That came out wrong. I mean there's a challenge of the anti-polygamy laws that is on its way to the Supreme Court. Not that the Supreme Court is challenging anti-polygamy laws.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:53:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 02:40:14 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Hey, I like it when stupid intolerant people do things that bite them in the ass. Just let me laugh at all the misery will you? It sucks for gays and women and other human beings in the state of Kentucky, but did anyone expect things there not to suck for them?
Well, that's one way of looking at things.
Martin Luther King, for example, should have SHUT UP and LIKED IT.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:53:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 02:40:14 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Hey, I like it when stupid intolerant people do things that bite them in the ass. Just let me laugh at all the misery will you? It sucks for gays and women and other human beings in the state of Kentucky, but did anyone expect things there not to suck for them?
Considering that a sizable proportion of the population in areas of Kentucky passed bills to make things suck less for gays and women and other human beings, it really is a step backward. However, hopefully it will be a step that dramatically backfires at the ones who want it.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:53:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 02:40:14 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Hey, I like it when stupid intolerant people do things that bite them in the ass. Just let me laugh at all the misery will you? It sucks for gays and women and other human beings in the state of Kentucky, but did anyone expect things there not to suck for them?
so it's worth women and queers getting thrown under the bus for yer theoretical lulz, is it?
(note, this is a rhetorical question, I have you down as having shifted 1 or more points towards fucking asshole)
Quote from: Pixie on March 27, 2013, 03:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:53:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 02:40:14 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Hey, I like it when stupid intolerant people do things that bite them in the ass. Just let me laugh at all the misery will you? It sucks for gays and women and other human beings in the state of Kentucky, but did anyone expect things there not to suck for them?
so it's worth women and queers getting thrown under the bus for yer theoretical lulz, is it?
(note, this is a rhetorical question, I have you down as having shifted 1 or more points towards fucking asshole)
I am thinking/guessing/hoping that what he means by it is along the lines of what I said above, about it backfiring on them horribly and resulting in net progress despite it being a clearly regressive law.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 03:29:39 AM
Quote from: Pixie on March 27, 2013, 03:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:53:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 02:40:14 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Hey, I like it when stupid intolerant people do things that bite them in the ass. Just let me laugh at all the misery will you? It sucks for gays and women and other human beings in the state of Kentucky, but did anyone expect things there not to suck for them?
so it's worth women and queers getting thrown under the bus for yer theoretical lulz, is it?
(note, this is a rhetorical question, I have you down as having shifted 1 or more points towards fucking asshole)
I am thinking/guessing/hoping that what he means by it is along the lines of what I said above, about it backfiring on them horribly and resulting in net progress despite it being a clearly regressive law.
I did. I don't know exactly what the possible ramifications of the law are, I was hoping that they include the legislature feeling like idiots because they seem to have made a law that supports weed smoking, polygamy, and other things that they did not intend. I would be amused by that and I suspect that the women and gays who are the unfortunate actual target of the law would as well. It would, hopefully, result in the law being revoked as completely unworkable, and then bigots couldn't hide behind the defense of religion.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 03:32:52 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 03:29:39 AM
Quote from: Pixie on March 27, 2013, 03:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:53:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 02:40:14 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Hey, I like it when stupid intolerant people do things that bite them in the ass. Just let me laugh at all the misery will you? It sucks for gays and women and other human beings in the state of Kentucky, but did anyone expect things there not to suck for them?
so it's worth women and queers getting thrown under the bus for yer theoretical lulz, is it?
(note, this is a rhetorical question, I have you down as having shifted 1 or more points towards fucking asshole)
I am thinking/guessing/hoping that what he means by it is along the lines of what I said above, about it backfiring on them horribly and resulting in net progress despite it being a clearly regressive law.
I did. I don't know exactly what the possible ramifications of the law are, I was hoping that they include the legislature feeling like idiots because they seem to have made a law that supports weed smoking, polygamy, and other things that they did not intend. I would be amused by that and I suspect that the women and gays who are the unfortunate actual target of the law would as well. It would, hopefully, result in the law being revoked as completely unworkable, and then bigots couldn't hide behind the defense of religion.
You're sort of ignoring cognitive dissonance, here. Today's argument is tomorrow's vilified social abortion. And they don't even blink.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 03:36:09 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 03:32:52 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 03:29:39 AM
Quote from: Pixie on March 27, 2013, 03:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:53:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 02:40:14 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Hey, I like it when stupid intolerant people do things that bite them in the ass. Just let me laugh at all the misery will you? It sucks for gays and women and other human beings in the state of Kentucky, but did anyone expect things there not to suck for them?
so it's worth women and queers getting thrown under the bus for yer theoretical lulz, is it?
(note, this is a rhetorical question, I have you down as having shifted 1 or more points towards fucking asshole)
I am thinking/guessing/hoping that what he means by it is along the lines of what I said above, about it backfiring on them horribly and resulting in net progress despite it being a clearly regressive law.
I did. I don't know exactly what the possible ramifications of the law are, I was hoping that they include the legislature feeling like idiots because they seem to have made a law that supports weed smoking, polygamy, and other things that they did not intend. I would be amused by that and I suspect that the women and gays who are the unfortunate actual target of the law would as well. It would, hopefully, result in the law being revoked as completely unworkable, and then bigots couldn't hide behind the defense of religion.
You're sort of ignoring cognitive dissonance, here. Today's argument is tomorrow's vilified social abortion. And they don't even blink.
True. I have to keep fighting to laugh at it though, otherwise I'll just start screaming.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 03:32:52 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 03:29:39 AM
Quote from: Pixie on March 27, 2013, 03:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:53:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2013, 02:40:14 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 02:26:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 01:41:46 AM
If ANYONE is likely to decide to use it to challenge the Federal government, it's a polygamist organization like the FLDS. Not a Kentucky Rastafarian.
Also something that would be kind of awesome, because you know it wasn't what the Kentucky legislature intended.
I still think it's a great idea to throw the pill and Gays under the bus on the off chance that a Kentucky Rastafarian will take this to court.
Hey, I like it when stupid intolerant people do things that bite them in the ass. Just let me laugh at all the misery will you? It sucks for gays and women and other human beings in the state of Kentucky, but did anyone expect things there not to suck for them?
so it's worth women and queers getting thrown under the bus for yer theoretical lulz, is it?
(note, this is a rhetorical question, I have you down as having shifted 1 or more points towards fucking asshole)
I am thinking/guessing/hoping that what he means by it is along the lines of what I said above, about it backfiring on them horribly and resulting in net progress despite it being a clearly regressive law.
I did. I don't know exactly what the possible ramifications of the law are, I was hoping that they include the legislature feeling like idiots because they seem to have made a law that supports weed smoking, polygamy, and other things that they did not intend. I would be amused by that and I suspect that the women and gays who are the unfortunate actual target of the law would as well. It would, hopefully, result in the law being revoked as completely unworkable, and then bigots couldn't hide behind the defense of religion.
The only problem with that hope is that as a State law that doesn't specifically contradict ANY Federal laws, it is unlikely to be construed to contradict ALL Federal laws that could be considered to restrict free expression of religion. It is limited to state laws and regulations, most of which, presumably, are things like age of consent, availability of reproductive medicine, taxes, and equal rights for gays.
The potential value of the law, however, is that if something like, say, job discrimination in Kentucky is challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decides that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against someone because they're gay, then that becomes the law of the land and city or state regulations are no longer necessary. So, the backlash might ultimately be worth it.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 03:46:48 AM
The potential value of the law, however, is that if something like, say, job discrimination in Kentucky is challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decides that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against someone because they're gay, then that becomes the law of the land and city or state regulations are no longer necessary. So, the backlash might ultimately be worth it.
ooh, I hadn't even thought of that potential silver lining. That would be awesome.
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 03:48:10 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 27, 2013, 03:46:48 AM
The potential value of the law, however, is that if something like, say, job discrimination in Kentucky is challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decides that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against someone because they're gay, then that becomes the law of the land and city or state regulations are no longer necessary. So, the backlash might ultimately be worth it.
ooh, I hadn't even thought of that potential silver lining. That would be awesome.
It's kinda what's happening with Prop 8 today.
That "Sincerely Held" clause is going to make abusing this law a little harder. I've never really liked the idea of the government being able to decide what is a "Legitimate" religion and what is not.
So, yeah. The Butt Nekkid Church of Gay Sex on Police Cars will probably be openly discriminated against on the grounds of not being sincere enough.
Still, there have to be ways to abuse this law that will make these assholes sorry they ever came up with it.
Quote from: Emo Howard on March 27, 2013, 10:19:31 AM
That "Sincerely Held" clause is going to make abusing this law a little harder. I've never really liked the idea of the government being able to decide what is a "Legitimate" religion and what is not.
So, yeah. The Butt Nekkid Church of Gay Sex on Police Cars will probably be openly discriminated against on the grounds of not being sincere enough.
Still, there have to be ways to abuse this law that will make these assholes sorry they ever came up with it.
Public nudity is a sincere religious belief for Wiccans...
Founded by two British perverts in the 1950s for the express purpose of doing drugs and seeing women dance naked.
Not a valid religion.
Quote from: Cain on March 27, 2013, 06:43:46 PM
Founded by two British perverts in the 1950s for the express purpose of doing drugs and seeing women dance naked.
Not a valid religion.
The military recognizes it. Are you some sort of anti-patriotic Solder hater?
Yup. Solders suck. I've always hated soldering stuff.
And of course the military recognizes it. They let gays in and everything. More proof of Obama's anti-American, anti-Christian agenda.
:showus:
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 06:40:32 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on March 27, 2013, 10:19:31 AM
That "Sincerely Held" clause is going to make abusing this law a little harder. I've never really liked the idea of the government being able to decide what is a "Legitimate" religion and what is not.
So, yeah. The Butt Nekkid Church of Gay Sex on Police Cars will probably be openly discriminated against on the grounds of not being sincere enough.
Still, there have to be ways to abuse this law that will make these assholes sorry they ever came up with it.
Public nudity is a sincere religious belief for Wiccans...
I'd gladly sell everyone's rights down the river if it meant never having to see a naked wiccan.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on March 27, 2013, 07:45:57 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on March 27, 2013, 06:40:32 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on March 27, 2013, 10:19:31 AM
That "Sincerely Held" clause is going to make abusing this law a little harder. I've never really liked the idea of the government being able to decide what is a "Legitimate" religion and what is not.
So, yeah. The Butt Nekkid Church of Gay Sex on Police Cars will probably be openly discriminated against on the grounds of not being sincere enough.
Still, there have to be ways to abuse this law that will make these assholes sorry they ever came up with it.
Public nudity is a sincere religious belief for Wiccans...
I'd gladly sell everyone's rights down the river if it meant never having to see a naked wiccan.
TOO LATE. MWAD. :emo:
Ummm...I'm not sure what it is this law is intended to do (:roll:) but whatever it's shooting for, I'm pretty sure it missed.
Scenario A: This law does not exist and some town in Kentucky passes a law saying you can't discriminate against gays. Some whiny homophobe says that's horseshit and my religious freedom is being infringed upon and makes some court listen to him recite the Apostle's creed, before finding that-
1. The anti-discrimation law does burden this persons religious beliefs, and therefore it's constitutionality must be weighed using strict scrutiny.
2. The law passes strict scrutiny because it's based on a compelling governmental interest, it uses the least restrictive means to advance that interest, and it's narrowly tailored to that purpose.
Scenario B: This law does exist...And pretty much exactly everything above, except you change the word "constitutionality" to "legality", and change "strict scrutiny" to "strict scrutiny minus the narrowly tailored requirement."
It'd actually be harder to get away with refusing to rent to homos under the Kentucky law, than it would be to do so under the first amendment.
Kind of a cute effect, that...making it more tempting to sue on the one hand, and making it harder to win on the other.
And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/)
QuoteDamron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."
Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.
In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.
According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on April 02, 2013, 02:35:31 AM
And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/)
QuoteDamron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."
Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.
In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.
According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.
This is technically unrelated, but you know what else isn't exactly "plain?" Driving a horse and buggy right through the middle of the fucking 21st century like some kind of ass-backwards Dr. Who.
As for the motivation behind the law, of course they'd say something like that.
Quote from: V3X on April 02, 2013, 02:54:40 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on April 02, 2013, 02:35:31 AM
And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/)
QuoteDamron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."
Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.
In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.
According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.
This is technically unrelated, but you know what else isn't exactly "plain?" Driving a horse and buggy right through the middle of the fucking 21st century like some kind of ass-backwards Dr. Who.
As for the motivation behind the law, of course they'd say something like that.
QuoteDear Amish Lord...We solemnly believe that although humans have been around for a million years, you feel strongly that they had just the right amount of technology between 1835 and 1850-not too little, not too much. Please deliver us from Thomas Edison, the worst human being who ever lived, and protect us from those who laugh at our buggies or our hats. And deliver us from mustaches. Amen.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on April 02, 2013, 07:14:19 PM
Quote from: V3X on April 02, 2013, 02:54:40 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on April 02, 2013, 02:35:31 AM
And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/)
QuoteDamron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."
Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.
In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.
According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.
This is technically unrelated, but you know what else isn't exactly "plain?" Driving a horse and buggy right through the middle of the fucking 21st century like some kind of ass-backwards Dr. Who.
As for the motivation behind the law, of course they'd say something like that.
QuoteDear Amish Lord...We solemnly believe that although humans have been around for a million years, you feel strongly that they had just the right amount of technology between 1835 and 1850-not too little, not too much. Please deliver us from Thomas Edison, the worst human being who ever lived, and protect us from those who laugh at our buggies or our hats. And deliver us from mustaches. Amen.
:lulz: Post of the year. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2013, 07:15:37 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on April 02, 2013, 07:14:19 PM
Quote from: V3X on April 02, 2013, 02:54:40 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on April 02, 2013, 02:35:31 AM
And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/)
QuoteDamron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."
Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.
In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.
According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.
This is technically unrelated, but you know what else isn't exactly "plain?" Driving a horse and buggy right through the middle of the fucking 21st century like some kind of ass-backwards Dr. Who.
As for the motivation behind the law, of course they'd say something like that.
QuoteDear Amish Lord...We solemnly believe that although humans have been around for a million years, you feel strongly that they had just the right amount of technology between 1835 and 1850-not too little, not too much. Please deliver us from Thomas Edison, the worst human being who ever lived, and protect us from those who laugh at our buggies or our hats. And deliver us from mustaches. Amen.
:lulz: Post of the year. :lulz:
--belongs to Seth McFarland, just couldn't find a video.
I thought it sounded familiar. :wink: