Phx-Suns.Net

Mori, here is what was explicitly added to clarify the law:

Sec. 0.7. This chapter does not:

8 (I) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services,

9 facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment,

10 or housing to any member or members of the general public

11 on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national

12 origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or

13 United States military service;

14 (2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution

15 for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities,

16 use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing

17 to any member or members of the general public on the basis

18 of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin,

19 disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United

20 States military service; or

21 (3) negate any rights available under the Constitution of the51 2015

1 State of Indiana.

Even before the clarification it was hysteria. Gabriel Malor, a pro-gay marriage conservative lawyer, laid it out pretty nicely here.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/you ... -answered/

This big gay freak-out is purely notional. No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide.

The fear is that it could be used to deny service to gay people in places of public accommodation like businesses and restaurants. But, as discussed above, no RFRA has ever been used that way before. Also, Indiana does not have a public accommodation law that protects against anti-gay discrimination, meaning there’s no state law in Indiana preventing anti-gay discrimination in businesses even before the state RFRA was enacted. Notably, despite the lack of such a law, nobody can point to any Indiana businesses that were discriminating against gays.

I will do my best to respond...

Do you believe, as seems to be a popular libertarian (or Libertarian?) claim, that taxes are theft?

Theft isn't the word I would use for most taxes/fees. Sure, some certainly are, as I see when I travel all the time. Many are just ways for businesses to take more money from you without having to use the real price in their advertising. But I would say that the vast majority of the local and federal taxes we pay are needed. Yeah, we could probably cut out up to 15-25% of our budgets by being less stupid in many areas, but that would require all of us to be less stupid, and that is asking a lot.

Some critiques I have of libertarians:
First, they seem to focus almost exclusively on government, not recognizing the negative affects that non-government entities and persons can have on freedom.

I don't see any questions here. Just more rhetoric with a lot of conditional language. In short, of course there are corporations (mostly) that infringe on freedoms. That is a problem, just like it is when the federal or state or local governments do. Again, not really a question here.

Second, they appear to focus only on the affect of government on negative freedoms, to the neglect of any consideration of its effect on positive freedoms.

Why would people on any side of any aisle spend their time talking about things they don't want to change (unless someone is threatening to take that good thing away)?

Third, they seem to feel more oppressed than evidence indicates is justified, given how rare direct interactions with government can be in most places.

I am not saying this is "oppression" in my definition, but honestly how many people (even in rural America) can go an entire day without having some interaction with local/state/federal governments? I don't think that percentage is very high.

Fourth, the summary you provide here are roughly consistent with the grounds that lead some to conclude that regulations, generally, are bad without considerations of the consequences.

Again, just putting forward your opinions with no questions... I guess I can offer that thinking we should make no laws that infringe on are inalienable human rights in no way means I would favor anarchy. In much of this post you seem to be insinuating that we either have to be completely over-regulated against businesses (Dems view), completely under-regulated against businesses (GOP view), or have anarchy. I think it is a flawed premise with which to start.

Our modern way of life is only possible through an incredibly intricate and complicated network of interactions. If you dislike the government's regulation of THC, that puts you on par with liberals like myself who believe that the scheduling of THC is unjustified by any cost-benefit analysis (actually, I think the scheduling was downright illegal, and the failure of the courts to recognize that has caused me to doubt our courts' impartiality in such matters). A cost-benefit analysis would also strain to think of reasons why, say, purple crayon use should be restricted. As for battery acid, I personally believe in a right to die, and I think we'll eventually realize how much more harmful our puritanical view on death has been. But also, I'm sure you recognize that battery acid only exists because of the complicated network of interactions that characterize modernity, and that your pouring on the ground - even your ground - can have profound effects on those around you. I'm sure you recognize that your neighbor has as much right to be free from you as they do from the government.

No real points you are making here either way. I don't have anything to add except the obvious... of course our actions may have impacts on others, and those impacts are the ones that need to be evaluated and controlled, if needed.

More complicated questions, from my perspective, have to do with children. We have the right to raise our own children. But does that mean that children are subject to the private tyranny of their parents? Why do people who are so afraid of the federal government appear to be so comfortable with the tyranny of states, municipalities, families?

Who is ever happy with tyranny, besides people in control of tyrannical situations? Are you asking if there should be laws governing what to do with parents that harm their children? Of course, just like there should be consequences for anyone that is endangering someone else. I am not sure who would argue against that, not matter which political affiliation you claim.

These are not rhetorical questions, though some are based on my observations, and many likely don't apply to you.

You are right. That wasn't a bunch of rhetorical questions because I think there was only 3 question marks in that whole post (and one wasn't used on a question ).

I'm just saying, I don't know if your principle is very useful, as it doesn't seem to deal with any of the complicated questions.

What complicated questions are you needing me to deal with here? Is there something that you are specifically referring to that would be something you don't think you/Dems already have the answer to?

Dan, you originally said you were against your state even bothering to spend time on this law with so many other things to worry about. But now that they have, are you in favor of leaving it stand, or repealing it (or some hybrid, meaning more time will be spent on it)?

They changed it and have moved on to other legislative issues, it is what it is.

To signify my desire to move along, here's a GIF of Natalie Dormer.

First of all, you grossly overuse the word rhetoric. I gave my impressions, my perspective. Not trying to play disingenuous games here.

Second, your demand for question marks seems rather - rhetorical! Do you not think unless directed? You can choose not to respond, but a little silly to criticize my punctuation. I was trying to provoke responses with statements. Here, is this better?

Why would people on any side of any aisle spend their time talking about things they don't want to change (unless someone is threatening to take that good thing away)?

What? Maybe I should rephrase. When the government limits air pollution, it is restricting the freedom of people to pollute (it is taking away a freedom: negative freedom is "freedom from"). But at the same time, it is giving people the freedom to walk about in clean air (it is providing freedom: positive freedom is "freedom to"). What I'm saying is that libertarians seem to consider only the restriction, and not the enabling. Oh, but since I want a response to that point, I guess I should ask a question. SO, do you see that putting restrictions on pollution contains both a restriction on liberty and a provision of liberty? Same for taxes and spending, as well as business regulations, etc? If you do notice this, and admit that such measures both restrict and provide freedom, what perspective can libertarianism provide with respect to that balance? Do you think that politicians who currently claim the banner of libertarian share your views, or do they have a different view, more in line with my characterization? If my characterization (in the previous post) doesn't fit you, would you admit that it fits many of the politicians and people who claim to be libertarian?

I am not saying this is "oppression" in my definition, but honestly how many people (even in rural America) can go an entire day without having some interaction with local/state/federal governments? I don't think that percentage is very high.

I mean, everyone drives on roads and everyone lives within the network that would not exist but for government. But when i was living in Phoenix, the only time I would directly interact with the government is when they picked up my trash or when I interacted with the police, which was rare. I just don't feel like the government is, on a day to day basis, stopping me from doing anything I want to do, except smoke pot.

No real points you are making here either way. I don't have anything to add except the obvious... of course our actions may have impacts on others, and those impacts are the ones that need to be evaluated and controlled, if needed.

So WTF is libertarianism? You can avoid the actual practical politics, but people like the Pauls don't seem to be in the business of careful evaluation. They want flat taxes, to get rid of much of the government... it just doesn't seem like they appeal to studies or reason, etc. So, if you're down with evaluation and control, what makes you a libertarian? Why not just join the reasonable people, the democrats? What's your problem with democrats?

What complicated questions are you needing me to deal with here? Is there something that you are specifically referring to that would be something you don't think you/Dems already have the answer to?

I and, as far as I can tell, most democrats, are down with using cost-benefit analysis to determine when a rule or regulation is appropriate. In fact, that's basically my one rule, but it gets very complicated. Do you think libertarianism provides a different way of analyzing government action? If not, why the distinction between libertarians and liberals?

You can treat all of these as one question if you like. I included all the question marks for your convenience.

Nodack wrote: I see your point. Just playing evils advocate, what if they refuse service to a KKK or Hells Angels member? Those groups are much less popular and they had a choice in joining those groups, so it's a little bit apple to oranges, but still to me someone chooses to join a religion the same way someone chooses to join the KKK or Hells Angels. They all have their own beliefs. Who decides which beliefs are right and wrong?

If a KKK member walks into a restaurant and is not causing trouble, they have to serve them. Same with the Hell's Angel. Now, if they walk in and are ranting about white power or causing a scene in any other way, the restaurant can absolutely kick them out.

There's no such thing as a racist pizza. Making a pizza for the KKK member does not mean you support his beliefs, and no reasonable person could ever think that. Let's expand on this, and say that it wasn't just the KKK guy wanting a pizza, but a party catered. If that is a service the pizzeria regularly provides, they can't just say "We don't like you" and not do it. On the other hand, if the party is actually a white power rally, well that's different. Just as the pizzeria could kick a guy out for spewing KKK propaganda in the restaurant, they have a right to not be at the KKK rally.

Coming back to the issue of gay marriage, there's a HUGE difference between a gay wedding and a KKK rally. We are not talking about a gay orgy. Gay weddings are not much different than straight weddings. Serving pizza at one does not mean you're supporting gay marriage; it just means you make pizza and cater events.

Dan H wrote:To signify my desire to move along, here's a GIF of Natalie Dormer.

Every once in a while, there's a good reason to venture into the politics folder.

Superbone wrote:

Dan H wrote:To signify my desire to move along, here's a GIF of Natalie Dormer.

Every once in a while, there's a good reason to venture into the politics folder.

To be fair, this is a VERY different politics folder. You're always welcome. And yes, we provide treats to lure the unwary.

Now this is just ridiculous:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundl ... -1.3077192

Dan H wrote:Now this is just ridiculous:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundl ... -1.3077192

Which part was ridiculous?

So you're cool with thoughtcrime? Good to know.

I didn't see any crime committed. Just another incident where dissenting views were put on display. The business owner felt the need to display his views on same sex marriage. A same sex couple up until they found out about the sign liked the service they were getting. The same sex couple felt the need to cancel their business because of the sign. Both party's had the right to do what they did. Both sides were just sticking up for what they believed in.

As a result for sticking up for what they believe in both party's lost. The same sex couple had to find another place to buy wedding rings from and the business owner lost their business and the business of probably all same sex couples in the area.

The thought crime part I think you are referring to is social media going off. Nobody stops social media from posting whatever. I'm sure some people said some mean things. Does that mean gays are bad? Go to FOX News and read a political comment section. It is filled with anti gay, liberal, minorities hate comments, many suggesting violence. Is that ridiculous too?

"Both party's had the right to do what they did."

Jewelry, especially custom jewelry is not generally refundable in my experience. For what's worth he has ended up giving them their refund. The damage is done at this point: he's had to turn off his store Facebook page because of death threats.

It's nice that the guy gave them their money back. The same sex couple isn't responsible for the death threats. The issue was publicized and people are mean on the Internet. Just like we discussed before, when you are in a business and you make your political/religious beliefs part of your business you are opening yourself up for trouble. If I go onstage and say I don't approve of Republicans during a gig on the mic, I would expect only bad things to happen to me from that point on. Sure I might feel good for letting the world know my feelings on the subject, but it would be a really stupid thing to do from a business aspect.

Dan H wrote:So you're cool with thoughtcrime? Good to know.

Who was doing that? Are you talking about the idiots that post stupid stuff on the internet (via Facebook)? I hope not. I would hate to think that deserves any type of comment/discussion from us here.

Dan H wrote:"Both party's had the right to do what they did."

Jewelry, especially custom jewelry is not generally refundable in my experience. For what's worth he has ended up giving them their refund. The damage is done at this point: he's had to turn off his store Facebook page because of death threats.

Yeah, I don't think they are entitled to their money back at this point. Like you said, custom jewelry isn't really returnable. If it was 'off-the-shelf' then I don't see a problem with returning it.

And as Nodack said, the death threats are because there are stupid people on the internet and this guy decided to be openly bigoted. That usually creates ire. Hell, even if he wasn't openly bigoted, but just wanted to say "Have a nice day" he would probably get death threats. Or if he dared to say he didn't care what two consenting adults did, he would get stupid death threats from the other side.

Taking any stance on any subject is opening yourself up for criticism no matter what the stance. If a business does it multiply that many times over.

I guess you guys have seen the executive order our idiot Governor issued this week? Our Mayor came out and issued his own executive order countering it. Things are getting weird here.

I think it is so strange the New Orleans is in Louisiana.

It's a bit like Austin being in Texas.