(04-02-2015 11:17 AM)HuronDave Wrote:  To those on the left: By becoming an intolerant, torch carrying lynch mob intent on shutting down any dissent, through intimidation and any other means available, you have become everything you once claimed to detest.

Dave... that is a bunch of blather...

As I understand it, Indiana took the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby verdict (closely held, religiously valued corps) and tried to extend it to ALL corporations and give those for profit corporations 'human standing' e.g., human values, conscience, etc. as if they have a 'soul' and a God-given conscience. They don't.

For GM, etc. to pretend it has a soul and conscience is a stretch. I doubt there are any corporations in hell.

Most folks who have dealt with corporations just might agree they are solely lacking when it comes to conscience. They are utilitarian organizations designed to make money using the vehicle of providing goods and services as the means to make said money.

"To those on the left: By becoming an intolerant, torch carrying lynch mob intent on shutting down any dissent, through intimidation and any other means available, you have become everything you once claimed to detest. "

Exactly Dave...

When the left does this it's considered "righteous" and "courageous" no matter how many people get hurt or to the extent of property damage, but if the right does anything like this it's considered "hate" or "bigotry" or "fill in the blank” with something not nice.

And a final note before we return to sports talk…
This so-called controversial Indiana religious freedom law is just about saying "the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment has been affirmed.” That’s it.

=================

“And now for something completely different” (Monty Python)…sport talk again on a sports site.

I am certainly shocked by the firing of Jans, I really liked his hire at BG last year and thought he did a terrific job with the Falcons this season. Hope this doesn't come out like when Keith Dambrot was let go at CMU 25-years ago over something that he may or may not have said. Dambrot had a long hard road back to coaching and I do not wish that on anybody.

States don't pass laws to affirm what has been in the BORs for more than 200 years.

(04-02-2015 02:40 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  States don't pass laws to affirm what has been in the BORs for more than 200 years.

BOR?

Women? non-propertied owners? African-Americans? etc. etc.

Maybe I missed the election results from 1800 where they reported the exit poll results of the number of women, non-property owners, slaves, etc. voting...

I asked for a cross tab by gender, race, property status, etc.

The number of African-American, married women who voted was zero.

White x males x property owners = all.

(04-01-2015 12:48 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 12:34 PM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:56 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:18 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Stienbrecher is a complete and utter joke and needs to go. That is even disregarding this latest mis-step, where the media has latched onto this Indiana and thing and COMPLETELY mischaracterized the law. It is just like Ferguson, a narrative gets created that the media wants and it becomes huge. I wish the media would report news and not try to create it.

What are his other mis-steps?

Think he is a very good commish and ask the NFL about these soft issues and domestic violence, which I'd put as another hate release that certain people need to express and act on.

this whole thing is a lot of hoopla over nothing. Why people are jumping on this now makes no sense to me when Barack and Clinton both passed these laws through the years. It really will only apply to lets say to someone who has a real strict religious belief and they feel they should not have to render services based on their belief. If one is offended get over it and find someone else!!!!
How will this affect athletes? A business owner it would be committing a self inflicted wound to not participate with another due to race religion sex etc. word will spread and one would lose their business. Again this thing is so overblown it is maddening!!

I believe this law has the exact opposite purpose of the Federal law over 20 years ago.

I believe the purpose of that law was to EXPAND protections to certain groups subject to discrimination, e.g., a member of a religion wearing a beard, particular clothing, etc.

This law permits religious followers to discriminate against other folks. E.g., offer commercial goods and services to a politician involved in an extra marital affair but deny the same commercial goods and services to say two gays.

Exact opposite purposes.

It is the old thing with religious (I am one). They have NO problem with one sin but are completely offended by a similar but different sin.

Case in point: a married person involved in an extra-marital affair seems to be treated as 'less' a sinner then say a married gay couple.

First of all people are CRAZY. We are being played by the political masters. Very few people were aware of any RFRA laws prior to -1- week ago.

The federal RFRA passed in 1993 pertained to protection from federal laws. Today 19 states that have passed their RFRA pertaining to state laws. Now where is the big problem or difference? It is because Indiana's law specifically provides that it applies to lawsuits where the state is not a party, i.e., to cases between private parties. Is this something new? NO. Why ? Because the US Court of Appeals in the 2nd,8th,9th and DC district have applied the federal law to include private parties. So in effect 29 states live under RFRA as passed by Indiana. Specifically by judicial opinion the citizens of the most liberal states in the union Vermont, MN, NY and CA are ruled by the same law as Indiana.

We are witnessing ignorance grandstanding as righteousness.

(04-02-2015 02:47 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:40 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  States don't pass laws to affirm what has been in the BORs for more than 200 years.

BOR?

Women? non-propertied owners? African-Americans? etc. etc.

Maybe I missed the election results from 1800 where they reported the exit poll results of the number of women, non-property owners, slaves, etc. voting...

I asked for a cross tab by gender, race, property status, etc.

The number of African-American, married women who voted was zero.

White x males x property owners = all.

And subsequent amendments covered those. I repeat: states don't pass laws to re-affirm existing laws. Especially those in the Constitution/Bil Of Rights. They pass laws to change existing laws.

(04-02-2015 10:56 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:47 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:40 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  States don't pass laws to affirm what has been in the BORs for more than 200 years.

BOR?

Women? non-propertied owners? African-Americans? etc. etc.

Maybe I missed the election results from 1800 where they reported the exit poll results of the number of women, non-property owners, slaves, etc. voting...

I asked for a cross tab by gender, race, property status, etc.

The number of African-American, married women who voted was zero.

White x males x property owners = all.

And subsequent amendments covered those. I repeat: states don't pass laws to re-affirm existing laws. Especially those in the Constitution/Bil Of Rights. They pass laws to change existing laws.

Are we now talking BOR for corporations (in the advent of Hobby Lobby)?

Getting to the question George Stephanopolous (sp) asked Sunday:

Can a florist decide not to do business with a gay couple at their wedding based on religious grounds?

The question, should, I think, can a mom and pop florist decide not to based on religious grounds?

Can a CORPORATION decide not to based on their religious beliefs (whatever that might be)?

My view of corporations is usually the opposite, namely, they tend to be amoral.

E.g., do corporations really need to offer adult movies as a pay for view option in their rooms? If someone wants to watch it can't they watch over the Internet? Does a lodging corporation need to profit?

(04-03-2015 05:05 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 10:56 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:47 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:40 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  States don't pass laws to affirm what has been in the BORs for more than 200 years.

BOR?

Women? non-propertied owners? African-Americans? etc. etc.

Maybe I missed the election results from 1800 where they reported the exit poll results of the number of women, non-property owners, slaves, etc. voting...

I asked for a cross tab by gender, race, property status, etc.

The number of African-American, married women who voted was zero.

White x males x property owners = all.

And subsequent amendments covered those. I repeat: states don't pass laws to re-affirm existing laws. Especially those in the Constitution/Bil Of Rights. They pass laws to change existing laws.

Are we now talking BOR for corporations (in the advent of Hobby Lobby)?

Getting to the question George Stephanopolous (sp) asked Sunday:

Can a florist decide not to do business with a gay couple at their wedding based on religious grounds?

The question, should, I think, can a mom and pop florist decide not to based on religious grounds?

Can a CORPORATION decide not to based on their religious beliefs (whatever that might be)?

My view of corporations is usually the opposite, namely, they tend to be amoral.

E.g., do corporations really need to offer adult movies as a pay for view option in their rooms? If someone wants to watch it can't they watch over the Internet? Does a lodging corporation need to profit?

OK, I'm lost. Nick said the Indy law was a reaffirmation of the 1st Amendment, I said states don't reaffirm the First a Amendment 200 years later. I have no idea what you're saying. How did we get to adult movies in hotels?

(04-03-2015 05:44 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 05:05 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 10:56 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:47 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:40 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  States don't pass laws to affirm what has been in the BORs for more than 200 years.

BOR?

Women? non-propertied owners? African-Americans? etc. etc.

Maybe I missed the election results from 1800 where they reported the exit poll results of the number of women, non-property owners, slaves, etc. voting...

I asked for a cross tab by gender, race, property status, etc.

The number of African-American, married women who voted was zero.

White x males x property owners = all.

And subsequent amendments covered those. I repeat: states don't pass laws to re-affirm existing laws. Especially those in the Constitution/Bil Of Rights. They pass laws to change existing laws.

Are we now talking BOR for corporations (in the advent of Hobby Lobby)?

Getting to the question George Stephanopolous (sp) asked Sunday:

Can a florist decide not to do business with a gay couple at their wedding based on religious grounds?

The question, should, I think, can a mom and pop florist decide not to based on religious grounds?

Can a CORPORATION decide not to based on their religious beliefs (whatever that might be)?

My view of corporations is usually the opposite, namely, they tend to be amoral.

E.g., do corporations really need to offer adult movies as a pay for view option in their rooms? If someone wants to watch it can't they watch over the Internet? Does a lodging corporation need to profit?

OK, I'm lost. Nick said the Indy law was a reaffirmation of the 1st Amendment, I said states don't reaffirm the First a Amendment 200 years later. I have no idea what you're saying. How did we get to adult movies in hotels?

I have NO IDEA what Nick is talking about.

It is NOT about reaffirming 1st Amendment human rights.

The Indiana law gave religious rights to corporations, as if they are persons ala Hobby Lobby case.

Sometimes it appears everyone is talking about something different as if they were watching different sporting events.

(04-03-2015 06:29 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 05:44 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 05:05 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 10:56 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:47 PM)emu steve Wrote:  BOR?

Women? non-propertied owners? African-Americans? etc. etc.

Maybe I missed the election results from 1800 where they reported the exit poll results of the number of women, non-property owners, slaves, etc. voting...

I asked for a cross tab by gender, race, property status, etc.

The number of African-American, married women who voted was zero.

White x males x property owners = all.

And subsequent amendments covered those. I repeat: states don't pass laws to re-affirm existing laws. Especially those in the Constitution/Bil Of Rights. They pass laws to change existing laws.

Are we now talking BOR for corporations (in the advent of Hobby Lobby)?

Getting to the question George Stephanopolous (sp) asked Sunday:

Can a florist decide not to do business with a gay couple at their wedding based on religious grounds?

The question, should, I think, can a mom and pop florist decide not to based on religious grounds?

Can a CORPORATION decide not to based on their religious beliefs (whatever that might be)?

My view of corporations is usually the opposite, namely, they tend to be amoral.

E.g., do corporations really need to offer adult movies as a pay for view option in their rooms? If someone wants to watch it can't they watch over the Internet? Does a lodging corporation need to profit?

OK, I'm lost. Nick said the Indy law was a reaffirmation of the 1st Amendment, I said states don't reaffirm the First a Amendment 200 years later. I have no idea what you're saying. How did we get to adult movies in hotels?

I have NO IDEA what Nick is talking about.

It is NOT about reaffirming 1st Amendment human rights.

The Indiana law gave religious rights to corporations, as if they are persons ala Hobby Lobby case.

Sometimes it appears everyone is talking about something different as if they were watching different sporting events.

So we agree?

(04-03-2015 06:29 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 05:44 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 05:05 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 10:56 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 02:47 PM)emu steve Wrote:  BOR?

Women? non-propertied owners? African-Americans? etc. etc.

Maybe I missed the election results from 1800 where they reported the exit poll results of the number of women, non-property owners, slaves, etc. voting...

I asked for a cross tab by gender, race, property status, etc.

The number of African-American, married women who voted was zero.

White x males x property owners = all.

And subsequent amendments covered those. I repeat: states don't pass laws to re-affirm existing laws. Especially those in the Constitution/Bil Of Rights. They pass laws to change existing laws.

Are we now talking BOR for corporations (in the advent of Hobby Lobby)?

Getting to the question George Stephanopolous (sp) asked Sunday:

Can a florist decide not to do business with a gay couple at their wedding based on religious grounds?

The question, should, I think, can a mom and pop florist decide not to based on religious grounds?

Can a CORPORATION decide not to based on their religious beliefs (whatever that might be)?

My view of corporations is usually the opposite, namely, they tend to be amoral.

E.g., do corporations really need to offer adult movies as a pay for view option in their rooms? If someone wants to watch it can't they watch over the Internet? Does a lodging corporation need to profit?

OK, I'm lost. Nick said the Indy law was a reaffirmation of the 1st Amendment, I said states don't reaffirm the First a Amendment 200 years later. I have no idea what you're saying. How did we get to adult movies in hotels?

I have NO IDEA what Nick is talking about.

It is NOT about reaffirming 1st Amendment human rights.

The Indiana law gave religious rights to corporations, as if they are persons ala Hobby Lobby case.

Sometimes it appears everyone is talking about something different as if they were watching different sporting events.

EMU - Rights are provided by the consitution. Indiana reaffirmed what US Court of Appeals decided in the 2nd 8th,9th and DC appeal ate had already ruled. Private parties (including corps) can use the RFRA in lawsuits against other private parties. It is currently the law of the land in those districts. It is NOT different than what Indiana law that was passed. The difference is the the HYSTERICAL coverage that has ensued. Indiana as usual is not a driver force change, they codified existing case law and combined it with the standard RFRA laws of the federal got and 19 other states.

(04-03-2015 12:05 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 06:29 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 05:44 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 05:05 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 10:56 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  And subsequent amendments covered those. I repeat: states don't pass laws to re-affirm existing laws. Especially those in the Constitution/Bil Of Rights. They pass laws to change existing laws.

Are we now talking BOR for corporations (in the advent of Hobby Lobby)?

Getting to the question George Stephanopolous (sp) asked Sunday:

Can a florist decide not to do business with a gay couple at their wedding based on religious grounds?

The question, should, I think, can a mom and pop florist decide not to based on religious grounds?

Can a CORPORATION decide not to based on their religious beliefs (whatever that might be)?

My view of corporations is usually the opposite, namely, they tend to be amoral.

E.g., do corporations really need to offer adult movies as a pay for view option in their rooms? If someone wants to watch it can't they watch over the Internet? Does a lodging corporation need to profit?

OK, I'm lost. Nick said the Indy law was a reaffirmation of the 1st Amendment, I said states don't reaffirm the First a Amendment 200 years later. I have no idea what you're saying. How did we get to adult movies in hotels?

I have NO IDEA what Nick is talking about.

It is NOT about reaffirming 1st Amendment human rights.

The Indiana law gave religious rights to corporations, as if they are persons ala Hobby Lobby case.

Sometimes it appears everyone is talking about something different as if they were watching different sporting events.

EMU - Rights are provided by the consitution. Indiana reaffirmed what US Court of Appeals decided in the 2nd 8th,9th and DC appeal ate had already ruled. Private parties (including corps) can use the RFRA in lawsuits against other private parties. It is currently the law of the land in those districts. It is NOT different than what Indiana law that was passed. The difference is the the HYSTERICAL coverage that has ensued. Indiana as usual is not a driver force change, they codified existing case law and combined it with the standard RFRA laws of the federal got and 19 other states.

I think I disagree with you.

If we are referring, at the highest level, to Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby was a very narrow ruling, not a broad ruling. I believe the mantra was closely held corporations with strong religious associations by the owners. That does not apply to Eli Lilley, Apple, GM, etc. etc. etc.

Did Indiana attempt to take an inch and turn it into a mile? Take a narrow Supreme Court ruling and greatly expand it at the state level? (that is an easy thing to do, matter of fact, I believe gay marriage proponents did exactly that).

OR, this is a serious question:

Are the cases you refer much different in scope then Hobby Lobby? Or are you saying that Hobby Lobby 'isn't really new, groundbreaking, it followed 20 years of legal precedence under religious freedom law'?

Another question:

This topic isn't mute, but I believe it is MOOT.

I assume the issues have been resolved in both Indiana and Arkansas. Correct? Everyone happy and ready to move on?