This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Religious Freedom Acts  (Read 1058 times)

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« on: October 07, 2019, 08:57:26 pm »
In a now-restricted thread on the main RPG forum, there came a side discussion of religious freedom bills such as the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act_(Indiana)

Pundit mentioned it was interesting even while closing down, so I'm bringing it up here. Some selected discussion of the point from the other thread, for context:

Quote from: Naburimannu;1108009
Most "Religious Freedom" bills absolutely are the religious right and "Oklahoma parents" attempting to coopt government, not to appease the left.

Quote from: Dracones;1108010
I don't really understand how the Indiana bill is co-opting the government when it literally removes government power over the individual.

Quote from: jhkim
As for the law itself, it doesn't remove government power, but rather grants greater rights to individuals *only if they are religious*. That's really a privilege for religious people, rather than a reduction in government power. If this were constitutional rights, then a law that was seen to violate the Establishment Clause should be struck down as unconstitutional -- rather than granting a special case exception in the law for religious people. According to most constitutional interpretations, atheists should have all the same rights that religious people do. So, for example, if a religious person can refuse to serve a gay couple, then an atheist should also be able to refuse to serve a gay couple.

Quote from: Dracones;1108050
It'd appear that atheists would be covered under the bill. Atheism is a set of religious beliefs and an atheist would have legal protection from denying burdensome service that violates those beliefs. If you were billboard designer and sued for not creating a custom Intelligent Design billboard(Moses riding a T-Rex), it looks like you'd have protection.

Quote from: jhkim;1108099
Even if your example were true, that's still different rights depending on what one's beliefs are. As I note, an atheist who opposes homosexuality doesn't get the rights that a Christian does -- because only religious belief is protected, not philosophical or scientific or other belief. I think that most atheists would say that atheism is *not* a set of religious beliefs. And indeed, from what I can tell, atheist organizations are generally opposed to these acts, precisely because of the logic I say. The point is that these laws are being driven by the Religious Right, showing that they still do have power. For example, here's a petition from atheists.org:

https://www.atheists.org/2019/03/do-no-harm-act/

Maybe you think the religious freedom laws are correct, and Christians should be able to refuse service to homosexuals, but atheists can't. But the point is that these bills are supported by the Religious Right, and opposed by the Left along with atheists and other groups. Their passage shows that the Religious Right still has significant power.


I'm definitely on the side that one should have the same rights regardless of one's religion or lack of religion. If a law is overreaching and overly limits exercise of religion, then that limit should be struck down as unconstitutional for everyone - not kept as something that only applies to people who don't have the right religion. i.e. If we think that a Christian should be able to refuse service to a customer for being gay, then an atheist should be able to do the same.

I think a constitutional amendment to make the Establishment Clause more concrete might be reasonable -- but I don't think a bare majority law is a good compromise.

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14040
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2019, 10:56:14 pm »
Sole proprietor businesses should be able to choose their customers, as long as they are upfront about their bias. AKA, you want to be bakery who refuses to sell to XYZ, then so be it as long its plastered on your front window and website. Then let the free market decide whether your bias affects your income.

As for the "Religious Freedom" bills, you can thank the intolerant Left and the political arm of the Alphabet mafia. What did anyone expect? Like it or not, this country is majority Christian. All those new "brown" people? Guess what? They're mostly Roman Catholic and believe in the traditional family.

Its quite unfortunate for everyone that "civil rights movement" went from "let's agree to live and let live in tolerance" in the 90s to "agree to whatever we say, do and demand or we will attack you" in 2019.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2019, 11:39:04 pm »
jhkim: Why do you link to wikipedia and not the bill itself?

Now, I still haven seen any example of gays being denied service by a christian, but I bet you're talking about the famous cake. Funny how nobody ever targets the Muslim bakeries or talks about attempts to have said bakeries to write the same stuff.

The baker wasn't denying service, he was refusing to write something, should a gay baker be forced to write something like "homosexuality is a sin"? If he doesn't then isn't that discrimination in basis of the religious beliefs of the person asking him to write it?

See I'm an atheist, and I don't think a fucking cake was the hill they should have chosen to die on. But they did, and now comes the backlash. If we were talking about a doctor refusing to care for a gay person because of his/her religious beliefs I would say fuck him and take away his license. Because that could endanger someone's life, but a fucking cake? That the baker was willing to sell them, just not with custom writing the assholes choose especially to have him bend the knee or be sued. This doesn't endanger them and no fucking LGBT asshole has tried this with a Muslim owned/operated business.

Now, "this bill could lead to x" and it also could not lead to X, pre-crime is a very bad idea.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjC7-w5KDKNiD-k0tVo1DPw?view_as=subscriber

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2019, 11:42:24 pm »
Quote from: Spinachcat;1108832
Sole proprietor businesses should be able to choose their customers, as long as they are upfront about their bias. AKA, you want to be bakery who refuses to sell to XYZ, then so be it as long its plastered on your front window and website. Then let the free market decide whether your bias affects your income.

As for the "Religious Freedom" bills, you can thank the intolerant Left and the political arm of the Alphabet mafia. What did anyone expect? Like it or not, this country is majority Christian. All those new "brown" people? Guess what? They're mostly Roman Catholic and believe in the traditional family.

Its quite unfortunate for everyone that "civil rights movement" went from "let's agree to live and let live in tolerance" in the 90s to "agree to whatever we say, do and demand or we will attack you" in 2019.

The civil rights movement has nothing to do with the assholes driving all this bullshit, and sadly they will cause even more backlash with their demands for more power, control and frankly crazy shit. You saw the tv show where they try and normalize age as a social construct? The wet dream of every pedo out there, and this isn't the first time they push to normalize pedophilia. Nothing good will come out of this and sadly my gay and lesbian family and friends will pay the price for this marxist push for control.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjC7-w5KDKNiD-k0tVo1DPw?view_as=subscriber

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2019, 12:49:52 am »
I have a strict "No Asshole" rule.  If you are going to be an asshole then you can just fuck off somewhere else.
"There can be no middle ground with bigots. Bigots want to deny the rights and livelihood of people different from them. They want them to cease existing, either by going underground or by murdering them. There is no "let's meet in the middle" with that. To suggest there can be is ignorance" RPGNet

ElBorak

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • E
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2019, 02:18:36 am »
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1108836
jhkim: Why do you link to wikipedia and not the bill itself?

Now, I still haven seen any example of gays being denied service by a christian, but I bet you're talking about the famous cake. Funny how nobody ever targets the Muslim bakeries or talks about attempts to have said bakeries to write the same stuff.

The baker wasn't denying service, he was refusing to write something, should a gay baker be forced to write something like "homosexuality is a sin"? If he doesn't then isn't that discrimination in basis of the religious beliefs of the person asking him to write it?

See I'm an atheist, and I don't think a fucking cake was the hill they should have chosen to die on. But they did, and now comes the backlash. If we were talking about a doctor refusing to care for a gay person because of his/her religious beliefs I would say fuck him and take away his license. Because that could endanger someone's life, but a fucking cake? That the baker was willing to sell them, just not with custom writing the assholes choose especially to have him bend the knee or be sued. This doesn't endanger them and no fucking LGBT asshole has tried this with a Muslim owned/operated business.

Now, "this bill could lead to x" and it also could not lead to X, pre-crime is a very bad idea.

Yeah, forcing someone to violate their conscience is not a good hill to die on. There is a reason though that they don't try it with Muslims, 1. they don't want to die and 2. the left would have to flip a coin to see which branch of Political Correctness they were going to choose on this issue. With the odds being 50/50 that the left would turn on them (and the risk to their lives), they wisely chose to leave the Muslims alone.

ElBorak

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • E
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2019, 02:22:34 am »
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1108837
The civil rights movement has nothing to do with the assholes driving all this bullshit, and sadly they will cause even more backlash with their demands for more power, control and frankly crazy shit. You saw the tv show where they try and normalize age as a social construct? The wet dream of every pedo out there, and this isn't the first time they push to normalize pedophilia. Nothing good will come out of this and sadly my gay and lesbian family and friends will pay the price for this marxist push for control.

Trying to force people to violate their own conscience is not the way to win friends and influence people. Having the extreme radical far left, coming down on the side of pedophilia is just a good way to make the majority stop giving you any benefit of the doubt.

TNMalt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2019, 08:05:28 am »
Remember the medical conscientious objection stuff from a few years back where pharmacists won't fill certain prescriptions. Kinda similar. Though I remember a few that refused to refer the patient to another pharmacy. Same thing happened in certain hospitals if I remember correctly, refused to even transfer a patient. Even with the patient's life is in jeopardy. I'll have to google examples later when I have more time.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8568
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2019, 09:42:19 am »
I'll be gone over the weekend at Big Bad Con, so I won't have time for replies until Monday. But the topic is on the religious freedom laws, not just on a specific case.

Quote from: ElBorak;1108852
Trying to force people to violate their own conscience is not the way to win friends and influence people.

My question is: How far does that go? In a broader sense, if someone's personal conscience conflicts with the law, should they be allowed to violate it? If so, should that only be the case for religious conscience?

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16954
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2019, 10:55:20 am »
This again?

I thought we covered all the ground in this thread and this thread.

rgalex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2019, 11:49:41 am »
Quote from: jhkim;1108878
My question is: How far does that go? In a broader sense, if someone's personal conscience conflicts with the law, should they be allowed to violate it? If so, should that only be the case for religious conscience?


It's a tough question to have a unilateral answer to.  In general, and I'm going to be vague here atm, if it's a government or public service, then no.  Doctors, government clerks, movie theaters, etc can't refuse under most normal circumstances.  If it's a private business then I'm more willing to allow exceptions.

On the flip side of that coin, how much government restriction on an organization's expression of belief are we willing to allow?  Beto O'Rourke was asked during a recent CNN town hall "Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?"

O'Rourke said, "Yes. There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights, and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we're going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon human rights."

To me, that's worse by far than a same-sex couple not getting the bakery they want to make their wedding cake.

RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 913
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2019, 11:58:39 am »
Quote from: jeff37923;1108892
This again?

I thought we covered all the ground in this thread and this thread.

As the Left has gone undeniably bugshit nuts, it is necessary to Astroturf concern about the excesses of the Right.

Blood Axe

  • motherfucker
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2019, 12:35:51 pm »
Quote from: rgalex;1108906
It's a tough question to have a unilateral answer to.  In general, and I'm going to be vague here atm, if it's a government or public service, then no.  Doctors, government clerks, movie theaters, etc can't refuse under most normal circumstances.  If it's a private business then I'm more willing to allow exceptions.

On the flip side of that coin, how much government restriction on an organization's expression of belief are we willing to allow?  Beto O'Rourke was asked during a recent CNN town hall "Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?"

O'Rourke said, "Yes. There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights, and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we're going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon human rights."

To me, that's worse by far than a same-sex couple not getting the bakery they want to make their wedding cake.

Thank God, Allah, Pee-wee Herman- that Beta has absolutely no chance of getting the nomination, let alone being President.  He wants you disarmed and to have no freedom of religion.
Walk in step or off to the "reeducation camps".
To DEFEND: this is the pact.
 But when life loses its meaning
 and is taken for naught...
 then the pact is to AVENGE !

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2019, 02:44:52 pm »
Beta...

And to think the lunatics that can no longer afford to live in Democrat controlled strongholds like NY, and CA are flooding here to TX, and still bring their dumb ideas with them and support this idiot.

Well it's a bit surprising, but not really, that an entitled moron like Beta could live in TX and not fundamentally realize the outcome of trying to disarm TX, much less the rest of the Red States.

The outcomes would be... unsurprising to me. And pretty tragic.

deadDMwalking

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Religious Freedom Acts
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2019, 03:46:41 pm »
Virtually anything can be a religion.  Whether that's an established popular religion, an ancient sect that is no longer popular, or a new religion based entirely on an 'enlightened experience', the tenants can vary wildly.  

In RPG terms, you can imagine a religion with a central tenant of 'suffer not the unclean to live'.  If that religion were to operate in the real world, while their religious teaching might indicate that murdering anyone that doesn't meet their moral standards whatever they are should be killed, we won't tolerate that type of criminal activity.  They can BELIEVE that everyone they don't like should die, they can HOPE that everyone they don't like should die, but they can't actually DO ANYTHING to make those people die.  

If they open a shop, they're going to have customers that they hope die and they're going to have other customers that they might approve of.  But their religion does't demand that they open a shop.  Their business license isn't issued by the church.  If they want to go into business, they have to follow the business rules.  If they can't follow the business rules, they shouldn't go into business - at least not one open to the general public.  There are ways you can accommodate religious beliefs - even very restrictive ones - but it isn't for the customer to have to solve the problem.  

Here's a story about conflict when Conservative Jewish Men refuse to sit next to a woman on a plane.
When I say objectively, I mean 'subjectively'.  When I say literally, I mean 'figuratively'.  
And when I say that you are a horse's ass, I mean that the objective truth is that you are a literal horse's ass.

There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. - Peter Drucker