Tuesday, March 31, 2015

man-up dumbasses - MUCH more respect for old bessinger than for these fruity-assed conservatard creepers...,

theatlantic |  There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. Here, for example, is the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack: “Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law? Nothing significant.” I am not sure what McCormack was thinking; but even my old employer, The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. “Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA,” the Post’s Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes.  If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. 

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage. 

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. 


BigDonOne said...

Since it is apparently N-1 Day at Subrealism, here is the latest prediction for End Times Events---> http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/mahdi-to-return-by-2016-followed-by-jesus/

CNu said...

lol, no BD - it's not N-1 Day at Subrealism. Please do try and keep up, would you? The conservatards pride themselves on exegetical ratiocinization, thus their neverending and joylessly tedious scholastic debates about this, that, or the other thing's provenance for dancing on the head of a non-existent pin.

Though IQ-75 to the bone, and ignorant as hell, these dumb phukkers think they're slick. They think that they can subvert the meaning and application of a 1993 federal law intended to let some indians chew peyote as part of their micro-minority religious practice and belief, and turn that upside down to appropriate legal protections for discrimination on the basis of "belief" with corporations and other institutions functioning as "persons" under law and the 1st amendment.

This is some kochtopi exploitation of bible-buddy sock puppets in the greater game of musical chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

John Kurman said...

Eff the gays. It's not about gays. It's about ANY made-up (on the spot) horseshit religious belief to keep whomever from suing your business.

CNu said...


John Kurman said...

pretty sure he'd find a vest with a hanky pocket.

CNu said...

lol, videos of Bosma until lately show him as clean shaven. The beard seems to be a recent - possibly mid-life - affectation. It would be entirely too rich if the empirically evident foppishness genuinely signals some deeply closeted leatheriness..., but you just never can tell what you'll stumble into out in a dark midwestern log cabin...., the Indiana "lunchpail republicans" were none to happy with old Bri in 2012 when somebody cracked a kochtopus log cabin joke about his lack of focus https://youtu.be/e2_XOYloHdA

Ed Dunn said...

Bessinger may want to get his DNA checked.....

John Kurman said...

Completely OT George Miller wise to turn Mad Max into Paul Bunyan. Now any history man can fix up a word burger about Max.

Constructive_Feedback said...

My Dear Friend CNu:

Question for you.

In as much as the "Americanized Negro Intellectual" speaks about the "Stolen African Culture" via slavery and colonization that MADE THE NEGRO IN AMERICA BEHAVE LIKE HE DOES BECAUSE HIS "BLUE PRINTS WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM BY THE WHITE MAN.....................

Does it puzzle you as to why there are no prominent "Americanized Negros" who look toward the remnants of this "Mystical Magical Culture" that sprouts up in most of the African continent and Jamaica in regards to how THEY view homosexuality?

If in fact the THEFT OF this culture is the POWER that "Americanized Black Intellectuals like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Dyson, Sharpton and Charles Blow blow utilize to fend their turf - ARE YOU made curious as you wonder: "IF THIS MYSTICAL MAGICAL CULTURE", akin to "JESUS" were to show his face before the Americanized Negro today:

1) WOULD HE SUBMIT HIMSELF TO IT, in a grand "Coming Home Ritual Ceremony"?


Brother CNu: As I was watching the "Bill Cunningham" show today. This White man was berating White "racist" women for being opposed to their daughters dating Black men. In this world the "White folks" seeking to perpetuate their race were the EVIL BIGOTS. (This despite the total dysfunction of the families beyond the one interracial unit.

LET ME ASK YOU CNu: If I, a Black man, is SKEPTICAL that there will EVER be a point where the WHITE MAN DISARMS HIMSELF, allowing FREE LOVE and MISCEGENATION to occur to the point where he is genetically extinguished AND INSTEAD I look for some type of RULES FOR MUTUAL RESPECT FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE RESPECTIVE RACES - am I WRONG for seeing through this present DISARMAMENT SCHEME, using world history and power relationships as my model?

IF we agree on this fact about RACE..................what are the chances that SEXUALITY is being used to perform a similar DISARMAMENT as INSTITUTIONS are made to compromise themselves based upon the crafty talking points of:

* Non-Discrimination
* Diversity
* Equality?

What I am really getting at, Brother CNu: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE NEGRO IS BEING SUMMARILY DISARMED as he is lead to FIGHT AGAINST "Discrimination"? ( I just listened to one of my frat brothers say: "He would not oppose if 90% of the new pledges into our chapter were homosexual". AND WE BOTH KNEW HE WAS LYING. )

Please provide guidance to me as an "Anarcho-Capitalist"



CNu said...

lol, what would lil'Pookie do?