ralis

Problem With State's Rights.

Recommended Posts

Indiana Governor signed so called religious freedom bill into law today. NCAA headquarters which is based in Indianapolis has expressed concern for athletes regarding the upcoming the 'Final Four. Salesforce Cloud Computing is reducing it's investment in Indiana and a major convention will most likely take it's business elsewhere.

 

There are limits to state's rights. Specifically, where egregious violations of the Constitution are concerned.  

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141049748

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/25/business-leaders-address-letter-to-pence-urging-him-to-veto-religious-freedom-bill/70466808/

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141049861

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141049697

 

 

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence ® did it. On Thursday, he signed a controversial religious freedom bill into law that protects business owners from being required to serve same-sex couples if they have religious objections. 

Pence said signing the bill into law makes sure that "religious liberty" is completely protected in the state. 

"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement

A number of businesses strongly voiced opposition to the law. The large tabletop gaming convention Gen Con threatened to leave the state if Pence the bill, but is locked into a contract until 2020. Star Trek actor George Takei also warned that the law could result in a damaging boycott of the state. 

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opposition isn't really on a "state's rights" basis (which we can discuss if you wish) and the bill is actually remarkably similar to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was introduced by Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, passed unanimously by the Democrat-controlled US House, had only 3 dissents in the Democrat-controlled Senate and was signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton.

 

This thread and the web articles linked to in it have so many layers of irony that I don't even know where to start on dissecting it. Not really any point in doing so, though, since the premise is ideological and it seems fairly certain to me that no one would be swayed by discussions on the basis of fact & logic.

 

A starting point for anyone wishing to explore the question on their own, though, would be to ask these two rhetorical questions, would the same feigned "states rights" moral outrage be expressed it the state had passed a law to the precise opposite effect, and why is it suddenly OK with the crowd who have been railing about corporate influence on the political process for corporations to attempt to influence the political process on this particular issue?

 

Personally, I see the whole thing as an example of the unintended but completely predictable consequences of government improperly claiming authority on an issue which isn't within its set of assigned responsibilities, and I think the entire issue would be dissolved almost instantly if government got out of the marriage business altogether.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:

-----

"Indiana Gov. Mike Pence ® did it. On Thursday, he signed a controversial religious freedom bill into law that protects business owners from being required to serve same-sex couples if they have religious objections."

-----

 

This is coming at a time when many states are introducing legislation to remove religious exemptions to vaccinations.

 

http://www.nvicadvocacy.org/members/National/ActionAlertDetails.aspx?itemid=649&Page=True

 

What an odd contradiction, these two pushes.

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:

-----

"What an odd contradiction, these two pushes."

-----

 

Not as odd as me replying to my own post - but I just realize something.

 

These are not contradictory.

 

The legislation refusing gay couples is meant to raise huge objections to "religious freedom" used in that way.

 

Then, people deciding to use religious exemption to vaccination will be easy to lump in same category.

 

No worry - gay marriage descrimination thing will be stopped.

 

Worry - religious freedom will also be stopped.

 

Is all a "set-up".

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:

-----

"What an odd contradiction, these two pushes."

-----

 

Not as odd as me replying to my own post - but I just realize something.

 

These are not contradictory.

 

The legislation refusing gay couples is meant to raise huge objections to "religious freedom" used in that way.

 

Then, people deciding to use religious exemption to vaccination will be easy to lump in same category.

 

No worry - gay marriage descrimination thing will be stopped.

 

Worry - religious freedom will also be stopped.

 

Is all a "set-up".

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

Your rant regarding vaccines is off topic. Stay on topic and stop patronizing intelligent persons that the two are related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vonkrankenhaus,

 

There are rules regarding derailing threads. I suggest you read the rules and abide by them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:

-----

"These laws are at the behest of the religious right's push to create a right wing theocracy."

-----

 

That's what they are disguised as.

 

But that's not what is really goin on. There is no possibility of a "right wing theocracy" taking anything over.

 

But there is a massive push to remove "religious freedom" arguments from medical abstainers. Children are being taken from parents who refuse various forms of treatment in Children's Hospitals, including vaccinations, chemotherapy, psychological treatment, etc. The hospitals are using child protective services departments of various states to actually take custody of these children and administer treatments regardless of the wishes of the family, or even of the children themselves.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html#

 

"In just the last 18 months, Children’s — which given its reputation attracts many of the toughest cases from across the Northeast — has been involved in at least five cases where a disputed medical diagnosis led to parents either losing custody or being threatened with that extreme measure. Similar custody fights have occurred on occasion at other pediatric hospitals around the country.

 

,,,, It happens often enough that the pediatrician who until recently ran the child protection teams at both Children’s and Massachusetts General Hospital said she and others in her field have a name for this aggressive legal-medical maneuver. They call it a “parent-ectomy.”

 

Not a "right wing theocracy". More like "Stalinist" or "National Socialist".

 

And this is all happening when iatrogenic harm from medical treatments and drugs is actually the #1 cause of death:

 

www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:

-----

"These laws are at the behest of the religious right's push to create a right wing theocracy."

-----

 

That's what they are disguised as.

 

But that's not what is really goin on. There is no possibility of a "right wing theocracy" taking anything over.

 

But there is a massive push to remove "religious freedom" arguments from medical abstainers. Children are being taken from parents who refuse various forms of treatment in Children's Hospitals, including vaccinations, chemotherapy, psychological treatment, etc. The hospitals are using child protective services departments of various states to actually take custody of these children and administer treatments regardless of the wishes of the family, or even of the children themselves.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html#

 

"In just the last 18 months, Children’s — which given its reputation attracts many of the toughest cases from across the Northeast — has been involved in at least five cases where a disputed medical diagnosis led to parents either losing custody or being threatened with that extreme measure. Similar custody fights have occurred on occasion at other pediatric hospitals around the country.

 

,,,, It happens often enough that the pediatrician who until recently ran the child protection teams at both Children’s and Massachusetts General Hospital said she and others in her field have a name for this aggressive legal-medical maneuver. They call it a “parent-ectomy.”

 

Not a "right wing theocracy". More like "Stalinist" or "National Socialist".

 

And this is all happening when iatrogenic harm from medical treatments and drugs is actually the #1 cause of death:

 

www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

I have the right to report you for straying off topic. A clever guise of a post to include your anti vaccine agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:

-----

"I have the right to report you for straying off topic. A clever guise of a post to include your anti vaccine agenda."

-----

 

The topic of religious freedom and state's rights does not have to be looked at from only one perspective or conclusion.

 

But do you insist that it does?

 

The fact is, there is just about zero chance of a "right wing theocracy" taking anything over.

 

But there are other areas where this same idea is in debate right now, including the context I mentioned wherein states are working with hospitals to remove religious freedom arguments as part of people's consumer rights in choosing what happens to them.

 

And this is happening in relation to all kinds of treatments, not just vaccines - but it does just so happen that there are 110 legislative bills in progress right now that address this issue exactly - the issue of religious freedoms and state's rights.

 

Gay marriage also has about a zero chance of being overturned by stuff like the Indiana legislation.

 

My opinion was that the issue is more about states gaining control of religious freedoms than anything specific to gay marriage, and that the gay marriage part of it is a red herring that will be shot down and go away early in the game.

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderation Message


 


Whilst it is the obvious wish of an O.P. that their thread will remain "On Topic" there will always be a natural tendency for drift and we must accept this. When this occurs it is important that it does not result in bickering and crossed words which make for ill feeling.


 


The remedy is to simply ignore the posts or parts of posts which are not relevent . The art is to use careful posting so as to bring the thread back in line. This can and should be done without the need for a falling out between forum members.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious leaders present during Indiana governors signing of law making bigotry legal. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed issues of discrimination for those of you that have forgotten.

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026429609

 

1610901_10206502897995692_88749201383544

 

THAT is creepy. Looks like they're dressed up to go burn a few heretics before evening Chapel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT is creepy. Looks like they're dressed up to go burn a few heretics before evening Chapel.

 

Oh some that's good and godly ones they hold that it's a sin

To troll the jolly bowl around, and let the dollars spin;

But I'm for toleration and for drinking at an inn,

Says the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

 

Oh some are sad and wretched folk that go in silken suits,

And there's a mort of wicked rogues that live in good reputes;

So I'm for drinking honestly, and dying in my boots,

Like an old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

 

John Masefield

 

line-201.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is my understanding that State's Rights cannot negate nor over-ride any Federal Law.

 

If there is a law against discrimination then this new Indiana law should naturally be null and void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is my understanding that State's Rights cannot negate nor over-ride any Federal Law.

 

If there is a law against discrimination then this new Indiana law should naturally be null and void.

 

That is a correct understanding. There are some believers that states can even institute a state religion. A law such as that would be in violation of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few photos of not so long ago when discrimination was legal. Same sociopathy, but now in the guise of so called religious freedom. No one gets to decide who sits at the counter. All are free to do so.

 

14a0fb19-132a-45b1-bcbb-a2d7bfb6bc8a_zps

 

lunch-counter-sit-in.jpg

 

life-and-civil-rights-anatomy-of-a-prote

Edited by ralis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is my understanding that State's Rights cannot negate nor over-ride any Federal Law.

 

If there is a law against discrimination then this new Indiana law should naturally be null and void.

 

actually, it all depends on how the Supreme Court views it. THEY decide what is or is not constitutional. That's a good thing for the most part, but it can bite you oin the ass, too. If they're looney enough to see this as protecting the rights of the religious bigots, then the cheese is eaten (a German saying meaning, it's a done deal).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, it all depends on how the Supreme Court views it. THEY decide what is or is not constitutional. That's a good thing for the most part, but it can bite you oin the ass, too. If they're looney enough to see this as protecting the rights of the religious bigots, then the cheese is eaten (a German saying meaning, it's a done deal).

 

The 'Civil Rights Act of 1964' still applies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what its worth I think its purely an anti gay/lesbian bill and won't be used by white bigots. 

Its the logical backlash of intolerant religious fundamentalists.  The good news is its happening because so much positive has been happening as far as gay rights.  I think its up to 24 37ish http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857 states allow (through various means) gay marriage and states with bans have been getting over turned.  More anti discrimination protections have been inacted. 

 

So this is reaction to a pretty powerful social force.  And there's growing backlash against it.  Boycotts are forming.  Unless the pendulum of civil rights turns back, I'd think the law will be overturned in the future.  Might take a while though.

Edited by thelerner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law gives business owners a religious defense in law suits, but the language is vague and may be used for any religious belief as a defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what its worth I think its purely an anti gay/lesbian bill and won't be used by white bigots. 

Its the logical backlash of intolerant religious fundamentalists.  The good news is its happening because so much positive has been happening as far as gay rights.  I think its up to 24 37ish http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857 states allow (through various means) gay marriage and states with bans have been getting over turned.  More anti discrimination protections have been inacted. 

 

So this is reaction to a pretty powerful social force.  And there's growing backlash against it.  Boycotts are forming.  Unless the pendulum of civil rights turns back, I'd think the law will be overturned in the future.  Might take a while though.

 

Governor Pence states the law is about confronting government overreach. Is he referring to the 'Civil Rights Act of 1964' in which he believes that law is a burden to religious freedom?

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026432207

 

 

 

Apparently George Stefanopoulos asked him six times to deny that the law protects anti-gay discrimination, and six times Pence refused to deny it. 

 

Pence, a Republican, did not answer directly when asked six times whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers. "This is not about discrimination, this is about empowering people to confront government overreach," he said. Asked again, he said, "Look, the issue here is still is tolerance a two-way street or not."
Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites