Tuesdays with Claymore
I seriously don’t get the left’s obsession with Neil deGrasse Tyson
Hey, maybe she can get a job throwing papers for the paper that threw her under the bus?
Have you been called a Nazi today? Let me take care of that for you.
With friends like the Clintons…
Apparently the Jewish Mafia are after Rand Paul
Republicans hate women, you guys.
“Overlooking your financial situation” hmm.
People who hate religion are pissed at Cruz’s lack of tithing
Fake restaurant in Indiana calls in and fake claims to fake discriminate against fake gays
Fauxcahontas speak-um heap big interview
Category: Tuesdays with Claymore
DU’s SomethingFishy, or Anybody Have Some FDS? as I prefer to call her, begins her juvenile scrawl with this: “Within 1 mile of my home, there are more than a dozen churches. But I’m intolerant.” Huh? Her sarcasm is meant to convey, of course, that she is indeed tolerant because she is willing either to allow the churches to remain or that she, despite the churches, is willing to remain wherever it is she lives. What a jerk.
I live in Indiana. It is now legal here for me to refuse employment to Christians. The point being made here is many people are not content with being free to worship as they choose. They must use the government and its laws to force their beliefs on others.
I wish religious groups would stop molesting my front door on a regular basis, but I assume most of us feel that way regardless of our beliefs. We all have a right to our own religious beliefs, we do not have a right to force them on other people. IMHO, most Christians do not realize how intrusive their behavior is.
I doubt very seriously that you can legally deny employment to anyone regardless of their religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise. I would suggest a less jaundiced reading of exactly what the Indiana law states versus some pearl-clutching media fueled reaction that might sound great on Facebook.
My pearl-clutching went out the window with the Rosary. It is the legislation itself that is jaundiced, there is no other way to read it. Exactly what the law states is an employer may discriminate against an employee based on the employers particular religious beliefs.
This type of legislation codifies legal discrimination based on vague and nebulous beliefs in the supernatural.
Have you actually read the proposed law in question, Dave? I have.
“I do not think that bill means what you think it means.”
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f
Yes, I have read the thing. The people that pushed this bill through have known for 6 months it was flawed in its design. These are the same group of religious nut jobs that pushed a bill that would require Indiana students to be taught that creationism has the same scientific validity as evolution.
They are so blinded by their own religious convictions they can not think about how things affect others.
If a Pharmacist does not was to give medication to a person with AIDS, this law will protect that action. A Scientology believing boss may refuse to cover the expenses of medication all together.
As an Atheist, I could refuse service to anyone who prayed before they had a meal. I realize the language in the bill does not expressly say that, it however does imply that very thing.
Richard Mourdock, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate who in 2012 claimed that children conceived in rape are “God intended.” Thats right, if a woman is raped it was Gods will. This whole group of people are not trying to be ‘inclusive’ in any way. They are religious nut jobs using the government to enforce their beliefs on others.
Now the rest of the unthinking morons that drank their Kool Aid are trying to fix this mess. They have known for a very long time it was wrong.
Indeed you are correct and several news outlets have been outright lying about the wording of the bill as has Rick Santorum lied about the wording by explaining it’s exactly the same as the Clinton law which it is not.
The other laws have very clearly written that their version of these laws expressly applies to activities between a government entity and a private individual or church.
By eliminating the requirement that the government be a party to this law the fools in Indiana opened up the dreaded, “Law of Unintended Consequences” by allowing any two private entities to use this law as a shield in any court case thus muddying the water significantly.
Pense knows the error existed and is now backpedaling along with his fellow piss poor legislators who apparently can’t read the federal law accurately or deliberately chose different wording…so they are either too stupid to get it the same as the feds or purposely chose to make it different. Either way doesn’t speak very highly of those involved in the process, although I suspect a great many of them never bothered to read it through and just trusted the authors were telling the truth when they proclaimed it the same as others of this nature.
The law as written says the government can’t burden someone’s right to exercise their religion UNLESS BURDENING THEM FURTHERS A COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST.
Since it is illegal, and high-profile enough to influence all of society, discrimination certainly fits that ‘compelling governmental interest.’
Bingo. Just ask the folks involved in the famous Oregon peyote case. (Employment Division v. Smith, 1990, SCOTUS)
Lets try reading the entire thing, not just the reviews. I have been tracking this for 6 months.
I’m a Christian, and I find them intrusive, and a good bit of the time, hopelessly silly as well. And one of the best comments of all time came from a televangelist when he thundered to his adoring crowd in his packed auditorium:
“Jesus was NOT paying us a compliment when he called us ‘sheep’!
Amen to that, brother. Amen to that.
If you think the Christians are bad, just wait till the muslims start proselytizing.
between the evangelical Christians, JVs, Mormons, atheists, Muslims, and
probably hyper-enthusiastic Buddhists, Shintoists, or whoever, they’re all pretty much equally irritating with their constant in-your-face proselytizing – not nickel’s worth of difference in self-justifying holier-than-thouness
They already have. 9/11 wasn’t an invitation to a garden party.
I speak out against the Muslim religion all the time. Accepting the overly aggressive actions of SOME Christians because their are other more aggressive religions in the world is unacceptable.
“The point being made here is many people are not content with being free to worship as they choose. They must use the government and its laws to force their beliefs on others.”
Yeah, I hate those go-to-church-or-go-to-jail laws, too.
I hate those, ‘you dont have a job here because you dont live by my religious beliefs’ laws.
All of us should, regardless of our beliefs.
Name one.
This bill as it was written and passed.
I was being sarcastic. Dave thought me serious.
Birthers on both sides are fucking idiots…listening to these assholes is like watching old people fuck, it’s both amusing and disgusting at the same time….
“This type of legislation codifies legal discrimination” would have gotten your point across w/o the rest. It also would have set the stage for discussion about the legislation, thus far unspecified. But when you followed that with “based on vague and nebulous beliefs in the supernatural” you stick a thumb in the eyes of others. You’re entitled, to be sure, but it’s not very conducive to discussion. By the way, it’s Holy Week for many of us who hold and hold fast to certain of those nebulous beliefs.
I know it is a Holy Week for many. Almost every week is Holy to some religion. Religious beliefs are based on vague and nebulous beliefs of the supernatural.
Maybe I have not been clear. I respect the ‘Right’ for people to have a belief in which ever religion they choose. I do not respect their religion. The foundations of the three monotheistic faiths are provably false.
I understand many take offense to those who question their faith. Too bad. Their faith needs to be questions since they refuse to question it themselves. When groups of them with any particular belief use the government to push their particular slant on the rest of us they should feel a thumb in their eye.
Semper Fi.
“Their faith needs to be questions since they refuse to question it themselves.” On the contrary, questions and doubts arise among all believers from time to time, but it is the very nature of faith itself that holds us. Faith is a gift, you see. It can be rejected. It can be ignored and left to languish, or it can be fed through prayer and other practices. The only hostility and anger I sense regarding this matter is coming from you. And no, Holy Week encompasses the Last Supper, the Passion of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection. It is specific to Christians and it is simply not true that “Almost every week is Holy to some religion.”
To me, religious faith is not a gift, it is the celebration of willful ignorance. There is a difference between not knowing something and won’t know something. Hostility and anger that I might feel does not come from faith or your belief in any thing. It comes from those who insist on using the power of government to profess it. Worship as you choose, I will defend your right to do so. I will not defend your belief in something I can prove the foundations of which are false. Yes it is true that almost every week is Holy to some religion. This week is not just Holy to Christians. There are thousands of religions, the beleivers of which are just a convinced they are correct as your are about yours. I have studied Biblical scripture all of my adult life. Gave my first sermon at age 15, maintain my legal standing as an Ordained Minister. Been to Israel more than once, been to the Vatican archives more than once. Traveled with Father Joe Martin for a short time. The reason I do not have faith in your religion has nothing to do with belief, it has everything to do with knowledge. When I found out as many, many, others have that the foundations of my religion were probably false, I was shocked, disappointed and angry. We started something called The Clergy Project. It helps members of the Clergy who know their faith was wrong transition into another career. I can not sit silent while people use the government to push a belief on others that I know is not true. That does not mean I hate anyone. Defending myself from religious aggression may be seen as hostile. I will be glad to explain why I reject the Passion of Christ with sound reasoning, the Crucifixion, and why I know there was never a Resurrection of any kind. You can contact me on Facebook or by phone if you would like to know. If not, you have every right to keep your own belief as it is, people do not… Read more »
Fr. Joe Martin, you say? The priest whose inspired approach to alcoholism saved untold thousands and whose “Chalk Talk” was adopted by the US Navy?
Yes, that Joe Martin. Founder of Ashley House. One of the most amazing men I have ever known. He aggressively spoke out about the sexual abuses going on decades before his peers.
It was truly an honor to have known him.
I wonder. Did you not connect his wonderful work to his faith?
Joe is gone now and has been for some time. He probably would not mind me sharing this: his love for humanity had nothing to do with a belief in god.
Father Joe Martin loved God and God’s children. He could have been many things in this life, but he chose the priesthood. That he would have been a great humanitarian absent faith is pure speculation. One can certainly love humanity w/o a belief in God. But in Father Martin’s case, he had both.
People once had faith that the earth was flat, that leeches draining blood took the bad humors from the body…there are many things that people once had faith in that were proven wholly untrue.
There is as much evidence of god as there is of santa claus….yet questioning the faith of those who have the same ability to prove their god as I do of proving the existence of elves working in a North Pole workshop is considered an affront to their tender sensibilities and somehow persecution of their rights.
It is no more persecution than asking someone to explain how luminiferous ether transmits light in the absence of valid data to support the concept.
I understand that folks like Phil Robertson were unable to be decent humans without the presence of a supreme being directing their life (he was after all a drunken adulterer before he found his god) but a great many other folks are able to not lie to their friends, not cheat on their spouses and not be drunken reprobates without the helping hand of an invisible being they are unable to substantiate.
The Indiana law is not and never was exactly the same as the other laws it was compared to, that’s a lie PERIOD. It removed the requirement that one of the parties be a government entity which allows individuals to use the law against other individuals as a shield. It’s why now that it’s been exposed they are quickly working to repair the piss poor wording or deliberate alteration of the wording to more closely match the feds…the so called “tweak” Pense is discussing.
I did enjoy the fact that in Indiana the first church of cannabis is already looking to use the law to subvert the drug laws…perhaps our lady of the magic mushroom would be next….
“People once had faith that the earth was flat….” No, that was the science of the day. The Bible makes no mention of a flat planet. Also, believing the Earth to be flat is not a matter of faith. To term it so is to misuse the word in this context.
With recent data showing between 20 and 30 percent of the nation now answer ‘NONE’ when asked their religious beliefs some Christians react as if they are the ones being attacked.
I am starting to believe some of them are incapable of understanding what they are doing is religious aggression.
It depends on what the natter is that you would deem religious aggression, I guess. Is a refusal to perform abortions on a religious basis religious aggression? Is a refusal to bake a cake for a gay couple religious aggression? Granted, there are certainly zealots who ought to STHU. Counted among them are atheists as well as Christians and others. As for stupidity, you will get no argument from me. Obama was elected and re-elected, as were Reid, Pelosi, and Bonehead.That’s all the proof needed.
No, in general refusal to do abortions based on any reason is not aggression. Refusing to bake a cake for any reason is not aggression.
I will be the first to say there are some Atheists who are way too aggressive with their actions. I was approached months ago to sponsor an action against a city for displaying a monument in their park. No only did I refuse to be part of it, I have fought against the action in defense of that city.
I could not agree more about Reid, Pelosi, and a slew of others. I am a strong fiscal conservative. You have seen the jerk knee reactions some have, all Atheists must be libtards. I will give you that more than a fair share of them are. There are also a large chunk of us that are not.
I have also seen you stand up and defend what you knew was wrong. Much respect for that, sadly not common in today’s world.
Special laws for particular groups are inherently prejudicial. For example; beating someone to death because they spilled your beer is no less of a crime than doing it because they are gay. Murder is wrong. ‘Hate crime laws’ just single out one group. Its nutz.
Making it ok to use our religious beliefs to discriminate is a step in the wrong direction and yes aggressive by nature.
It’s interesting that Pence is now discussing “fixing” the law when he stated it was the same as other laws (it wasn’t exactly the same as those other states or the feds…had a few important differences).
If it was fine why is he now asking the legislature to address those specific issues and “fix” them. Did no one read this piece of shit legislation before signing and passing it on?
Indiana fucked up with this law, the legislature thought they passed one thing when in fact they ended up passing another…and now they will discuss repairing the law to line up with the federal version more closely.
I give them credit for publicly acknowledging their wording could use a rewrite.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/mike-pence-says-criticism-of-indiana-s-law-is-a-smear-but-he-ll-clarify-it-anyway-20150331
VOV. I am wondering whether you have read the article you linked to. Pence has not backtracked one step. He is clearly placating the hysterics by promising a clarification to the law so that it will no longer be construed by those who purposefully misrepresented it. And Pence nowhere in that article used the word “fixed.” In fact, I can’t find it in the article at all. What is responding to, he say, is the smear campaign against the law and Hoosiers. Specifically, he said, “I am calling on the General Assembly to send me a bill that focuses on the issue here—that focuses on the smear that’s been leveled against the law and against the people of Indiana. “And that is that, somehow through our legislative process, we enacted legislation that created a license to discriminate.”
He is saying they need to tweak the bill, when they tweak it section 9 of the bill will be changed to remove the entry about private only transactions and will be altered to require at least one party be the government.
That’s a back track in my book even if his words tell a BS story to the contrary.
Why do you persist in avoiding the use of his language to describe what he says he is doing? His word is clarify, or a form of that word, in response to the smear campaign leveled at the law by others?
The aim of the law, according to its sponsor, is to ensure that state law affords the same rights to people that federal law does and other states’ laws do. So, what’s all the ruckus about? Kick back. Hysterical kickback from those who would like to force people to do things that their consciences and religious practices do not abide. Where a substantial burden is put upon a religion, this law would require that the a compelling interest test be used by which to gauge the burden imposed. But what the agenda-driven lefties and some others pretend is the intent and effect of the law is just preposterous. The enemy, the real threat, the one this law and others enacted push back against is the pervasive and intrusive regulation by government at all levels to coerce people to do things that is antithetical to their consciences and beliefs.
I persist because he continues to lie when he proclaims the law to be the same, it is not.
When he clarifies section nine I expect either the wording in bold to be gone or to be substantially altered. That’s a fix my friend…call it a clarification if you will but it’s a fix to make it the same as the federal law he’s been falsely comparing it to right along. That bold section removes the requirement that the government be involved which substantially alters the meaning and allows it as a defense in a private versus private setting…he says clarify, well if we are clarifying the governor is a fucking liar when he says it’s essentially the same as the federal law it is not based on the removal of a government entity as a party to the proceeding.
Liars can use whatever words they like, I don’t have to go along to get along.
Well, that didn’t take long. Some pizza place that does a fraction of what one of mine does decides to use the new law. Come to one of my restaurants, all are welcome, pray before you eat or bark at the moon if you like. As long as you treat other customers and my staff with dignity and respect you are welcome.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/01/the-internet-quickly-destroys-indianas-first-openly-anti-gay-business-screenshots/