Politics is better than conking one another over the head -- way better, in fact; but it is inherently imperfect. "It is better that ten men go free than one man be wrongly punished," remember? Government isn't stamping out Improved Gizmos and a 10:1 reject rate is considered fine as long as harm to the undeserving is minimized.
I blame the Progressives -- not the current crop but the people, from the less-bad Roosevelt through Wilson and beyond, who decided government ought to be an agent of moral uplift, who decided that if public drunkenness was a crime, we ought to be rid of drink (and so on and on and on, including the long list of Texas felonies involving lobsters) and who didn't content themselves with hectoring and haranguing from the bully pulpit of elected office but pushed for laws to push around folks who were harming no one or at worst only themselves, and who established the idea that it was somehow the job of government to make us hapless citizens better people. It is an idea that has stuck far too well.
While there are wise and good men and women holding office -- and an awful lot of hard-working minor functionaries making the wheels go 'round on meager pay and less respect, embedded with the time-servers, no-hopers and don't-carers who make bureaucracy a bother -- most of government is dominated by the same Eddie Haskell types, snobs, hollow suits and authority addicts who ran student government back in High School. They are the lowest common denominator, and any sufficiently large enterprise will sink to just that. They are supposed to be uplifting my morals and yours, too? Really?
When a new law comes along, I automatically don't trust it. Especially if it purports to cover something that's already been addressed. In that vein, I'll leave you with this:
Indiana Constitution
Article 1
Section 2. Right to worship
[...]
All people shall be secured in the natural right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinions
No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Section 4. Freedom of religion
No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent.
Did it really need to be graffitied by the current legislative session?
25 comments:
Well, both parties have been scribbling on it for years, after all. Remember this?
Article I Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
In what way does that allow the state to restrict the carrying of handguns by license?
Although he's my favorite prez, I've always blamed Lincoln for what the government became. Gonna have to rethink that and do some more reading.
Government is corrupt. It is its nature. It's not so much corrupt like a judge taking bribes, but corrupt like a file on a 5-1/4" floppy disk that just decided not to work anymore.
Our Founding Fathers saw the possibilities of government and the way it could/would be twisted to bad effects, just due to human nature. Unfortunately, human nature won out.
People always want to Do Better than (they did yesterday/the previous administration/whatever). We're all like that, we want to win that promotion or raise, etc. Almost no one is happy with the Status Quo, and a good thing that is, in most cases.
However, when you have people who really aren't too smart to begin with, who aren't going to advance in their present jobs, they have to justify their existance and pay. So, they write more laws, more regulations, perform more studies, etc. Can you imagine the day when the faceless bureaucrats at the EPA, Board of Health, ATF, or whoever, come to work and say to each other, "You know what, we have enough regulations on the books, let's all go home!"?
Me, neither, and it's the same with the legislators.
Thinking about this subject is the reason why I think Frank Herbert's most brilliant idea was the concept of a BuSab (Bureau of Sabotage)
This is what happens when you allow god botherers to write legislation.
Someone will show up at a Christian bakery, and demand a "Praise Satan Cake" or one for the Temple of Ganymede.
And then this legislation will be gunned down by federal courts immediately.
And no one at the state or federal level even considers merely protecting the constitutional right to decide who to associate with, instead of playing silly protected class games ...
Ma'am, your concept of how Govt. works (or doesn't) and mine are very similar!
Much of the problem with the trouble-makers such as the gays who insist on having the avowed Christian bake shop make their "wedding" cake is that they simply want to cause trouble. It would be easy enough to find someone else to bake their cake, but they want to make a point, and that is that they can make life miserable for those who disagree.
Same with the atheists who raise hell about "under God" in the Pledge or the 10 Commandments in front of the courthouse. Sure it offends you, but just STFU and forget it.
The converse would be for a Christian straight to visit S.F. and throw tomatoes during the Gay Pride parade. Most would simply follow my advice in the above paragraph.
There's an excellent discussion on the various RFRA's going on amongst the profs of the Volokh Conspiracy: www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy
Jim: you know how many such incidents there have been, in all of the U.S.? All I can find is three or four, most of them several years off. None in Indiana. Most people -- gay, straight, religious or not -- have enough wit to have the dialogue, realize it's not gonna work out, and move on.
In Indiana, there was enough dogwhistle theatre, like the Governor having prominent anti-gay marriage people at the non-public signing of the bill, to strongly imply he was sending a message. I suspect he figured it was a only a gesture, especially on the "no cake for same sex marries" front, since it was unlikely to ever be used. And I suspect the Governor and GOP majority in the Legislature thought of it as harmless-at-worst and a sure-fire vote-getter from the religious Right. (Yes, I believe 99.9% of all politicians are cynical and venial, rather than idealistic.)
They were wrong, it's backfiring, and considering all the crap I've had through the years from the religious Right over *merely* being a Unitarian-turned-agnostic (Sheesh, at least they let Thomas doubt!), I'm disinclined to give 'em any cover or slack.
If they want to fix this, they can repeal it or make LGBT people a protected class. Or they can let it hang, and take the state's economy with it. That's not my opinion, that's how it is. And it is a corner they painted themselves into.
The "troublemakers...who simply want to make trouble" here was the legislature. All they had to do was leave the issue alone, just not introduce this bill and see what happened. They failed to do so. Ooopsie!
The answer is obvious. Create reservations for atheists, LGBT or whatever the latest fad is. That way these dear snowflakes can avoid being offended by practically everything and the rest of us can get on with living. This worked wonderfully for the native Americans. Right?
"None in Indiana. Most people -- gay, straight, religious or not -- have enough wit to have the dialogue, realize it's not gonna work out, and move on."
Exactly....Individuals and business's should be allowed to associate or do business with who they please, how they please, even if it allows them to refuse service to them because of reason XXXXX....But - The root cause of this problem and the attempts to legislate it out point to the constant attacks by the .gov, the left, and yes, the gay mafia.....You can look at Hobby Lobby, Christian florist, Christian bakers, etc.. to see that point. I have yet to find any example of a Christian or God fearing individual filing a lawsuit against a business or individual because of a refusal to do or perform a specified service. There may be some out there, but I can't locate them - most are like myself as in if I were refused service at a business because I am white, straight, Christian, (take your pick) I would not sue them - I just would never go back...Simple...To each his own ...But that does not work for the left and the perpetual "butt hurt" class - They are going to use whatever means possible (usually the long arm of the .gov and the courts) to force people to accept their lifestyle no matter what...
"Should" again. We're still all over here in the world of "is." The war for "should" was lost in the 1790s.
And I wonder how many law-abiding LGBT people have been fired for it over the years, or denied housing? See, it's not only lawsuits that are a problem.
If someone can cite more than two bakers, a florist and a wedding photog who have been sued by Teh Gheys, and none in Indiana, I'd like to see it. Isn't suing one another a great American pastime these days anyhow?
We will just have to agree to disagree...You blame the SoCons for this mess...I blame the left/Gay mafia....To each his own.....
Who opened up the can of worms, ScottW?
Too many to name.....The left, the media, the militant gays, the Fred Phelps types,,,a long list.....Sadly it gets longer and longer by the day.....
Rx said:
(Yes, I believe 99.9% of all politicians are cynical and venial, rather than idealistic.)
That's like believing in the fact that the Sun rises in the East, it's self-evident. Sadly.
"The answer is obvious. Create reservations for atheists..."
Bring it, bitch. Put me on a reservation. I double damn dog dare you.
ScottW: in this particualr incident, the action that precipitated the whole mess was signing the bill. If they'd'a killed it in committee, or if the Governor had vetoed it, nothing would have happened.
Instead, it was signed in a way that waved a red flag. Madcap hijinx ensued.
Imagine if a supposedly low-impact gun law was signed, in private, with Bloomberg, Mommies Against Every Gun and the Brady Center's head honcho present. Would you have been minded to take a closer look at it and raise a ruckus if it appeared the fix was in? I would have been. *That's* what the Governor did.
I don't expect our rulers to agree with me very often but I do expect them to have more savvy than he showed -- and more savvy than the legislature showed, too, when they let this dog out of committee.
in this particualr incident, the action that precipitated the whole mess was signing the bill. If they'd'a killed it in committee, or if the Governor had vetoed it, nothing would have happened....Agreed to a point - But I would go further back in regards to what induced the IN .gov along with many other state.gov's to even draft these types of measures....That would be the actions of the left, the media, the militant gays and their lawyers -- They are or have been basically going out and looking for fights just so they can use the hammer of the .gov and the courts to force people to accept, agree to, and condone their point of view, their idea of right, or whatever you want to call it at that time.......I still go by the idea that any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time...No matter the reason -- if it happens to be a "bad" reason then the free market will take care of it....
ScottW: "I still go by the idea that any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time...No matter the reason"
There's that "should" again. You're fighting a battle that was over in the *1960s.*
The "militant gays and their lawyers...looking for fights" amount to a total of four (4) cases scattered across the U.S. Here's some math: say as much as 1% of the population of the U.S. is some kinda LBGT (which is a low-end estimate, depending on where you draw the line); that gives us a population of bit under 3.2 million, "looking for fights" and finding, when it comes to businesses, a total of four. *This* is the level of abuse that merits the hammer of state laws to correct?
Trying to fix civil rights abuses via the law has a long history in the U.S. It may not always work as well as proponents expect but it's how it works. Arguing the minority should "shut up and stop making trouble" has a long and *ignoble* history. Sending 3.2 million to the back of the bus over the actions of eight of their number (assuming every case involves a couple) is preposterous.
Your church is not obliged to perform marriages (and can, in fact, refuse to perform the ceremony for same-sex, mixed-race, or mixed-religion couples, or indeed for any couple for any reason; it's perfectly legal). They're not even obliged to retain employees who violate their standards of moral behavior. Nobody has yet found me any example of them eeeeevil homosexuals shuttin' down a church. "Places of public accommodation" (which doesn't include churches and related nonprofits) are obliged to accommodate the public; depending on your age, it's been that way all or most of your life. You don't have to like it or approve it, but you need to grasp that is how how things actually are.
The "militant gays and their lawyers...looking for fights" amount to a total of four (4) cases scattered across the U.S. Here's some math: say as much as 1% of the population of the U.S. is some kinda LBGT (which is a low-end estimate, depending on where you draw the line); that gives us a population of bit under 3.2 million, "looking for fights" and finding, when it comes to businesses, a total of four. *This* is the level of abuse that merits the hammer of state laws to correct? ...Missing my point _ I want the .gov, whether state, local, or fed to stay out of it. " We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be the standard -- No hammers, no lawsuits, just to each his own. If a business wants to discriminate against you or me for whatever the reason then they will do without my business...Simple.....and the free market will decide as to whether they stay in business or close the doors....
"Arguing the minority should "shut up and stop making trouble" has a long and *ignoble* history. Sending 3.2 million to the back of the bus over the actions of eight of their number (assuming every case involves a couple) is preposterous."
Never advocated sending anyone to the BOTB...What I do advocate is for every minority to also respect my choice as to whether I agree with them on xxxxxx subject or not. As you get your dander up on the .gov passing a law that you disagree with , I too get my dander up when groups attempt to force me to change my behaviour to fit their idea of right...I try to live by the standard of live and let live or you mind your business and i mind mine but it is getting harder every day to go by it...
You are missing my point: "plases of public accommodation" are, by law, different to private clubs, private homes or churches. It's been that way since the 1960s and in some cases earlier. That's how it *is.*
You can want something different all day long. To get it, you're going to have to repeal Federal civil-rights laws.
Tam: A lack of civilized folks on both sides.
Libertarians and atheists are often in favor of allowing private bigotry by retards to limit government power ... and yet the bigot retards make "jokes" about atheist reservations.
"Bring it, bitch" is such a useful phrase. It should be used more often.
Roberta:
Yup. You aren't allowed to ban Blacks, Jews, or Irishmen from a restaurant, no matter how much you hate the Irish.
Gays were added later, but the precedent had been set.
Chicken, coop, assembly now impossible.
The problem with dismantling the civil rights act is all the nazi pukes masturbating at the keyboard when you advocate it.
Post a Comment