Jim Crow isn't dead

[thegreekdog]

She stupidly just vetoed the law. All it does is clarify what laws on the books for 20 years already do.

http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/artic ... kupec.html

If it just clarifies existing laws, why was it useful to pass in the first place?

Because in New Mexico it was ruled that the wording of their RFRA law only applied to the government and not to businesses, even though the actual intent of RFRA laws (including the federal one) was to apply to businesses. Arizona's RFRA law was virtually identical to New Mexico's law, so they were trying to reword it to actually match its intent. All it states is that businesses have the ability to claim religious exemptions to their actions if sued in court....it doesn't guarantee that the business would win that claim (which is the case in the Kansas law).

I wonder if the Arizona law preempts laws in the three cities that classify gays as a protected class.

[notyou2]

disclaimer; the poster is hereby aware this article has nothing to do with Kansas legislation. It has to do with the Jim Crow part. If you can handle this, please continue reading

GOP state Rep. David FitzSimmons became more than a conservative newbie last May when he secured passage of an amendment giving churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages sturdier legal protection (BUT THE LAW ALREADY SAYS THAT!!!!, TELL ME MOREZ ABOUT THIS 'STURDIER LEGAL PROTECTION' THINGYRARRR!!!), and then voted for the marriage-legalization bill. He became a good legislator.

We already have the 1st amendment too, that doesn't mean the same radical sex marriagers give a shit about it!!!! As I also said earlier, it's a fact they also don't give a shit about state Constitutional amendments, so I'm not going to pretend with you they give a shit about what is acceptable under Kansas law. They are going to continue to try to overturn the law in Kansas and states like Kansas, so articles like the OP are going to have to be constantly pointing out said states constantly giving sturdier legal protection and reinforcing current laws, and I'm sure they are well aware the laws they are trying to reinforce are laws that already exist.

+50 Saxbucks for the Mr. Perfect gif
-200 Saxbucks for continuing to be stupid

All Rep. Fitzsimmons is doing is calling attention to the issue. Again, the law is not needed at all. The purpose, per the quote, is to provide "sturdier legal protection." Further, you note that radical sex marriagers don't give a shit about the first amendment, constitutional amendments generally, etc. So why are radical sex marriagers going to care about this sturdier legal protection that Rep. Fitzsimmons is going for. Again, you apparently don't know how the legislative process works, but we'll get to that in a moment.

There doesn't need to be "sturdier legal protection." In order for a person to sue, he/she must have standing. Gays in Kansas don't have standing to sue because being gay is not a protected class in Kansas. Therefore, gays cannot bring a discrimination case against a private company in Kansas. What sturdier legal protection does Rep. Fitzsimmons's bill provide? What possible sturdier legal protections are necessary if the baseline is that gays don't have standing to sue? They literally are not permitted to bring a law suit.

Furthermore, if radical sex marriagers don't care about constitutions, why would they care about Fitzsimmons's law? Seems Fitzsimmons's law would have less force and effect (and in real life, it really does have less force and effect) than a constitution. In legal ranking, constitution comes first, laws come after. So if radical sex marriagers don't care about constitutions, they certainly will not care about laws. I mean you literally say that radical sex marriagers don't care about the first amendment (true), they don't care about state constitutional amendments, and they are going to continue to try to overturn Kansas's non-inclusion of gays as a protected class. If all that is true, Fitzsimmons's law is still irrelevant BECAUSE THE RADICAL SEX MARRIAGERS COULD JUST OVERTURN THAT TOO!

Even further, if the radical sex marriagers have enough support in the legislature, the legislature just repeals or changes Fitzsimmons's law. If the ostensible purpose of the law is to provide "sturdier legal protection" for churches against the radical sex marriagers, all that needs to happen to remove that "sturdier legal protection" is to repeal the law, which still wouldn't give the gays standing to sue. There would need to be a further law amending the definition of a protected class to include gays.

Ignoring that this is not a fiscal issue, which you've stated is all you care about (and where you've vehemently defended that statement), this is so far down on the list of things that should matter for conservatives that it boggles the mind. Phatscotty, I'm begging you, ignore what you think my stance is on gay marriage. Ignore that I used a saxitoxin quote as my sig that apparently offends you. Use your brain. This whole thing is merely a political ploy by GOPers in Kansas to raise an issue that doesn't exist so they can get Christian Coalition types to go out and vote for them in the next election. Gays could never and still can't sue any private business in Kansas for discrimination. Fitzsimmons's bill is irrelevant and a waste of time.

In sum... your logic is flawed, your understanding of the legislative process is flawed, and your insistence that this is an important issue is flawed. Maybe it's a slow news cycle or something, I don't know.



Fast forward to 7:00.

I know far more about how the legislative process works that you do Greekdog. I know you have your hands full with work and family and life in general just like the rest of us, and that's why I never call you out for not being informed of the latest news on some issues, and why you disagree with some issues where if you had been up to date you would know better what I was talking about. And yes there does need to be sturdier legal protection, unless you are willing to ignore that laws are being overturned all the time. Just today a Clinton appointed judge overruled the Texas Constitution concerning gay marriage. You really gonna sit there and hold the position that these kind of laws are doing just fine and don't have to worry about politically seated judges overturning it all?

But I'll level with you, even though I know you won't level with me and will probably try to twist what I say to fit your narrative again, or bring up fiscal policy for the 200th time (very childish). It is true some probably did do this to rile up the base, but it's also true (where you won't level with me) that states that believe marriage is what it always has been are constantly under attack, and sometimes need to act pre-emptively, or shore up loopholes in laws, or firm up the terminology. nothing about anything I said is flawed, but let me back up to the beginning of our disagreement...

Remember last year you said that religions will never be forced to perform, facilitate, or recognize same-sex marriages 'because of the 1st amendment'? I think you might want to reconsider, and think about why you were wrong, and why I was right. Maybe you could understand now how this issue was weakening the first amendment, that you said was so strong we'd never have to worry about things like this....

Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

So, how did you get it so wrong? How did you not see where the issue was going? I always knew this was just a matter of time, and it has always saddened me that the first amendment would have to be deformed first in order for you to finally see what you were supporting was actually working against the First Amendment. Wasn't my prediction about this just shrugged off by you as 'slippery slope' nonsense?

I'm convinced you simply are not reading my posts. I'll keep trying to get you to understand the legal issues because while I'm not a "legal expert" I'm certainly an attorney and I can read. I'm going to try to parse it out a little bit to help you, but let's get one thing out of the way first. This discussion has nothing to do with my thoughts on you or my position on gay marriage of gays in general or Andy Dufresne posting doctored wrestling photos (you know you can simply not look at those, right?). As far as I'm concerned, if you bring any of those things up, you're not participating in this discussion in an honest way. So I will ignore them. So, let us parse, shall we?

(1)

that laws are being overturned all the time

This is absolutely true but does not support your position that the laws being passed are necessary. In fact, it cuts into your position. As I said before, in the hierarchy of law, constitution comes first and laws come second. If a judge is willing to overturn a constitutional provision, why would the judge not be willing to overturn the law. Furthermore, and more importantly, if the legislature in a state is willing to make gays a protected class, WHY WOULD THAT LEGISLATURE NOT BE ABLE TO OVERTURN A LAW PROTECTING BUSINESSES FROM BEING SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION BY GAYS? Now, you may say "who cares, let's pass the law anyway" but as I stated previously (and this is FACT, not opinion), THERE IS NO BASIS FOR GAYS TO SUE BUSINESSES IN KANSAS. So the law is unnecessary twice over; first because it purports to protect against an issue that does not exist and second because it purports to protect against a different law being overturned when in fact the law itself can be overturned by the legislature or court at any time.

(2)

states that believe marriage is what it always has been are constantly under attack, and sometimes need to act pre-emptively, or shore up loopholes in laws, or firm up the terminology.

Also true. But this is not true in Kansas or Arizona (with the exception of three cities). There are no loopholes in any laws in Kansas. Kansas does not permit lawsuits by gays against businesses. How do you not address this at all? You simply ignore when I type that. There are no terminology issues in Kansas. Gays are not a protected class and do not have standing to sue. You know how I know that? Because I'm a lawyer and because I read what legal experts said about these types of laws. I trust their opinions over your opinion or a political pundit's opinion or a self-interested politician's opinion.

(3)

Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

First, post the link to the story if you're going to quote from it. Second, I suspect this was a lower court, no? Must have been since it's a "New Jersey judge." So this will get appealed and the first amendment should take precedence over "important societal goals." I firmly believe that the United States Supreme Court would throw out the law suit. Third, and most importantly, this has absolutely no effect on the laws concerning private businesses that we're (or at least I'm) talking about. As I stated at the beginning of this post, you are ignoring what I'm typing in favor of some other dialogue in which you wish to engage. You wish to have a discussion about gay marriage. I'm having a discussion about the unnecessary nature of these laws that conservatives are trying to pass. And again, if a New Jersey judge is going to rule that the Constitution doesn't protect religious freedoms in the context of performing a same-sex civil union ceremony, WHY WOULD THE SAME JUDGE NOT INVALIDATE A LAW THAT PROTECTS BUSINESSES FROM LAW SUITS BY GAYS? How do you not get this?

Let's sum this up again:

(1) Judges/legislatures/Congress are going to overturn constitutional protections for religion (I tend to agree until we get the Supreme Court to weigh in). Why do you think a "protection from gay lawsuits" law would not get similarly overturned?
(2) In a state where gays cannot sue a private business for disrimination, why would is a "protection from gay lawsuits" necessary?

This is the basis of the discussion. The basis for the discussion is not whether I think gay marriage is good or bad or will succeed or is a violation of religion.

Let's talk about 'discrimination'. Are you sure the article is using the word discrimination correctly? Are not groups and religions and businesses being discriminated against by the government as well? Who is pushing for 'special classes'? Who is the one using force in the issue? Who is the one pushing for more regulations on the issue? who is the one pushing for the government to tell people how to run their businesses and their lives? Who is the one that owns the property, and what are their rights as the property owner? Who is the one fighting against freedom of association? Where are you on freedom of religion, and what do you say to the freedom as it related to the current issue? Who is the one trying to force their values on others?

With your answers, the next question is, are you really standing up for that?

Seriously dude. This post right here is a classic case of how you derail serious discussion. You simply ignore the point of my posts, though I've layed the issues out clearly multiple times. My response to your questions is that my answering them address none of the points of my posts.

When legal authorities say "in the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference," I pay attention. Because that means exactly what it says it means. The law is unnecessary. The law will do nothing. This is what I'm discussing. Why can't you address these issues? And now, I will get personal. You can't address these issues because you simply cannot admit when you're wrong. And you're wrong. So admit it. Then we can move on to discussing whether freedom of religion is under attack, which is a much more important issue.

She vetoed it because it isn't a problem in her state, ie no fascists have tried to clockwork orange religious people to service their gay weddings.

Why do you think that is? Could it because GAYS HAVE NO STANDING TO SUE IN ARIZONA?!?!?!?

By the way, guess what state has given gays standing to sue? New Jersey. See above.

By the way by the way, the only reason I use caps and bold letters here is because you are either not reading what I'm typing or you're not addressing it.

By the way by the way by the way, my next tactic here when you again don't admit you're wrong is to engage in a little impromptu deposition. So get your answers ready.

Much as I love your posts.....isn't it tax season?

[notyou2]

America lol....thinking it can legislate sexuality.

[thegreekdog]

Much as I love your posts.....isn't it tax season?

Yes, but not for me. I don't prepare tax returns (for corporations or individuals, although most corporations extend their returns to September). I will review tax returns, but I'm primarily a consultant. The benefits of being a consultant is that the work is more interesting and I don't have a time of year where I work 100 hours a week for a couple of months.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ah, the challenges of balancing all the interests and beliefs of the American rainbow. A system of bribery would solve that puzzle. Is the employer prepared to pay more to keep the single mother out of the company than she is prepared to pay to get in? Is a gay prepared to pay more to get married than the KKK is prepared to pay to blockade the church doors?

Once morality has been removed from the clutches of state ownership, the market will determine what people really care about far more efficiently than Obama's Ministry of Truth ever has.

Haha, maybe. Not sure about the KKK part since the KKK shouldn't be allowed to bar others from their own private property.

[crispybits]

America lol....thinking it can legislate sexuality.

QFT

[notyou2]

Much as I love your posts.....isn't it tax season?

Yes, but not for me. I don't prepare tax returns (for corporations or individuals, although most corporations extend their returns to September). I will review tax returns, but I'm primarily a consultant. The benefits of being a consultant is that the work is more interesting and I don't have a time of year where I work 100 hours a week for a couple of months.

Cool, that would make working in your business a lot better I would think and far less stressful.

[/]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/ ... rsial.html

Going a fair bit further than the Kansas legislation, Arizona may or may not sign a law by this Friday that gives individuals freedom to ignore public accommodation laws and individual business policies in favor of their own respective religious beliefs.
Is this going too far?
Not far enough?
And to stick with the title topic, is Jim Crow alive?


She stupidly just vetoed the law. All it does is clarify what laws on the books for 20 years already do.

http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/artic ... kupec.html

Well, that's that then. I personally am among those who thought it was a rather poor and exploitable law, one that would ultimately have a negative effect on certain freedoms, even in ways not really discussed.
As I said, the law would have even infringed upon individual business policies in favor of religious freedom.

...ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
30 STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
31 OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

There have already been problems in these sorts of situations without this sort of legislation protecting it, guide dogs have been refuses from cabs, customers have been refused from purchasing pork. Why should the government enable "religious freedom" to trump how an owner wants their business run?

I imagine if this bill was passed there would have this sort of thing coming up in droves among people who enjoy preaching about their causes instead of conforming to general standards. Imagine it, you walk into a grocery store, go to check out and you might get refused too, not just for being gay, but for any number of frustrating reasons, "Sorry, can you go to the next line, I'm Muslim and I don't handle pork." "Sorry, I'm Jewish, no pork here either." "I'm Mormon, I'm okay with pork, but I don't condone coffee." "I'm Christian, and I just don't want to serve someone wearing a heavy metal shirt, it looks like something a minion of Satan would wear." etc. and the owner couldn't do anything about the lost business since ironically the legislation basically amounted to a state condoned political correctness law for the religious.

[Night Strike]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/ ... rsial.html

Going a fair bit further than the Kansas legislation, Arizona may or may not sign a law by this Friday that gives individuals freedom to ignore public accommodation laws and individual business policies in favor of their own respective religious beliefs.
Is this going too far?
Not far enough?
And to stick with the title topic, is Jim Crow alive?


She stupidly just vetoed the law. All it does is clarify what laws on the books for 20 years already do.

http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/artic ... kupec.html

Well, that's that then. I personally am among those who thought it was a rather poor and exploitable law, one that would ultimately have a negative effect on certain freedoms, even in ways not really discussed.
As I said, the law would have even infringed upon individual business policies in favor of religious freedom.

...ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
30 STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
31 OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

There have already been problems in these sorts of situations without this sort of legislation protecting it, guide dogs have been refuses from cabs, customers have been refused from purchasing pork. Why should the government enable "religious freedom" to trump how an owner wants their business run?

I imagine if this bill was passed there would have this sort of thing coming up in droves among people who enjoy preaching about their causes instead of conforming to general standards. Imagine it, you walk into a grocery store, go to check out and you might get refused too, not just for being gay, but for any number of frustrating reasons, "Sorry, can you go to the next line, I'm Muslim and I don't handle pork." "Sorry, I'm Jewish, no pork here either." "I'm Mormon, I'm okay with pork, but I don't condone coffee." "I'm Christian, and I just don't want to serve someone wearing a heavy metal shirt, it looks like something a minion of Satan would wear." etc. and the owner couldn't do anything about the lost business since ironically the legislation basically amounted to a state condoned political correctness law for the religious.

Do you realize all of that can already happen under current law in Arizona (and most other states)?

[thegreekdog]

I imagine if this bill was passed there would have this sort of thing coming up in droves among people who enjoy preaching about their causes instead of conforming to general standards. Imagine it, you walk into a grocery store, go to check out and you might get refused too, not just for being gay, but for any number of frustrating reasons, "Sorry, can you go to the next line, I'm Muslim and I don't handle pork." "Sorry, I'm Jewish, no pork here either." "I'm Mormon, I'm okay with pork, but I don't condone coffee." "I'm Christian, and I just don't want to serve someone wearing a heavy metal shirt, it looks like something a minion of Satan would wear." etc. and the owner couldn't do anything about the lost business since ironically the legislation basically amounted to a state condoned political correctness law for the religious.

I tend to think the free market will work that stuff out.

It's a little different than Jim Crow in that business owners probably can't tell who is gay and who isn't (unless we're talking about a same sex marriage). And there are plenty of places that won't sell pork; I don't go to those places. I go to places that sell pork. I'm coo with that.

[AndyDufresne]

I tend to think the free market will work that stuff out.

If there is anything the Free Market in America topic has taught me over the years, is that I am not sure anything is getting worked out, TGD.


--Andy

[crispybits]

I think this video sums up a few of the points made here quite nicely:



(The real fun begins at about 4:25)

[thegreekdog]

I think this video sums up a few of the points made here quite nicely:



(The real fun begins at about 4:25)

The only thing that needs to be watched is from the beginning to 0:40.

[Phatscotty]

Vetoed a law that would have put Arizona on par with the South before the Civil Rights Act, except against gays and lesbians.

lol someone has been watching MSNBC

... a much more realistic and directly related comparison

You see, it's people like you that give Conservatives and Libertarians a bad reputation. A person's private life should not be a factor in whether they can get a job or not. Next you'll be telling me that single mother's should not be alowed to get jobs, or some other group for some stupid reason that only comes from bigotry towards that group.

And I don't watch MSNBC or Fox, FYI. I don't know how many times I have to tell you I don't watch either brain washing channel, but it's been quite a few.

That's also what I have always said, so I don't know what you're talkin about. I didn't ask what cable news station you watched. Single mothers? LOL

In conclusion: put down the crack pipe

[Phatscotty]

Vetoed a law that would have put Arizona on par with the South before the Civil Rights Act, except against gays and lesbians.

lol someone has been watching MSNBC

... a much more realistic and directly related comparison

You see, it's people like you that give Conservatives and Libertarians a bad reputation. A person's private life should not be a factor in whether they can get a job or not. Next you'll be telling me that single mother's should not be alowed to get jobs, or some other group for some stupid reason that only comes from bigotry towards that group.

And I don't watch MSNBC or Fox, FYI. I don't know how many times I have to tell you I don't watch either brain washing channel, but it's been quite a few.

That's also what I have always said, so I don't know what you're talkin about. I didn't ask what cable news station you watched. Single mothers? LOL

In conclusion: put down the crack pipe

[Phatscotty]

I tend to think the free market will work that stuff out.

If there is anything the Free Market in America topic has taught me over the years, is that I am not sure anything is getting worked out, TGD.


--Andy

Share with us your experiences with the free markets, if you would be so kind as to. You can even just tell us the sectors you consider to be a free market. If you have to use a Star Trek picture, that's fine.

[Phatscotty]

...,,

[Phatscotty]

I think this video sums up a few of the points made here quite nicely:



(The real fun begins at about 4:25)

Anderson Cooper is hardly unbiased on the issue. The guy he picked to interview on the issue is a cherry picked dudd. I think it's a horrible conversation to get any points from. The entire narrative is severely flawed, trying to frame it as 'anti-gay' and trying to misinterpret the idea that a restaurant owner will refuse to serve someone because of their sexuality.

[crispybits]

OK so Anderson Cooper is biased - how doe that make his questions any less relevant? Or does someone need to be a conservative before they're even allowed to ask questons now too?

That "cherry picked dud" is the only governarial candidate from either side of the house who is standing up supporting this bill. If the highest ranked politician(?) from AZ willing to support the bill publicly is a "cherry picked dud" then what does that say about the bill?

As for the entire narrative being flawed, I assume you're taking that position because the entire narrative is making supporters of this bill look like bigoted idiots? "I'll refuse to interact with him cos he's gay and the bible says that's bad mmkay!!" Doesn't the bible also say "only God can judge" (James 4:12) and "love thy neighbour" (Matthew 19:19, Matthew 5:43, Mark 12:31, James 2:8, Galatians 5:14, Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Romans 13:9, Luke 10:27)? Why are the religious right focusing so much on trying to make people that don't necessarily believe in their book-from-God follow the rules within their book-from-God when they can't follow the most fundamental parts of that very same book-from-God themselves?

[mrswdk]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[crispybits]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[Dukasaur]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.


Apparently the Steve creature too.

[oVo]

God created homosexuals and like liberals, commies and tight assed conservatives, it's not a dirty word.

[notyou2]

God created homosexuals and like liberals, commies and tight assed conservatives, it's not a dirty word.

Don't forget bigots. Jesus loves bigots.

[oVo]

Jesus loves bigots.

The divine sense of humor knows no bounds.