ENDA: How much of this is true?

[Kulindahr]

It absolutely is. And government is what protects our rights so that's the only definition I care about.

Otherwise you open the door for all sorts of exemptions for businesses that otherwise benefit fully from all secular laws.

BTW, your kind of thinking is exactly what gave us the idiocy that led us to the Citizens United definition that granted free speech to inanimate objects.. That's a great example of how government treads on our rights.

 

[Rolyo85]

BTW, your kind of thinking is exactly what gave us the idiocy that led us to the Citizens United definition that granted free speech to inanimate objects.. That's a great example of how government treads on our rights.

Elaborate. And while you're elaborating, tell me why a for profit business should have the right to discriminate based on religion.

 

[Kulindahr]

Elaborate.

The problem in Citizens was that Congress had blithely classified a bunch of different kinds of entities as all being the same when they aren't.

 

[Rolyo85]

The problem in Citizens was that Congress had blithely classified a bunch of different kinds of entities as all being the same when they aren't.

So your logic is that because that decision was wrong in Citizens United, it should never be done for any reason?

 

[Kulindahr]

So your logic is that because that decision was wrong in Citizens United, it should never be done for any reason?

If it's wrong once, it's wrong the next time.

 

[Rolyo85]

Seriously? That's your argument?

Must be awesome, living in an absolutist world.

I am yet to hear a logical argument for why a business should be allowed to discriminate against a minority.

 

[Kulindahr]

Seriously? That's your argument?

Must be awesome, living in an absolutist world.

I am yet to hear a logical argument for why a business should be allowed to discriminate against a minority.

Try reading the Declaration of Independence -- the principles are there. Then you'll see that you indeed have gotten a logical argument.

 

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, no, sorry.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, no, sorry.

You're arguing for a very narrow scope of religious freedom. The equivalent of your position would be to confine gay rights to the bedroom.

 

[Rolyo85]

Religious freedom is only ok when it in no way impacts anyone else. When I am losing a job I want - and it matters not one bit why I want it - because of somebody else's religion, this is not religious freedom, it's religious oppression.

 

[Alnitak]

Kulindahr, your debate with Rolyo is very interesting but I found an article on some specific religious exemptions that were left out of the statutory definitions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Some of these could pop up in ENDA at any time. Specifically the article addresses what is a religious organization and what constitutes "conscience."

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/11/01/2863211/enda-religious-exemption-timeline-2/

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, your debate with Rolyo is very interesting but I found an article on some specific religious exemptions that were left out of the statutory definitions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Some of these could pop up in ENDA at any time. Specifically the article addresses what is a religious organization and what constitutes "conscience."

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/11/01/2863211/enda-religious-exemption-timeline-2/

This seems a little excessive:

Expand The Definition Of A “Religious Organization”

In 2010, a Ninth Circuit panel of judges established a new test for what qualifies as a religious organization. According to the final updated ruling, this test would allow any non-profit that describes its founding mission, work, identity as religious could qualify for a religious exemption, even if they are not directly involved in religious ministry. If ENDA were to adopt this definition, it could create a loophole for many more organizations to discriminate against LGBT people.

Merely declaring your organization is religious doesn't make it so. There has to be a plain religious purpose.

As an example, a bookstore selling only religious books could make a reasonable claim to being a religious organization; OTOH, a bookstore which sells a wide variety of books including religious ones should be required to show how it qualifies as being religious.

Conceivably I could declare the current not-for-profit I'm heading up a religious organization, with my argument being that we treat the land with reverence, under that definition. While that might be sort of fun, it would hardly be reasonable.