Oklahoma Senate Bill 197 and 694- syskatine's call out

[Medic007]

Check out the absolute stupidity behind OK Senate Bill 197, The Oklahoma Right of Conscience Act. This is the worst idea Since the Democratic Party rigged the primaries for Hillary. Welcome to 1900 Oklahoma.

syskatine, you should be ashamed that a hardcore conservative like me beat you to the punch on this one.

http://www.normantranscript.com/new...cle_0d4af15a-b432-5355-86c4-61cd6faf2299.html

 

[ThorOdinson13]

So you think the government should be able to force someone to bake a cake?

 

[JimmyBob]

The ignorance level of the OK legislature continues to amaze me; just when I think they can't go any lower, they remove another level of whale shit from the bottom and crawl under. Classic, living examples of you can't fix stupid.

 

[Medic007]

So you think the government should be able to force someone to bake a cake?

Yes I do, and I think enabling discrimination under a thinly veiled and thick skulled reason is ass backward as well. This is basic human dignity shit. So you don't agree with same sex marriage. Nobody is asking you to endorse it. Baking a cake is very benign and someone's choice of spouse gender should play no role. Freedom is freedom.

Likewise, if it helps, I have no religious beliefs, don't believe in god, don't even consider myself atheist as that is an active anti-religion position, but I heartily support the bill to allow prayer in school. So you aren't religious like me. BFD. Let the majority practice their religion as they see fit and either enjoy a moment of reflection or make a to do list. Nobody is forcing god upon you. Even if they are, be an adult, thank them, and move on.

Humanity is a two way street.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Yes I do, and I think enabling discrimination under a thinly veiled and thick skulled reason is ass backward as well. This is basic human dignity shit. So you don't agree with same sex marriage. Nobody is asking you to endorse it. Baking a cake is very benign and someone's choice of spouse gender should play no role. Freedom is freedom.

Likewise, if it helps, I have no religious beliefs, don't believe in god, don't even consider myself atheist as that is an active anti-religion position, but I heartily support the bill to allow prayer in school. So you aren't religious like me. BFD. Let the majority practice their religion as they see fit and either enjoy a moment of reflection or make a to do list. Nobody is forcing god upon you. Even if they are, be an adult, thank them, and move on.

Humanity is a two way street.

Well, if the government can force you to bake a cake what else can they force you to do? Buy health insurance? Fine you for not doing so? Make you do a photo shoot? Force you to pledge your allegiance to a flag over God? Where does it stop?

Market forces can do a lot. Let the boycotts happen. Keep government out of it. JMO

 

[Medic007]

Well, if the government can force you to bake a cake what else can they force you to do? Buy health insurance? Fine you for not doing so? Make you do a photo shoot? Force you to pledge your allegiance to a flag over God? Where does it stop?

Market forces can do a lot. Let the boycotts happen. Keep government out of it. JMO

So, we should allow Sharia law since we're operating under the guise that the government can't tell anyone what they can and cannot do. Sounds iffy if you want the truth.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

So, we should allow Sharia law since we're operating under the guise that the government can't tell anyone what they can and cannot do. Sounds iffy if you want the truth.

You're going to compare Sharia law to the threat of force over baking a cake? Let's see. One throws gays from roof tops to their death or stones them. The other forces them to find a new baker. Terrible straw man imo.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yes I do, and I think enabling discrimination under a thinly veiled and thick skulled reason is ass backward as well. This is basic human dignity shit. So you don't agree with same sex marriage. Nobody is asking you to endorse it. Baking a cake is very benign and someone's choice of spouse gender should play no role. Freedom is freedom.

Likewise, if it helps, I have no religious beliefs, don't believe in god, don't even consider myself atheist as that is an active anti-religion position, but I heartily support the bill to allow prayer in school. So you aren't religious like me. BFD. Let the majority practice their religion as they see fit and either enjoy a moment of reflection or make a to do list. Nobody is forcing god upon you. Even if they are, be an adult, thank them, and move on.

Humanity is a two way street.

"Freedom is freedom," you said, as you advocated using government to force people to perform services that violate their consciences. Am I understanding you correctly? Does that not strike you as a little contradictory?

 

[Ponca Dan]

So, we should allow Sharia law since we're operating under the guise that the government can't tell anyone what they can and cannot do. Sounds iffy if you want the truth.

Interesting that you bring up Sharia law while advocating for government intervention into private and religious transactions. Should the government force mosques to perform Christian marriages between LGBTQ people?

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Yes I do, and I think enabling discrimination under a thinly veiled and thick skulled reason is ass backward as well. This is basic human dignity shit. So you don't agree with same sex marriage. Nobody is asking you to endorse it. Baking a cake is very benign and someone's choice of spouse gender should play no role. Freedom is freedom.

Likewise, if it helps, I have no religious beliefs, don't believe in god, don't even consider myself atheist as that is an active anti-religion position, but I heartily support the bill to allow prayer in school. So you aren't religious like me. BFD. Let the majority practice their religion as they see fit and either enjoy a moment of reflection or make a to do list. Nobody is forcing god upon you. Even if they are, be an adult, thank them, and move on.

Humanity is a two way street.

I'm unfriending you.

 

[Cowpoke]

So you think the government should be able to force someone to bake a cake?

Ok with going back 60 years where restaurants don't allow African Americans to eat?

This is a straightforward and simple issue.. You should not be able to refuse service of your business based on any prejudice.

I'd feel exactly the same if a Christian was denied service, or a conservative, or a Satanist or a Puerto Rican or a gay or a Westborro Baptist.

 

[CowboyJD]

Ok with going back 60 years where restaurants don't allow African Americans to eat?

This is a straightforward and simple issue.. You should not be able to refuse service of your business based on any prejudice.

I'd feel exactly the same if a Christian was denied service, or a conservative, or a Satanist or a Puerto Rican or a gay or a Westborro Baptist.

Any prejudice? Any at all?

And are we talking about anyone or just public accommodations?

I used to be of the same opinion as Thor, but my opinion is developing to somewhere between leaving it purely up to the market and your position.

 

[Cowpoke]

Ok with going back 60 years where restaurants don't allow African Americans to eat?

This is a straightforward and simple issue.. You should not be able to refuse service of your business based on any prejudice.

I'd feel exactly the same if a Christian was denied service, or a conservative, or a Satanist or a Puerto Rican or a gay or a Westborro Baptist.

Any prejudice? Any at all?

Any that don't affect their business or well-being. I'm sure your about to spring something on me I hadn't considered though.

 

[CowboyJD]

Any that don't affect their business or well-being. I'm sure your about to spring something on me I hadn't considered though.

No plans to spring anything stellar, just any prejudice seems very broad even if we are talking just about public accommodations and not about associations/clubs etc.

I think we have a pretty good balance under the law right now with prohibiting discrimination based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, etc.....immutable characteristics. The whole religious objections of the public accommodation is a tough nut to crack. Broadening prohibitions on discrimination to any prejudice seems too broad to me.

 

[Cowpoke]

Any that don't affect their business or well-being. I'm sure your about to spring something on me I hadn't considered though.

No plans to spring anything stellar, just any prejudice seems very broad even if we are talking just about public accommodations and not about associations/clubs etc.

I think we have a pretty good balance under the law right now with prohibiting discrimination based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, etc.....immutable characteristics. The whole religious objections of the public accommodation is a tough nut to crack. Broadening prohibitions on discrimination to any prejudice seems too broad to me.

Understood, it does seem to be too broad. But for me personally that's my preference. I tend to want to try to find a consistent approach to a problem that can be applied in such a way that doesn't leave much room for interpretation or personal bias.

That doesn't always work (the real world is messy), but I would rather start with "apply to all cases of discrimination" and work my way down from there if specific cases warrant, rather than start with one "protected group" then add a new one, then a new one, then another....blah blah blah.

It's just my personal opinion on how law and rights should work. Create a law, or grant a right based on an ideal and apply it to all cases. Not create a law or grant a right for some specific group or incident.

In this case "for profit business may not refuse service to any person based on a prejudice that does not affect that businesses ability to do business, or the welfare of the business owner and customers"

So much easier than... Ok this year let's add gays, 3 years later, ok let's protect Catholics... 4 years later.. Ok we need to add ugly people to the list, then cops, then gingers...

 

[Cowpoke]

Just realized this is probably due to my COMSCI taught disdain for "hard coded values" ;-)

It's a maintenance nightmare.

 

[Medic007]

Ok, so I went off the rails with Sharia law.

I would like to know how baking a cake for two dudes who want to get married violates a religion. Religion is a useless concept to me, so I'm asking for some education here. Refusing service to gays seems no different than refusing service to blacks, or Baptists, or people in wheelchairs.

 

[Medic007]

I'm unfriending you.

You can't. I'm all around you like Dolby 7.2.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Ok, so I went off the rails with Sharia law.

I would like to know how baking a cake for two dudes who want to get married violates a religion. Religion is a useless concept to me, so I'm asking for some education here. Refusing service to gays seems no different than refusing service to blacks, or Baptists, or people in wheelchairs.

I can't argue that because it's not about religion for me. It's about the tyranny of the state over one for the "rights" of another while threatening loss of actual rights through government force.

Look, I can get on board with something that is truly a threat to an individual's rights, common sense real threats to a person, like say......medical care. I would not support a church owned hospital denying care simply because the person is gay. That's a proper moment for government to intervene.

But baking a cake? No, I won't support someone being jailed or facing government confiscation of property (money) because they didn't want to bake a cake. Nor will I support another mechanism for government to place fines for the collection of revenue. In this case let the boycotts come and force them to change or lose money, maybe even their business.

As discussed above. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere somehow. Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to know how to accomplish that.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

medic going all west coast??!?!?!?

This legislature is the natural consequence of conservative government -- it is NOT about small government. They stripped municipalities from regulating oil and gas within city limits and now this. It's all about imposing their world view.

I don't know what to say about the cake thing. Playing devil's advocate, sexuality may be an immutable characteristic, but marrying or having a sexual relationship is not. If a local municipality or business wants to discriminate against gays and that's where they think the smart move is, get after it. As a practical matter it's a self destructive move and they are advertising their own ignorance. Why prevent ignorance from self-identifying? Absent harvesting natural resources (oil and gas) the most intolerant regions of the country aren't really economic dynamos. On the other hand, "I'm gay and YOU HAVE to bake me a cake!" is kind of a bitch move, too. I should probably be more progressive about this stuff. The offensive thing to me is the spirit of "Let's legislate to make sure another minority doesn't get away with something." They always have to have a target/straw man to be against. Meanwhile, OKC public schools are in financial crisis and this morning's news announced another $3mm in budget cuts.

It's more embarrassment and obvious contradiction to the narrative that conservatives are about local government control. The state republicans insist on controlling everything so they can keep it ^$#ed up.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Ok with going back 60 years where restaurants don't allow African Americans to eat?

This is a straightforward and simple issue.. You should not be able to refuse service of your business based on any prejudice.

I'd feel exactly the same if a Christian was denied service, or a conservative, or a Satanist or a Puerto Rican or a gay or a Westborro Baptist.

"You should not be able to refuse service of your business based on any prejudice." Really? Should Disney World be required BY LAW to allow nudists walk around their premises at will? Should a 5 Star restaurant be required BY LAW to seat a person who is not wearing shoes or a shirt?

 

[Cowpoke]

Ok with going back 60 years where restaurants don't allow African Americans to eat?

This is a straightforward and simple issue.. You should not be able to refuse service of your business based on any prejudice.

I'd feel exactly the same if a Christian was denied service, or a conservative, or a Satanist or a Puerto Rican or a gay or a Westborro Baptist.

"You should not be able to refuse service of your business based on any prejudice." Really? Should Disney World be required BY LAW to allow nudists walk around their premises at will? Should a 5 Star restaurant be required BY LAW to seat a person who is not wearing shoes or a shirt?

Well both of your examples can be handled by arguing health concerns, and example A is illegal I think.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Well both of your examples can be handled by arguing health concerns. I also further clarified that protection drops if it affects the

So your prejudice can be clarified as "health concerns?"

 

[Cowpoke]

So your prejudice can be clarified as "health concerns?"

Huh? I'm saying that the business owners in both cases could deny service in both of your examples because the actions you specified could be health issues.

 

[Ponca Dan]

So your prejudice can be clarified as "health concerns?"

Sorry, I asked my questions before you posted your clarification. "Any that don't affect their business or well being." What, exactly, does that mean? Can you give me an example of acceptable prejudicial practice by an individual or business?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Huh? I'm saying that the business owners in both cases could deny service in both of your examples because the actions you specified could be health issues.

What health issues could a shirtless woman bring to a restaurant?

 

[Ponca Dan]

What health issues could a shirtless woman bring to a restaurant?

Where would you draw the line? If she's shirtless but wearing a bra would there still be health issues? How about pasties, shirtless but wearing pasties, would that create health issues?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

What health issues could a shirtless woman bring to a restaurant?

Ringworm?

Its a hard issue, where to draw the line.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Ringworm?

Its a hard issue, where to draw the line.

Yes! It's VERY hard to draw the line! But according to some on this website a line must be drawn. I'm just asking them to specify where the line is, and then to justify why they drew it there. This is the LAW we're talking about, something that requires people to obey or there will be dire consequences. It is fitting that those insisting on a law be specific.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yes! It's VERY hard to draw the line! But according to some on this website a line must be drawn. I'm just asking them to specify where the line is, and then to justify why they drew it there. This is the LAW we're talking about, something that requires people to obey or there will be dire consequences. It is fitting that those insisting on a law be specific.

By the way, that was a great response! Ringworm?! I almost spit through my nose I laughed so hard!

 

[Cowpoke]

What health issues could a shirtless woman bring to a restaurant?

Where would you draw the line? If she's shirtless but wearing a bra would there still be health issues? How about pasties, shirtless but wearing pasties, would that create health issues?

Is she hot?

Sorry, I don't know. I think you could argue that it would affect your business if it drive away customers. That might open up other issues though.

I just don't like the "protected classes" approach that we have now.

If your having an asthma attack and the drug store you are in refuses to sell you an inhaler because he saw your trump bumper sticker...should that be ok? Is political affiliation one of our current protected classes?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Is she hot?

Sorry, I don't know. I think you could argue that it would affect your business if it drive away customers. That might open up other issues though.

I just don't like the "protected classes" approach that we have now.

If your having an asthma attack and the drug store you are in refuses to sell you an inhaler because he saw your trump bumper sticker...should that be ok? Is political affiliation one of our current protected classes?

No, no, no, don't dodge the issue! You insisted no one should be allowed to implement their prejudices for any reason, under penalty of law. I insist you explain exactly what you mean by that, and justify it accordingly.

 

[Cowpoke]

Is she hot?

Sorry, I don't know. I think you could argue that it would affect your business if it drive away customers. That might open up other issues though.

I just don't like the "protected classes" approach that we have now.

If your having an asthma attack and the drug store you are in refuses to sell you an inhaler because he saw your trump bumper sticker...should that be ok? Is political affiliation one of our current protected classes?

No, no, no, don't dodge the issue! You insisted no one should be allowed to implement their prejudices for any reason, under penalty of law. I insist you explain exactly what you mean by that, and justify it accordingly.

How did I dodge your issue? You asked about the topless chick I'm saying it might drive away customers thus affecting your business. I'm also stating this is not a topic ice spent countless hours going over every scenario that might pike a hole in my idea, so your chick in a bra situation is something I'd have to think more about.

Your now dodging my question though.

Why should it be illegal to refuse service based on religion but not political affiliation?

 

[Ponca Dan]

No, no, no, don't dodge the issue! You insisted no one should be allowed to implement their prejudices for any reason, under penalty of law. I insist you explain exactly what you mean by that, and justify it accordingly.

Sorry, man, I'm just messing with you. It's just that I am a hardcore radical libertarian with strong anarchist inclinations (philosophically speaking), and I get very frustrated when people cavalierly toss out sentences that begin "there ought to be a law" without the slightest understanding of what implementation of a law actually means. Laws are very serious things. There ought to be very few of them! Unfortunately too many people think enacting laws are good things, will resolve problems, when in fact they just exacerbate them. Unless there is overwhelming public support for a law it should not be enacted. Otherwise it just acts as a wedge to drive people further apart, with each side doing everything in its power to gain control so they can force the other side to do it's bidding. We're watching that happen right in front of us today. It's not a pretty sight. I fear a civil war might be in our future.

 

[Medic007]

I can't argue that because it's not about religion for me. It's about the tyranny of the state over one for the "rights" of another while threatening loss of actual rights through government force.

Look, I can get on board with something that is truly a threat to an individual's rights, common sense real threats to a person, like say......medical care. I would not support a church owned hospital denying care simply because the person is gay. That's a proper moment for government to intervene.

But baking a cake? No, I won't support someone being jailed or facing government confiscation of property (money) because they didn't want to bake a cake. Nor will I support another mechanism for government to place fines for the collection of revenue. In this case let the boycotts come and force them to change or lose money, maybe even their business.

As discussed above. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere somehow. Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to know how to accomplish that.

I appreciate the response. I don't want anyone forced to make a cake. The gay folks I know already have places they prefer to do business because of discrimination they've faced.

I guess I'll never get why it's a big deal for someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding because my belief system doesn't see gay any different than anyone else. But I do respect that other folks have other belief systems.

The bill is broadly written and protects folks who refuse service etc based on lifestyle, marriage, and behavior. It just seems to open up a ridiculous can of worms. Theoretically, it looks like I could refuse service to interracial couples as long as I claim it's against my religion. I could refuse service to Muslims by claiming it's against my religion. The bill seems to just be a broad and poorly thought out justification for discrimination by claiming it's a religious value.

I doubt it will stand up to legal challenge so I don't know why they are wasting time and money on it.

 

[Cowpoke]

No, no, no, don't dodge the issue! You insisted no one should be allowed to implement their prejudices for any reason, under penalty of law. I insist you explain exactly what you mean by that, and justify it accordingly.

Sorry, man, I'm just messing with you. It's just that I am a hardcore radical libertarian with strong anarchist inclinations (philosophically speaking), and I get very frustrated when people cavalierly toss out sentences that begin "there ought to be a law" without the slightest understanding of what implementation of a law actually means. Laws are very serious things. There ought to be very few of them! Unfortunately too many people think enacting laws are good things, will resolve problems, when in fact they just exacerbate them. Unless there is overwhelming public support for a law it should not be enacted. Otherwise it just acts as a wedge to drive people further apart, with each side doing everything in its power to gain control so they can force the other side to do it's bidding. We're watching that happen right in front of us today. It's not a pretty sight. I fear a civil war might be in our future.

Nothing wrong with any of that, good post. I'm arguing in this specific case I'm not asking for more laws, but to simplify a law so that it's not so picky/choosy on who it protects and who it doesn't.

It probably doesn't come across in this particular instance, but I'm pretty libertarian in most cases, so I argue with myself over whether business owners should be interfered with like that. But then I rewind back to the civil rights era and it's pretty easy for me to side on the gov for forcing businesses to serve blacks. I think at that point it should have been an all or nothing thing. Either you allow business owners to reject service at will, or you figure out a way to address the issue at large.

 

[Cowpoke]

Ok with going back 60 years where restaurants don't allow African Americans to eat?

This is a straightforward and simple issue.. You should not be able to refuse service of your business based on any prejudice.

I'd feel exactly the same if a Christian was denied service, or a conservative, or a Satanist or a Puerto Rican or a gay or a Westborro Baptist.

Any prejudice? Any at all?

And are we talking about anyone or just public accommodations?

I used to be of the same opinion as Thor, but my opinion is developing to somewhere between leaving it purely up to the market and your position.

I missed the rest of your post last night.

My issue with market forces is that it doesn't really work in small communities, or specialty business.

If a McDonald's in Tulsa refuses to serve someone because they have a trump hat on....big whoop, there's probably a burger king within 200 yards. But what if your roof is leaking in a town if 1500 and the town's only roofer is a trump hating gay man?

 

[Ponca Dan]

I missed the rest of your post last night.

My issue with market forces is that it doesn't really work in small communities, or specialty business.

If a McDonald's in Tulsa refuses to serve someone because they have a trump hat on....big whoop, there's probably a burger king within 200 yards. But what if your roof is leaking in a town if 1500 and the town's only roofer is a trump hating gay man?

Then you contract with a roofer from the next town over. And you post on Facebook that he's a bigot, look what he did to you. And you make sure every single one of your friends and family let him know they will NEVER use him again. But it's a small town if 1500. Everybody - including yourself - knows who he is, so you probably wouldn't bother to call him in the first place. What you DON'T do is try to get the cops to make him fix your roof.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

I guess I'll never get why it's a big deal for someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding because my belief system doesn't see gay any different than anyone else. But I do respect that other folks have other belief systems.

I'm right there with you man. I just don't want government grabbing more power over something so trivial.

 

[Cowpoke]

I missed the rest of your post last night.

My issue with market forces is that it doesn't really work in small communities, or specialty business.

If a McDonald's in Tulsa refuses to serve someone because they have a trump hat on....big whoop, there's probably a burger king within 200 yards. But what if your roof is leaking in a town if 1500 and the town's only roofer is a trump hating gay man?

Then you contract with a roofer from the next town over. And you post on Facebook that he's a bigot, look what he did to you. And you make sure every single one of your friends and family let him know they will NEVER use him again. But it's a small town if 1500. Everybody - including yourself - knows who he is, so you probably wouldn't bother to call him in the first place. What you DON'T do is try to get the cops to make him fix your roof.

Let me introduce you to western Nebraska or Kansas ;-)

We just disagree on this particular issue. I don't think either of us are going to budge the other on it. I appreciate the debate though.