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

[Ponca Dan]

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.

I appreciate it, too. It's been a long time since I participated in anything like this. Yeah, I don't think either one of us is going to change his mind on this issue.

But, one last thought. Here's an idea: maybe you could be the self reliant man God intended you to be and patch the leak yourself!

 

[Cowpoke]

I appreciate it, too. It's been a long time since I participated in anything like this. Yeah, I don't think either one of us is going to change his mind on this issue.

But, one last thought. Here's an idea: maybe you could be the self reliant man God intended you to be and patch the leak yourself!

Lol, well I'm crippled so that would be very, VERY difficult ;-)

The funnier part about that is it is a birth defect so clearly "God" did not intend for me to patch it.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Lol, well I'm crippled so that would be very, VERY difficult ;-)

The funnier part about that is it is a birth defect so clearly "God" did not intend for me to patch it.

If I knew how I'd post a picture of myself with egg on my face!

 

[Cowpoke]

If I knew how I'd post a picture of myself with egg on my face!

;-)

 

[Icestorm?]

I don't know how many times I've seen signs in businesses that read " management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone"...where does that come into play here or is that even legal to post anymore? And who the hell would want to eat a cake that was baked by someone who was forced to bake it for you? No thanks I'll just buy a Little Debbie.

 

[aix_xpert]

I guess I'm more libertarian than others. While the government cannot discriminate on race, sex, or any other attribute, I believe that individual businesses should have that right.

For those who feel the government should force businesses to serve restricted classes: should these businesses be allowed to discriminate on the basis of political belief?

 

[07pilt]

The whole religious objections of the public accommodation is a tough nut to crack.

I think you say that corporations/business entities can't have religions. If you want to mix business and religion be a sole proprietor. StraightCakes LLC doesn't have a soul and was brought into existence by the state, hard to see an argument for it having a religion.

 

[NeekReevers]

I am really torn on this issue. For one, I think a business, being a private entity, should not be forced to do business with anyone with which they do not want to do business...good reason or not. I have owned and operated a family business and it is an extension of you and anyone that would try to tell me how to run my business or who to do business with I would tell to go to hell.

On the flip side of that, businesses are not citizens and IMO should not be afforded the same rights and privileges as citizens. If anti-discriminatory laws had not been enforced in the south in the 60s would it still be segregated today? I guess I tend to fall in the middle in that in general I believe a business should be able to refuse service to anyone but when that refusal becomes so widespread in society as to prevent a group in society from access to goods and services then the state is compelled to act.

 

[CowboyJD]

I think you say that corporations/business entities can't have religions. If you want to mix business and religion be a sole proprietor. StraightCakes LLC doesn't have a soul and was brought into existence by the state, hard to see an argument for it having a religion.

I think that is a simple out that really doesn't address the closely, privately held corporations.

IMO, disavowing yourself of your religious beliefs shouldn't be a condition of receiving the business benefits of incorporation.

Also, don't see the courts going that way after SCOTUS's Hobby Lobby decision.

 

[07pilt]

I think that is a simple out that really doesn't address the closely, privately held corporations.

IMO, disavowing yourself of your religious beliefs shouldn't be a condition of receiving the business benefits of incorporation.

You can keep your believes but your business entity can't. You can be against gay marriage but your bakery LLC can't. You can believe that birth control is a sin but your hobby lobby C Corp can't. The benefits of incorporation are a privilege created by the state because it is in the public interest, and the state should put conditions on that privilege to insure that the public interest is served.

Also, don't see the courts going that way after SCOTUS's Hobby Lobby decision.

You are right.

 

[CowboyJD]

You can keep your believes but your business entity can't. You can be against gay marriage but your bakery LLC can't. You can believe that birth control is a sin but your hobby lobby C Corp can't. The benefits of incorporation are a privilege created by the state because it is in the public interest, and the state should put conditions on that privilege to insure that the public interest is served.


You are right.

Like I said, that's a very simple solution that doesn't really address the complicated issue of closely held corporations....it more ignores and dismisses it.

 

[07pilt]

Like I said, that's a very simple solution that doesn't really address the complicated issue of closely held corporations....it more ignores and dismisses it.

You are going to have to flesh it out beyond "the issue of closely held corporations." for me to address it beyond "incorporation is a privilege not a right."

 

[CowboyJD]

You are going to have to flesh it out beyond "the issue of closely held corporations." for me to address it beyond "incorporation is a privilege not a right."

Not really. Your response of "incorporation is a privilege not a right" basically makes it clear that you're not really concerned with the question or problem of religious individuals wanting to receive the benefits of incorporating their business AND run their corporation in line with their religious values. You're good with them not being able to because "incorporation is a privilege not a right". I would prefer a regulatory scheme where their desires could be accommodated. I'm not trying to convince you that that is the correct policy position to take.

 

[07pilt]

I would prefer a regulatory scheme where their desires could be accommodated. I'm not trying to convince you that that is the correct policy position to take.

I prefer a regulatory scheme where those that discriminate against protected classes and hide behind religion don't receive a subsidy in the form of incorporation. To each his own I guess.

 

[CowboyJD]

I prefer a regulatory scheme where those that discriminate against protected classes and hide behind religion don't receive a subsidy in the form of incorporation. To each his own I guess.

See?

I knew I didn't need to go any further fleshing out the idea of needing to balance out honestly held religious beliefs with interests of of protected classes....an admittedly complicated proposition, I admit.

It certainly IS easier to just say "incorporation is a privilege, not a right", conclude that if the individual wants to exercise their individual rights within the context of incorporation they are just SOL, and characterize honestly held religious beliefs as "hide behind religion". It's much tougher to attempt to balance the competing liberty interests and find a viable middle position.

As you say, to each his own.

 

[07pilt]

See?

I knew I didn't need to go any further fleshing out the idea of needing to balance out honestly held religious beliefs with interests of of protected classes....an admittedly complicated proposition, I admit.

I thought you meant that there was something tricky about closely held corporation vs wholly owned LLC etc. I thought I was missing the point through ignorance surrounding "closely held." To clarify, your point is the same for a wholly owned LLC?

It certainly IS easier to just say "incorporation is a privilege, not a right", conclude that if the individual wants to exercise their individual rights within the context of incorporation they are just SOL, and characterize honestly held religious beliefs as "hide behind religion". It's much tougher to attempt to balance the competing liberty interests and find a viable middle position.

As you well know I love middle positions.

 

[BvillePoker]

This stuff does not even come close to the stupidest things Oklahoma government is going to consider this session. For example, there is a bill that will eliminate "no fault" divorces for couple with children and require that person at fault pay all lawyers fees and give up 3/4 of all common property. There is also one that proposes that companies that provide cell phones will have to put software on the phone to block "obscene" content and the consumer will have to pay a fee to have the software disabled and all companies that make the internet available put blocking software in place. There is one that proposes to exempt teachers from paying state income tax. There is one proposing that Oklahoma do away with "common law" marriages. One that defines pornography as a public health hazard. That is just from one representative in the district next door to mine.

 

[CowboyJD]

1. I thought you meant that there was something tricky about closely held corporation vs wholly owned LLC etc. I thought I was missing the point through ignorance surrounding "closely held." To clarify, your point is the same for a wholly owned LLC?


As you well know I love middle positions.

1. Yes. Basically, I get your point that Sony or Kraft or such doesn't have an religious identity or even viewpoint they want to protect. But many businesses that are incorporated or wholly owned LLC are essentially sole proprietors seeking liability protection and other benefits of incorporation.

2. I'm well aware you hesitate to take an extreme or controversial position.

 

[CowboyJD]

This stuff does not even come close to the stupidest things Oklahoma government is going to consider this session. For example, there is a bill that will eliminate "no fault" divorces for couple with children and require that person at fault pay all lawyers fees and give up 3/4 of all common property. There is also one that proposes that companies that provide cell phones will have to put software on the phone to block "obscene" content and the consumer will have to pay a fee to have the software disabled and all companies that make the internet available put blocking software in place. There is one that proposes to exempt teachers from paying state income tax. There is one proposing that Oklahoma do away with "common law" marriages. One that defines pornography as a public health hazard. That is just from one representative in the district next door to mine.

Uh...I was given opportunity to provide input on the obscene/child porn content blocking bill. It's not just cell phones, it ISP providers, hotels that provide wi-fi access, etc....pretty much anyone that provides access to the internet. My input was (worded much more tactfully because I'm dealing with a legislator) "this ain't North Korea....we don't need the government in the prior restraint business.

 

[07pilt]

1. Yes. Basically, I get your point that Sony or Kraft or such doesn't have an religious identity or even viewpoint they want to protect. But many businesses that are incorporated or wholly owned LLC are essentially sole proprietors seeking liability protection and other benefits of incorporation.

Gotcha. I just can't get over the idea of creating an entity with clearly no soul and no other purpose but commerce and saying that your assets and liabilities are completely separate but your religious beliefs are one in the same. That's my irrational gut instinct on the issue.

 

[CowboyJD]

Gotcha. I just can't get over the idea of creating an entity with clearly no soul and no other purpose but commerce and saying that your assets and liabilities are completely separate but your religious beliefs are one in the same. That's my irrational gut instinct on the issue.

I get that.

I didn't call your position, stupid, or indefensible....or irrational. I don't believe that is an irrational position to take. This is a subject...like most...that rational minds can disagree on what is the best policy.

 

[Medic007]

This stuff does not even come close to the stupidest things Oklahoma government is going to consider this session. For example, there is a bill that will eliminate "no fault" divorces for couple with children and require that person at fault pay all lawyers fees and give up 3/4 of all common property. There is also one that proposes that companies that provide cell phones will have to put software on the phone to block "obscene" content and the consumer will have to pay a fee to have the software disabled and all companies that make the internet available put blocking software in place. There is one that proposes to exempt teachers from paying state income tax. There is one proposing that Oklahoma do away with "common law" marriages. One that defines pornography as a public health hazard. That is just from one representative in the district next door to mine.

You wouldn't happen to know the bill numbers would you?

 

[BvillePoker]

You wouldn't happen to know the bill numbers would you?

here is an article that includes the bill numbers.
http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/news/20170131/dunlaps-bills-focus-on-societys-ills

 

[NeekReevers]

here is an article that includes the bill numbers.
http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/news/20170131/dunlaps-bills-focus-on-societys-ills

Those bills seem pretty terrible.

 

[Medic007]

here is an article that includes the bill numbers.
http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/news/20170131/dunlaps-bills-focus-on-societys-ills

Thank you. Gonna read those.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I'm going to talk to Travis this Friday and let him know how bad I think those are.

 

[BvillePoker]

I talked to him about those already. Maybe your input will help him reconsider.