Racial Integration is in Breach of Religious Freedom

Well what does equal access to opportunity mean? If the best schools in the country all say "No gays allowed" then maybe they aren't being denied an opportunity, because people could organise the opening of another school which allowed LGBTQ persons. At the same time though even though they still have the opportunity they are still being utterly screwed by being denied the best education possible.

Maybe you can get away with it if only a few places deny service but what if multiple do? What if you walk into a town centre and everywhere you go there are signs saying "No gays/blacks/jews etc allowed"? Well you're not being denied the hypothetical opportunity to buy goods, but that doesn't mean you aren't still being screwed over.

Opportunity needs to be practical as well as hypothetical, it's no good saying "Well they can achieve the same things as everyone else" when if you look at the real-life scenarios it is so difficult to achieve the same that in effect the opportunity is being denied anyway.

Desolous wrote: Mustard based sauce? What hell? I'll be long in my grave before I recognize that as legit barbecue sauce, then.

barbeque sauce MUST be honey based.....anything less is just uncivilized :lol:

with a nice smoke flavoring included

i refuse to go to any business that practices any form of bigotry....sure they have the right to justify their ignorance as religious freedom, but i also have the right to tell them they're morons with antiquated thinking....and i have the right to tell everyone going in what i think of it.....they have the right to listen or not listen and decide for themselves if they want to support bigotry or not....

in the society that i live in, there really is no one that does not have access to education if they are willing to do the work to get it

if we were two hundred miles deep into a four hundred square mile desert and had only one grocer and one hardware store and one school and one church then i would take a different position

the best ideas will reach the top eventually

private businesses are not public domains - hence things like formal dress codes and member only signs

whats a "members only" rule if not discriminatory in nature?

its only the criteria of the discrimination that is argued not and not the right

and acknowledging that we allhave the right to doit is not the same as endorsing the exercise of that right

restricting and supressing others because you dislike them is the essence and heart of tyranny

in my view the only person i have the right to tyrannize is myself

whats that quote about battling monsters lest ye become one or something like that?

do i agree that a bigot has the right to open a restaurant and hire and serve whoever he wants?

in my society of freedom and choices, yes i do

would i eat there?

no

and though it may take more time than we would like, im.convinced that ultimately that restaurant would in most places not be able to survive forever

it might even take generations

but it is by suppressing ideas that they become strong

it is by allowing them to have their venues that the dialogue opens and the reality of a thing can be witnessed and judged by all

the theory behind our economic structure is that if jonny doesnt like the way jenny does busines then he is free to do business with jamie

hes even free to open his own business and see that it gets done the way he wants it done

if we want to argue for an entire overhaul of the system thats a whole other topic

but in keeping with what weve got , most especially the bigot should be allowed to speak and present himself publicly

this does two things

first it says "i really am not like you - you would silence and suppress those you despise"

secondly it allows the bigot to essentially prove his own wrongness

again, even if it takes time the greater truth will eventually be acknowledged

so imo its a more effective social strategy

and also imo its a selfish and corrupt way of thinking to attempt to justify ones desire to govern anyone but the self, generally speaking

certain laws represent exceptions to this but imo we dont need nearly quite so many laws as we have

education and opportunity actually are the best laws and for the most part the majority of other laws can be done away with if these two are sufficiently met

violence being a definite limit to that ideal

If a shop/restaurant/church/whatever owned by a private person (one location, maybe two, no more than 50 employees on their paycheck) wants to post a sign saying "No (insert discriminatory here) Allowed"- then I'm all for it. If you have over 50 employees, are a chain, etc, you're rights to do such are revoked (example- McDonald's wouldn't be able to get away with it, nor Walmart, I'm sure you get the idea). What does it mean? When I open up a store in one of those small towns that have such signs all over the place, I get all their business. :lol: :silly: :lol:

But seriously, it's a very interesting case because it places two particular concepts in our federal laws at odds (believe it or not, the first time it came about was Bill Clinton): religious freedom and laws against discrimination. Indiana isn't the first state to have this law, it's just the one that is in the media over it. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was first enacted by Clinton in '93, but it only applied on the federal level- so some of the states decided to look into getting one themselves. The following, to date, have passed it on the state level:

Alabama (state constitution amendment)
Arizona
Arkansas
Connecticut
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia