TopShelf TG Fiction in the BigCloset!
As an Indiana resident in Indianapolis, and a Religious Jew, I will be picketing the State Capital and Governor's Mansion claiming the Discrimination Law is against God's Law as soon as my foot doesn't have an ulcer.
Companies with headquarters in Indiana:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/indiana-ceos-lgbt-d...
Checks can be made out & sent to:
Joyce Melton
1001 Third St.
Space 80
Calimesa, CA 92320
USA
Note: $6000 is the operating, maintenance and upgrade budget. Amounts received in excess of the $6000 will be applied to long term debt accrued over the last 19 years.
If you prefer, you can donate through Patreon:
Become a Patron!
Thank you!
Comments
Also in Indiana :(
I'm over in Avon and it sucks that these idiots get elected here. One of my roommates was there protesting the other day. I'm glad that things were very peaceful. Lots of people I know are upset with this.
remind the people of the 1st amendment
The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today.
It is unconstitutional for a person/group to impose any religious value/standards upon another against their will.
quidquid sum ego, et omnia mea semper; Ego me.
alecia Snowfall
From the other person's perspective
Speaking of amendments to the U.S. Constitution, how about the 13th?
> It is unconstitutional for a person/group to impose any religious value/standards upon another against their will.
Isn't that a two-way street?
.
Actually, that's not quite what it says.
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
T
But the principle you stated (A can't impose her religion on B) is or at least ought to be a two way street.
Yes, that's the one
It could be argued that being forced to work for someone else at gun point is "involuntary servitude".
And it's "gun point" really what the force of law comes down to?
"If you don't do this, we will fine you."
"I won't pay the fine."
"If you don't pay the fine, you will go to jail."
"I refuse to go to jail."
"If you don't go to jail, we will take you by force."
"I will resist."
"I you resist, we will kill you."
That is why the force of law should be limited to only the most important of cases.
"It is unconstitutional for a
"It is unconstitutional for a person/group to impose any religious value/standards upon another against their will."
No, that's not what it says. It is unconstitutional per the 1st and the 14th for any government entity to pay money to any particular religion to further its unique sectarian activities. It was solely a prohibition on Congressional appropriations and is now solely a prohibition on Congressional, state, and local expenditures. It compels no action from individuals independent of government expenditures.
Per the free exercise clause and the free association clause both, it is unconstitutional to compel people to participate in a activity they find to be religiously reprehensible.
It is wrong to use the truncheon of the state to try to compel a baker to bake a cake for a wedding they feel to be a mockery of the concept, or to force a photographer to to depict the same. At best it is the act of a bully to attempt it*1.
The freedom of a photographer or baker not to lend legitimacy to a SSM by servicing it is the same as that of a conscientious objector not to be shot for treason, for a Jehovah's Witness not to accept a blood transfusion on behalf of themselves or their children*, or of the Amish not to perform jury duty. Get back to me when the bris becomes a felony.
*I personally would have no trouble convicting a JW of murder should their child die because the JW parent withholds a blood transfusion, but I recognize the category of decision as being one where I should have no say.
*1 I will the more say I think the last thing the social justice warriors want is to have it be publicly known what few persons will refrain from serving other than conventionally sexual persons, because their goal has nothing to do with changing minds, or with being able to target specifically the few who might merit it. Instead, they aim to profit politically from claiming they can indict all of society--but they won't shed crocodile tears if the worm turns.
The problem comes down to...
not the free exercise of religion, or of association, but plain old business. A commercial baker, has a license granted by the to run a business. In order to have the license to run the baker, the owner of said bakery has to follow the laws of the of their business location. One of those laws is that thou (the baker) shall not discriminate against a person based on race, religion, color of skin, national origin, sex (male or female), sexual identity, sexuality (homo- bi- heterosexual).
We've had this discussion before, when Black men and women sat down at a lunch counter in North Carolina. Wasn't right then, still not right today.
None of that matters.
The laws have to be constitutional. Or they are null and void the minute they are printed.
Laws first have to be
Laws first have to be challenged, then a court of law, and eventually, the Supreme Court of the United States (or the highest court of the country where the law was passed) has to declare the law unconstitutional and null and void. Which sometimes can take years, or decades.
.
Our founding mothers and fathers did a fairly good job, considering how radical their plan was. (Democracies were a dime a dozen back then but few had ever even heard of a limited democracy. The English were experimenting with limits, but their results were, um, limited ... ;-)
Our founders also laid a few rotten eggs however, and I've always thought the process for certifying a bill to be constitutional was the biggest one.
The Supremes should have been inserted into the process between Congressional passage and Presidential approval/veto, in the hope of preventing an unconstitutional bill from becoming an unconstitutional law.
I've also wondered about having a congress of four houses: two for passing a bill, like we have now and two more for repealing a law. Call them the Pass Congress, elected as now in even years and the new Repeal Congress, elected in odd years. Require a super majority (60%?) to pass any bill in the Pass Congress and a sub majority (40%?) to repeal any law in the Repeal Congress.
T
Ben Franklin, the Iroquois League and The Women's Council
It was Old Ben's idea to copy a page from the organization of the Iroquois League and have a House of Review. Only women would be eligible to serve, and they would have the duty of reviewing laws and appointments and repealing or revoking them as they saw fit. There were some other wrinkles in his idea but it didn't fly with the all male Constitutional Committee. Ben was an old radical, he was, he was. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Very interesting ...
Thanks Erin.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 (At least to a first approximation.) (But stand by ... some seriously new stuff is coming.)
Now that I think back on some things I've read, the founding boys and girls had a number of good ideas that could not make it past all the Bad Guys with the Power (not always the same group - it depended on which sacred cow they were trying to BBQ, and they had a really big fire going).
Stuff like actually abolishing slavery. All existing democracies (and all dictatorships and all of the defunct democracies as well) allowed it, so not having it was thought to be impossible by many people of that time.
Sigh.
What if we had started with 10 states instead of 13? There would have been a 10 state USA with a slavery prohibition and a 3 state CSA (Confederate States of America) with official slavery like the rest of the world. And most likely no Civil War. Technology would have forced the CSA to abolish slavery at some time in the late 1800s like it actually did in other parts of the world.
***
Could we have survived the British invasion in the early 1800s with only 10 states?
T
You forget
That the North had indentured servitude that was just as bad as what could be found on Southern plantations. Yes, the difference was that "indentured" servants put themselves into that position, rather than plantations slaves who were captured by other tribes in Africa and sold to Arab traders. But when you compare the two, there isn't a penny's worth of difference.
No difference?
Hmm. So if you found yourself in a bad situation, where you HAD to pick one or the other *for yourself*, you would pull a coin out and flip it to decide?
IKOFDI
Indentured servitude can be nasty, depending on who owns your time. And there are stories of benevolent slave owners who treated their property like family. Even if I knew that I would get a nasty assignment, if I chose servitude or a nice family placement, if I chose slavery - I would still take the servitude.
Servitude was for seven years. (Kind of a strange number, isn't it? Same as for bankruptcy - I wonder if there is a connection.) Slavery was forever. Suppose my benevolent slave master died after ten years and my new owner was one of those *black* slave owners who beat his property regularly just for fun?
Forever can suck. Seven years is over and done. Now, if I *knew* my benevolent owner would outlive me things would be different. I could stand to have wealthy parents, even if they were a bit controlling.
T
These People simply amaze me
The politicians that are presenting these legislations are beating there chest and doing lip service to a variety special interest groups in order maintain there position in the government knowing good and well they be shot down at a national level.
What ever happen to the notion of the “SEPERATION of CHURCH and STATE”.
The only people that are going to get anything out these negative state rulings on LGBT marriage and bathroom are the Attorneys.
And I am looking forward to seeing the “Hobby Loby” ruling re-tested and overturned.
Those overtly imposing religious opinions are being forced on the individual’s human rights to insure domestic Tranquility.
Correct me if I’m wrong but in the Constitution of the United States starts out
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”
And "WE ARE THE PEOPLE".
Karmon
How long will the citizens of this country....
Continue to bury their heads in the sand? How long will we ignore acts like this and pretend that there is nothing wrong with the passing of a law that makes discrimination legal? How long will we accept our representatives refusing to pass laws guaranteeing the rights of EVERYONE?
If the governor of Indiana can't see from the nationwide reaction that the law he just signed is wrong he is an idiot - or he is so motivated by protecting his political base and so worried about getting re-elected that he doesn't care about doing what is right. The fact that he tries to hide behind a similar law in the neighboring state of Illinois is simple cowardice. Notwithstanding the fact that another state having a similar law doesn't make it right or fair to enact this law, he completely ignores the fact that the state of Illinois also has a law guaranteeing the rights of it's LGBT citizens - which Indiana does not have!
The only way to fight this kind of regional small-mindedness is to pass a Federal law guaranteeing the rights of all people regardless of sexual preference or gender identity.
As a registered Republican, I can honestly say that I am ashamed of what the members of my political party have perpetrated on the citizens of the state of Indiana.
D. Eden
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
The only way to fight this
The only way to fight this kind of regional small-mindedness is to pass a Federal law guaranteeing the rights of all people regardless of sexual preference or gender identity.
I think there already is one. The Civil Rights Act, as amended.
But to say a good thing about the gubnor, according to the nightly news, should you believe the pap they shovel by the boatload to the viewing myrmidons, he is trying to push through legislation to fix the problem.
That's already covered.
There already is one, it's called the Bill of Rights, and it prohibits the government from compelling people to do things with their own property on their own time which is repugnant to their religious beliefs.
A national law was written to enforce those constitutional guarantees which was signed by President Clinton over 20 years ago.