Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (846014)	3/29/2015 10:02:29 AM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo TideGlider Respond to of 1575866

Clinton signed the same Bill in 1993 who's the moron. read a freaking history book before you post you look like a moron

To: RMF who wrote (846014)	3/29/2015 10:11:35 AM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 FJB locogringo TideGlider Respond to of 1575866

hey rmf I bet you don't have a clue what the law says, you are just a knee jerk react by emotion non thinking liberal

To: RMF who wrote (846014)	3/29/2015 10:14:45 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Recommended By D.Austin TideGlider Respond to of 1575866

No. Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: "In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else." So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say? The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote. The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven't. If there's already a federal RFRA in place, why did Indiana pass its own RFRA? Great question. In a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes: Indiana became the twentieth to do so. Other states have state court rulings that provide RFRA-like protections. Here's a helpful map from 2014 that shows you which states have RFRA protections (note that Mississippi and Indiana have passed RFRA since this map was made): Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law? Nothing significant. Here's the text of the federal RFRA: Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person -- (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.And here is the text of Indiana's RFRA: A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Indiana's RFRA makes it explicit that the law applies to persons engaged in business as well as citizens in private lawsuits, but until quite recently it had always been understood that federal RFRA covered businesses and private lawsuits. (See this post by law professor Josh Blackman for more on these matters.) Late last night just outside the Senate chamber, I asked Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (who sponsored federal RFRA in 1993) to comment on the story. "Not right now," he replied. Schumer still hasn't found time to respond to this question on Twitter: [iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" allowfullscreen="" title="Embedded Tweet" height="265" style="display: block; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-color: rgb(238, 238, 238) rgb(221, 221, 221) rgb(187, 187, 187); max-width: 99%; min-width: 220px; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; position: static; visibility: visible; border-top-left-radius: 5px; border-top-right-radius: 5px; border-bottom-right-radius: 5px; border-bottom-left-radius: 5px; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902) 0px 1px 3px; width: 500px;"][/iframe] So why are so many people saying that Indiana's law is an unprecedented attack on gay people? We shouldn't hold Ashton Kutcher and Miley Cyrus entirely responsible for their ignorance. Their job, after all, is to make bad music and bad movies, not report the news. Bad journalism is to blame here. See this CNN headline that says the law "allows biz to reject gay customers," or this New York Times story that makes the same claim while ignoring the fact that many other states and the federal government have the same law on the books. Indiana's RFRA does not grant a license to discriminate. First of all, the state of Indiana, like 28 other states, has never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. Even without such laws in most states, discrimination doesn't commonly occur because the United States is a nation that is tolerant of gay people and intolerant of bigots. Mean-spirited actions by a business owner anywhere in the country would almost certainly be met with a major backlash. It is true that several local ordinances in Indiana prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but RFRA does not declare that those ordinances are invalid if someone requests a religious exemption. Again, RFRA simply establishes the balancing test courts must apply in religious freedom cases.

To: RMF who wrote (846014)	3/29/2015 10:18:58 AM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 D.Austin FJB locogringo TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575866

The point of RFRA is not to discriminate against gay Americans. It is supposed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious Americans. what are you an Islamophobic

To: RMF who wrote (846014)	3/29/2015 10:21:06 AM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Recommended By D.Austin FJB joseffy locogringo TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575866

Schummer is attacking Pence but Schummer wrote the Bill in 1993, what is wrong with you liberals, spineless worms. grow a back bone RMF

To: RMF who wrote (846014)	3/29/2015 10:39:14 AM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB joseffy TideGlider Respond to of 1575866

RMF plays the gay card, right on schedule

To: RMF who wrote (846014)	3/29/2015 12:46:47 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By D.Austin TideGlider Respond to of 1575866

Yes, Barney Frank Admits, I Want to Blame Only Bush ....................................................................... News Busters ^ \| 3/28/15 \| Jack Coleman As a long-term strategy for defeating jihadists, Americans blaming George W. Bush ad infinitum is sure to be a winner -- for jihadists. It's right up there with American retreat from leadership in the world as high on their list of goals. And sure enough, former congressman Barney Frank heartily endorses both. Frank was among the guests on last night's Real Time with Bill Maher, brimming with his usual persnickety bluster. At one point he tangled with conservative columnist S.E. Cupp on the subject of the abrupt US military withdrawal from Yemen. This led to a pair of candid admissions from Frank -- FRANK: There's a broader question here. There are people who believe that America's role is to be the leader in the world and to preserve order and I think the time for us to say, you know what, we want to be very strong, we want to defend ourselves, we come to the aid of some allies, but we've been the leader for a while, it's been very nice, it's your turn, let's let somebody else be the leader. MAHER: Exactly! Yes! ... They need to have this fight amongst themselves, the way the Christians and the Protestants did in the 16th century. ... It's gonna happen. Let them do it. FRANK: There are Americans who believe that, and they say this, they criticize Obama -- what's Obama doing about that? Why is it Obama's responsibility to referee these fights with people who've hated each other for a long time. I'm sorry they do. We can't stop it. (applause) CUPP: Do you think Obama has any responsibility, though ... FRANK: In Yemen, no. CUPP: ... for creating chaos, in fact, in Libya where he sent troops in? FRANK: ... Well, he has a little in Libya. More is for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ... MAHER: Right ... FRANK: That war in Iraq was the biggest ... CUPP: Again, who got us pregnant. Let's stop arguing about who got us pregnant. MAHER: Why?! It's relevant! CUPP: But what are you going to do about it now?! FRANK: .... First, you say, oh isn't it Obama's fault. ... CUPP: I didn't say that. FRANK: Yeah, you said, isn't it Obama's responsibility in Libya. CUPP: I asked you if he has some responsibility for sending forces into Libya and then leaving ... FRANK: In other words, you got us pregnant in Libya. So you're different about your pregnancy testing. CUPP: No! I'm pointing out that you only want to blame Bush! FRANK: Yes I do! Because the war in Iraq, the stupidest thing the American government ever did, the most costly and the most damaging, is a major reason why things began to deteriorate. CUPP: I'm glad we settled that. So what do you want to do about it? FRANK: Leave them alone. Leave them to their own. CUPP: We'll talk in five years about how great that strategy is once we've left everywhere. To recap: Frank wants the United States to be "very strong" -- providing we rarely resort to actually deploying that strength. He's more comfortable with Russia, China or, who knows, perhaps even a nuclear-armed Iran assuming global leadership while America continues its well-deserved decline. Considering their laudable track records, only an unrepentant neo-con would fear for a future dominated by any of them. Cupp tried to rise above partisan bickering over US foreign policy in the Middle East by repeatedly asking the question -- what are we going to do about militant Islam now? Nothing, Frank answers -- "leave them to their own." He gets it backward -- it is they who won't leave us to our own, and hardly a week passes without violent and graphic evidence of this somewhere in the world. It remains a mystery why Frank when he was still in Congress, hard at work mandating that banks provide mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, also voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act. So did well over three-quarters of his colleagues in the House, with President Clinton signing the bill into law in October 1998 -- two years before Bush was elected. Frank somehow managed to overlook that the legislation wasn't more aptly titled the Liberate Iraqis by Leaving Them Alone Act.