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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (846841)	4/1/2015 5:36:00 PM
From: Bill	2 Recommendations Recommended By joseffy Tenchusatsu Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577901

Frivolous law suits.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (846841)	4/1/2015 6:25:06 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577901

so you think if a person went into a Muslim bakery and ask for a cake made with pork and the top to have a picture of Mohammed that the Muslim Bakery would have to make it and has no rights to refuse ? this Law is about the person being allowed to go to court and fight it stating his first amendment right of freedom of religion prohibits him from making that cake. and then a jury or judge would decide

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (846841)	4/1/2015 6:43:51 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1577901

I just explained this to a liberal friend in an email. This is why the law is necessary The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was written by Chuck Schumer and was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993, after almost unanimous support from Congress. Why? Because Scalia had written an opinion that essentially outlawed the use of Peyote by Native Americans who had used it as part of their religious ceremonies since forever. So, that's where the law came from, to PREVENT discrimination against people with strongly held religious views. However, the Supreme Court later determined that the law did NOT apply to states or localities. So, to correct that situation and give states the same religious protections available to Federal lands, the RFRA was enacted by something like 20 states, and another 10 or 15 enacted similar protections under a different name. So, that's how we got where we are. There was a legitimate concern by Schumer and Clinton, they fixed it, the Supreme Court unfixed it, and the states fixed it again. The law has been cited by ACLU and by Florida prisoners who were denied Kosher meals. It has been used time and again to sustain the religious rights of people whose religious views may be different from mine or yours, but most importantly that may be different from people who are TRYING TO CONTROL THEM. So, this is NOT a case of Republicans trying to give government MORE control: It is a case of Republicans trying to insure the rights that we are ALL guaranteed under the Constitution. It is not some willy-nilly effort to deny gays THEIR rights; but it is an acknowledgement that all Americans are entitled to absolute religious freedom. First and foremost. That it may interfere with the rights of someone else may be a bad thing; but unless there is some way to have it both ways, I really can't say political correctness is a righteous outcome in this instance. It seems to me a lot of people are going off half-cocked on this issue.