kimmy

Some years ago there was a thread here about Muslim cabbies refusing to transport passengers who were carrying alcohol. It's an interesting read, if you're interested in seeing how some of the forum's conservatives felt at that time about people refusing to provide service due to religious beliefs. -k

As an Oilers fan, I stopped caring much about playoffs sometime around Remembrance Day. I'll probably watch some of the first round, maybe adopt a team in each conference. As a former Ottawanian (Ottawoid? Ottawawan? I have no idea...) I still have a soft spot for the Senators, but it looks like they're just about finished. At this point, my greatest hope for the playoffs is that Devan Dubnyk wins the Conn Smyth Trophy and spends all summer driving up and down the street in front of Craig MacTavish's house in a convertible with the trophy in the passenger seat and "We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions" blasting out of the stereo. -k

I think we all know that if we were talking about a Muslim restauranteur who refused to serve unaccompanied women rather than a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage, the discussion about the importance of respecting his religious views would have a dramatically different tone. -k

If we went by that definition, everybody here is a feminist, including Shady. It's not in the least bit controversial. The controversy comes when people-- often academics or activists it seems-- advocate for extreme positions in pursuit of those goals. I don't think that just because you disagree with say, ham-fisted government intervention in the economy or total disregard for the principle of merit in pursuit of an imposed equality (to name a couple) means you're anti-feminist. -k

I have to point out here that the most vocal and most effective opposition to this bill is not coming from anybody who is running for office. Yeah, I'm sure the laws in Indiana are strongly tilted against Christians and in favor of gays. It'll create a situation where attempting to repeal it will be political suicide. Scrapping the law might be well received in Indianapolis and a couple of other urban centers, but in the rural areas that have disproportionate control over the legislature, scrapping the RFRA will be seen as "they takin' away our Jesus!" It's in place now, and the best they can do is to fix it to make it non-toxic. -k

There's two main reasons I don't identify as a feminist. First of all, I'm not sure what it means anymore. I know what it used to mean, and by that definition I'm certainly a feminist. But in recent years it seems to be becoming attached to all kinds of other far-left causes that I don't support and don't even understand how they became associated with feminism. The second reason, closely aligned with the first, is that if you identify yourself as a feminist, you're taking on a lot of baggage that has become associated with that word. Just as I don't identify myself to people as an atheist because the word immediately conjures the image of some angry kook filing a lawsuit against a Christmas tree at city hall. -k {I was hoping this would be about the other 'f' word...}

The possibility of someone wasting a lot of effort going to a business or hotel or other venue and being refused service is unfortunate. The possibility of an extremely upsetting face-to-face confrontation is even more unfortunate. But I think the greater benefit of having some kind of written notification of the intent to refuse service based on sincerely-held religious beliefs is that it would reduce the possibility of it being done arbitrarily or frivolously. "I didn't mind when the cute cheerleaders were making out in their booth... but when that dude with the nasal voice started talking about his Broadway showtunes CD collection it made me want to puke so I invoked my RFRA and kicked him out." Or imagine some employer looking for a way to terminate an employee without facing a wrongful dismissal suit. An RFRA claim could be a golden ticket for them. -k

So your own source has allowed us to dispense with the utter falsehood that the Indiana law is a copy of the RFRAs used in other states and by the federal government. Good. And we're agreed that despite what Bryan and Shady and Governor Pence and his minions are saying, the law in its current form DOES permit discrimination. Good. Current jurisprudence comes from other jurisdictions that have not set the bar near as low as Indiana has. "This doesn't seem to be happening much" is hardly a sterling defense of the law. Ok, so why did the Indiana Republicans push this through, then? Why give their opponents some "red meat" to chew on? The federal FRFA was ruled to not have jurisdiction in states in 1997... how come they decided that right now-- 18 years later-- it was time to replace it? Have there been a whole flurry of lawsuits against Christian businesses that I missed? There was the New Mexico photographer, and a baker in Washington ... and? Two small-claims lawsuits in other parts of the country were such an impending crisis for Indiana that they decided that they needed to rush in what is by many estimates a poorly written law that has drawn intense criticism from both social and business leaders all over the country? -k

Governor Pence keep using the phrase "that's not what this law is about" and "that's not the intent of this law". Talking about "what this law about" and what "the intent of this law is" is irrelevant. It's the effect that matters. -k

But that's simply not true. It's not a copy of laws used in other states or of the federal RFRA. It has the same name, but it is not a copy at all. Indiana's RFRA specifically includes for-profit businesses as being "persons" who can claim protection from RFRA. The federal RFRA doesn't. Among all the state RFRAs, only South Carolina provides this protection to for-profit business. And every RFRA except for Texas and Indiana limits the scope of it to government over-reach. As in, if you live in a "dry county" and the sheriff tries to bust your congregation for drinking sacramental wine, that's an RFRA violation. But unlike other states, Indiana has extended this to disputes in which the government has no part. So despite what your sources are claiming, and what Mike Pence was saying on TV yesterday, this law isn't the same as the federal law or the law in any other state. Combine these two unique characteristics of the Indiana legislation and it is quite obvious that it was designed with the intention of protecting businesses from civil rights lawsuits. You'd have to be pretty naive to doubt that Indiana was specifically of gay people suing businesses when they crafted the law in this way. -k

This has already been addressed. The lack of any specifics as to what constitutes a "sincerely held religious belief" means the sky is the limit as to what claims might be made. And the fact that Indiana has no anti-discrimination laws that include gay people make it impossible to argue that the state has a "compelling interest" in protecting gay people from discrimination. -k

So for people who believe this law is a good idea, how would you feel about requiring businesses whose beliefs prevent them from serving gay customers to display signage to that effect? It would save gay customers from the embarrassment of being turned away. It would save business operators from a confrontation and potential court battle. It seems like win-win. (for the record a house amendment to this effect was proposed, but defeated.) -k

d'oh! Trump's hair (and everything else about him) is so bizarre that the whole thing seemed plausible. I got punked. As they say in Tennessee: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you ... you can't get fooled again." -k

The funniest part of all of this is that he apparently paid $812k for that piece of crap. -k

In regard to prongs 1 and 2: 1) there's no specific definition for what a "sincerely held religious belief" actually is. The language of the bill doesn't limit it to core beliefs of recognized religions. It's pretty much whatever someone says they believe. There's no requirement, and no reason to assume, that Indiana judges would uphold the same standard as federal judges have used in evaluating what constitutes a sincere belief. If you look in the text of the Indiana bill, there's no elaboration on this issue. If you look at proposed amendments to the bill, amendments that would have specifically protected children from parental neglect were defeated, so obviously the law makers intend that faith healing and severe discipline are conceivably protected religious views. Mike Bower is a former Georgia Attorney General (and not a liberal either, this is a guy who once went to the Supreme Court to defend Georgia's anti-sodomy laws...) who in analyzing Georgia's bill concluded that a "sincerely held religious belief" could be virtually anything somebody claimed was part of their religion; Bower argues that it's so broad that it will "permit everyone to become a law unto themselves in terms of deciding which laws they will or will not obey". 2) there's no specific definition for what a "compelling interest" of the state is, either, and once again there's no requirement and no reason to assume Indiana judges will adhere to the standards that federal judges use. Preventing discrimination is considered by federal judges to be a "compelling interest", but in Indiana sexual orientation is not protected by anti-discrimination laws, so clearly protecting gay people from anti-discrimination laws isn't a "compelling interest" as far as Indiana lawmakers are concerned. Governor Pence was asked on TV this morning whether Indiana would consider adding sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws, and he said "no" in unequivocal terms. Governor Pence pointed out that Obama voted for an RFRA when he was an Illinois senator, but neglected to mention that unlike in Indiana, Illinois anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation. -k

Which dummies? The CEOs of corporations worth hundreds of millions (or billions in the case of Salesforce) of dollars? Those guys are dummies? I would think they know a bit about the issues of drawing talent to Indiana. The Cummins people said it's already an uphill climb to attract top engineers to the state. I have no doubt that CEOs are burdened by high taxes and regulations. We all are. Life would be pretty awesome if everybody could do whatever the hell they wanted and didn't have to pay any taxes. But that's not realistic. I don't have a problem with CEOs saying they want lower taxes or less regulations. I just object when they're given what they ask for at the expense of everybody else. I understand why the fertilizer plant in West, Texas wanted less regulation, I just think it's unfortunate that the lack of inspection resulted in the town getting turned into a crater, for example. I'm surprised that you of all people are so dismissive of what these CEOs are saying, however. When did your opinion of business leaders become so low? -k

It is short for "for fuddleduddle's sake", and it is an exclamation of exasperation. And after reading about you whining over the use of the word "normal" for 3 pages, apropos to nothing, I have become rather exasperated. -k

Well, first off I would point out that it's not 1993 anymore. Secondly, I would point out that it's not just liberals outraged over this, this time. That was one of the interesting things that prompted me to start this topic. It's not just activists who've come out against it, it's business interests. The CEO of Angie's List, for example, isn't a liberal. He's a Republican. He's so Republican that he ran the previous governor's election campaign. And he's not saying "I oppose this law because I'm pro-gay rights," he's saying "I oppose this law because it's bad for my company because it will make it harder for me to recruit professionals to come to Indiana." -k

Oh FFS calm down. I started this thread because I thought there was an interesting topic at hand, and you've derailed it with a bunch of P.C. whining over the semantics of the term "normal". Small C has clarified what he meant and I would ask that you let it go. You're not helping anything, you're just making yourself look shrill and irrational and cluttering up the thread with a bunch of drivel. -k

This week the state of Indiana stepped on a political landmine when they passed a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". A few years ago some baker got sued because she refused service to a lesbian couple who wanted a wedding cake, and since then a lot of states have come up with laws that will allow businesses to refuse service based on religious views. Supporters of these laws say they protect religious people from having to act against their conscience; opponents say they legalize discrimination. Indiana isn't the first state to come up with a law like this, but it's the first time that one of these laws has caused this degree of political fall-out. That's because this time, the criticism of the law isn't coming from the usual social activists, it's coming from business quarters. San Francisco-based software company Salesforce bought an Indiana-based company a few years ago and has in the neighborhood of 3000 employees in Indiana. Immediately after the law was signed by the governor, Salesforce announced that they will no longer be sending employees to Indiana for business, and put talk of expansioning their Indiana operations on hold. A burgeoning business in the conventions and hospitalities sector has been a key to economically reviving Indianapolis, but in wake of the law, the very large "Gen Con" gamer convention and a Disciples of Christ convention have both expressed plans to take future events out of Indiana. The Gen Con convention is contractually locked in to Indianapolis until 2020, and the Disciples of Christ convention isn't until 2017, so these aren't immediate threats. The NCAA and NFL have also announced plans to review locating upcoming events in Indiana. The "Angie's List" social networking and product reviews site has just canceled a planned Indianapolis expansion that was expected to bring 1000 jobs to the city. They are now looking at expanding outside the state instead. The reason isn't on moral grounds, it's about the Benjamins. "Angie's List" was to receive tax breaks on the expansion project in return for meeting job-creation benchmarks, and they believe that the law will hinder their recruiting efforts. Indiana-based Cummins, world-renowned maker of diesel engines, echoed the same concern: Basically, what it boils down to is that companies like Cummins and Salesforce and Angie's List need to attract educated young professionals. They're concerned that the RFRA makes Indiana sound like a redneck backwater, and young educated professionals don't want to move to a redneck backwater. (this is why no businesses were up in arms about the Arkansas RFRA, which also passed this week. No educated young professionals were planning on moving to Arkansas anyway.) Indianapolis businesses are now sticking up "This Business Serves EVERYONE" stickers in response to the RFRA. On Monday the Indianapolis city council is looking to pass a resolution denouncing the RFRA and proclaiming Indianapolis open to everyone. The city is trying to do damage control on a public relations disaster that was not of its own making. The RFRA was obviously brought in by legislators from rural parts of the state, but it is Indianapolis that will bear the economic fallout. -k

Caleb Moore, son of Alabama Chief Justice Judge Roy Moore, is a persecuted Christian! Earlier this year, a series of off-color Tweets was published, allegedly from Caleb. But Caleb claimed he never wrote those things and they must have been cut-and-pasted together by people trying to defame his family. The Tweets discuss topics like hoes, bitches, poon, and he refers to his friends as his "niggas". None of this is particularly out of the ordinary for a 24 year old man. Caleb concedes that a series of photos of Moore and "his niggas" stumbling drunk holding alcohol were indeed him. He also concedes that he did indeed him. And he admits that his earlier DUI and drug possession conviction was also him. "I did have a DUI," Moore said. "I do have a past I'm not very proud of. That's why God gives us salvation." He had changed his ways. As an executive director for his family's "Foundation for Moral Law" (FML for short! seriously! ) , one would anticipate Caleb to uphold a higher standard on both "moral" and "law". Just a month after explaining that he had found Salvation and changed his ways, Caleb Moore and "his niggas" were busted when police found a bag full of marijuana in their pickup truck. But Caleb says it's all a setup... a conspiracy of liberal media and crooked cops trying to destroy his family! Judge Moore is famous for his legal battle to keep a Ten Commandments monument outside the Alabama state justice building. And more recently he's famous for vowing to fight against gay marriage licenses in Alabama. And if it wasn't for that stuff, nobody would care what Caleb Moore is up to. Joe Biden basically invented the office of "drug czar," but his own son just got kicked out of the Navy for using cocaine. Judge Moore's son has two convictions and has broken half the commandments on that monument. Sarah Palin's family don't even need to be mentioned. Newt Gingrich says "how can I trust you if you don't pray?" but Newt has proven that he can't be trusted under any circumstances, what with the serial adultery and with leaving his campaign staff unpaid after his presidential primaries campaign. It seems like some people want to put themselves on a pedestal present themselves as moral authorities and tell strangers how to live, yet can't even hold their own kids or themselves to the standard they would push for everybody else. This is what grinds my gears. -k

Best Buy's is no better. They're becoming the brick-and-mortar show-room for shoppers to look at stuff they're just going to buy on the internet later on. -k

I never had trouble with hard selling extended warranties. "Would you like to buy the Product Prot--" "No." "Alright then." Maybe my Resting Bitch Face condition is a deterrent to that sort of thing, I don't know. Buy TVs at Sears? Seriously? Every time I look at what they're selling, it always seems like this year's prices for last year's products. I usually avoid going through Sears anyway; I'm usually worried that the water-damaged ceiling tiles will collapse and fall on me and shower me with mold and asbestos, or trip on the vines growing up through the rotting carpet. Sears is such a joke now. They won't have to close it, the store will just physically decompose on its own. -k

It's not bad optics. It's the optics he wants. He's already the Tea Party candidate of choice-- if you don't believe that, head over to Breitbart and check out the breathless coverage he's been receiving from that segment of the Republicans. He wants to expand his appeal by bringing in the evangelicals as well. While large numbers of moderates and liberals and independents in the US think that Liberty University is hilarious, that doesn't matter because none of those people will be voting in the Republican primaries. In the Republican primaries, there'll be two kinds of candidates. There'll be mainstream candidates (or "establishment" candidates in the opinion of the Tea Partyists)... guys like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. And there'll be the ultra-conservative favorites (or "grassroots" candidates, in the opinion of the Tea Party), guys like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and maybe Mike Huckabee if he decides to run again. And there'll also be guys like Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker who if they run will be trying to bridge the gap... courting the ultra-conservatives while trying to appear mainstream at the same time. So while it might be tempting to write off the ultraconservative segment as a fringe, keep in mind how the Republican nominations last time around. They didn't win, but they delayed Mitt Romney's victory for a long time, dragging out the campaigning and resulting in Romney having to keep trying to suck up to the far right wing when he should have been already nominated and trying to appeal to the independent voters. Last time, the ultraconservatives bounced around from Rick Perry to Herman Cain and finally settled on Rick Santorum. If they had been behind one candidate right from the start, they might have posed a serious threat to Romney. Cruz has to be thinking that if he can get the Tea Partyists and evangelical voters lined up behind his candidacy right from the start, he could establish right away that he could make it farther than Santorum did last time. So, long story short, launching his campaign at Liberty U is a direct appeal from Ted Cruz to evangelical voters. By this time next year, nobody is going to remember where he launched his campaign. -k

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/future-shop-closes-canadian-stores/article23677084/ While I'm not surprised that the two brands are being merged, I am a little surprised that they are merging under the Best Buy banner. Here in Kim City, at least, the Future Shop store is a busy place while the Best Buy has struggled to catch on. Future Shop is a long-established brand in Canada, while Best Buy is a tacky newcomer. I suspect my local Future Shop will be among the casualties. Kim City isn't that big, and the Best Buy and Future Shop are just a couple of blocks apart. -k