NationStates

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:56 pm**

Gauthier wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:
I guess jim should have thought it through. although Colorado did recently rule that you don't have to make hateful cakes. that might pertain. otherwise as long as these virulent Nazis can behave themselves politely I guess that poor jim is going to have to abide by his "we'll make anything you want" policy and just be happy that it wasn't a cake of a woman peeing while holding a Nazi flag.

It'll be a swastika cake made entirely of bacon. With a tiny replica of Auschwitz on top.

poor jim is gonna get skewered by his own policy. I guess he will have to shut down and re-open with a rational cake-making policy.

damn those polite Nazis!

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:01 pm**

Ashmoria wrote:
Patridam wrote:
I was pointing out the unfairness of forcing someone to participate/contribute to a cause counter to their own beliefs. A Jew being legally bound to support a Nazi event seemed a decent enough comparison to a fundamentalist christian being legally bound to support a gay marriage event.

ya but "jim" wouldn't be supporting the event. he would be making a nice profit off people too stupid to realize that they are supporting a jewish baker.

You statist! Forcing Jim to make a profit!

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:42 pm**

Arkansas now has an RFRA law.

Because Hutchinson asked for changes near the end of the legislative session, the deadline had passed for a new bill to be filed. To amend the bill, legislators took two other bills with similar titles, stripped the original text and wrote the needed amendments. One of the bills used had originally had been filed for the purpose to protect Arkansans from Sharia law.

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:45 pm**

Ailiailia wrote:Arkansas now has an RFRA law.

Because Hutchinson asked for changes near the end of the legislative session, the deadline had passed for a new bill to be filed. To amend the bill, legislators took two other bills with similar titles, stripped the original text and wrote the needed amendments. One of the bills used had originally had been filed for the purpose to protect Arkansans from Sharia law.

It's funny when states with no realistic probability of a Muslim majority, much less a fundamentalist Muslim majority in their government are so scared of Sharia law they have to pre-emptively ban them.

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:43 am**

Gauthier wrote:
Ailiailia wrote:Arkansas now has an RFRA law.

It's funny when states with no realistic probability of a Muslim majority, much less a fundamentalist Muslim
majority in their government are so scared of Sharia law they have to pre-emptively ban them.

It's very silly.
I'm guessing it didn't actually become a law though.

These are the droids you're looking for.

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:20 am**

Gauthier wrote:It's funny when states with no realistic probability of a Muslim majority, much less a fundamentalist Muslim majority in their government are so scared of Sharia law they have to pre-emptively ban them.

It certainly seems silly now, but honestly who knows what the majority will be in America in 75-100 years. It looks like Hispanics will displace non-Hispanic Caucasians as the ethno-racial majority within the next 20-30 years, and I'm certain no one would've foreseen that in 1930.

It's very silly.
I'm guessing it didn't actually become a law though.

These are the droids you're looking for.

So it's just a ten commandments monument on government property? Are people up in arms about this law, too?

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:37 am**

Gauthier wrote:
Ailiailia wrote:Arkansas now has an RFRA law.

It's funny when states with no realistic probability of a Muslim majority, much less a fundamentalist Muslim majority in their government are so scared of Sharia law they have to pre-emptively ban them.

Religion always gives people reasons to act like assholes.

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:44 am**

RFRA's are fine with an anti-discrimination clause or another law that cancels out the potential defence, such as in Illinois.

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:50 am**

Kelinfort wrote:RFRA's are fine with an anti-discrimination clause or another law that cancels out the potential defence, such as in Illinois.

In other words, they're usually not fine. Four states by my count.

The Black Forrest wrote:ACLU has a map.

https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimin ... mation-map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... #State_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Reli ... with_RFRAs

Combined:

States in green have RFRA's and also laws against discrimination on the basis of sexuality/gender identity.

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 9:03 am**

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/ ... Act975.pdf

Text of Arkansas's new law. It's a standard restatement of the Federal RFRA, preventing state or local governments from burdening religious expression. Not a big deal.

News reports say the governor signed it. According to the record though it took him 4 days (edit: 2 days plus a weekend).

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:37 pm**

Ailiailia wrote:<snip>

I don't think its fair to consider states that haven't legalized gay marriage as being discriminatory.

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:54 pm**

Gauthier wrote:
Ailiailia wrote:Arkansas now has an RFRA law.

It's funny when states with no realistic probability of a Muslim majority, much less a fundamentalist Muslim majority in their government are so scared of Sharia law they have to pre-emptively ban them.

What makes it silly is sometimes you need to apply Sharia law in American courts. Say a married couple divorces in Saudi Arabia under sharia law concepts there. Later there is property dispute in the US the court would need to ascertain if they are in fact legally divorced.

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:56 pm**

Patridam wrote:
Ailiailia wrote:<snip>

I don't think its fair to consider states that haven't legalized gay marriage as being discriminatory.

….why?

NationStates

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act