I'll intersperse my response to your comments.
Addressing the merits of the argument in favor of boycotting Indiana without
ad hominem, I'll ask if you would be so kind as to do the same. If you are intellectually honest and confident in your arguments, no more
ad hominem or other further fallacies will be required.
Ignorance is Not Bliss Wrote:
> Congratulations. You passed Right Wing Talking
> Points 101.
>
Intellectually sound arguments do NOT need
ad hominem.
> First, the bill supported by Democrats and signed
> by Clinton in 1993 pertained to the use of peyote
> by Native Americans in their religious ceremonies.
"Pertained" is a word that should be explained here. It is correct to say, as you do, that the federal RFRA did indeed "pertain" to peyote, if by "pertain" you mean in the sense that RFRA was a response to a Supreme Court ruling about "the use of peyote by Native Americans in their religious ceremonies."
However, federal RFRA was not at limited to just allowing "the use of peyote by Native Americans in their religious ceremonies." Instead, it excuses a religious person from compliance with a rule of general applicability if that person's practice of religion is "substantially burdened" by a rule unless "the government 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."(quoted from the federal RFRA)
You can see the full text of federal RFRA here
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B.
If you want to argue the merits, instead of simply another round of internet name-calling, I urge you to read federal RFRA, read the text of Indiana's RFRA law, compare them, and then report back as to why the Indiana law is so much worse.
> It was NOT intended to discriminate against
> anyone. Why do you people always ave to
> misrepresent the facts?
>
I certainly never said that federal RFRA was "intended to discriminate against
anyone."
I never misrepresented any facts and I challenge you to point to a fact that I misrepresented in that prior post and give a reputable cite to a contrary fact.
> Second, the Post publishes commentaries from
> people across the political spectrum - unlike it's
> conservative counterparts. It does not mean that
> they agree with their viewpoint.
>
Since my prior post did not include any statement favorable or unfavorable about the Post or any statement that the Post editorial page agrees with some viewpoint, your comments here are not relevant to my arguments. Maybe you intended to address those comments to someone who posted after me and who commented about WashPost political leanings?
> Third, the Indiana law is considered to be much
> more sweeping in it's application than the other
> state laws (although they too are suspect). This
> law has nothing to do with 'religious freedom' and
> everything to do with discrimination.
What in the text of the law makes it more sweeping? Here is Virginia's law
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title57/chapter1/section57-2.02/ and a key portion quoted below:
B. No government entity shall substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is (i) essential to further a compelling governmental interest and (ii) the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
As I understand it, Indiana's law lays out the same general test, a substantial burden rule must pass the same two prong test. Why is Indiana more sweeping?
You do say that the other state RFRA laws "are suspect." I do agree that the RFRA laws in the 19 other states (and the ten or so other states that have a similar religious exemption by judicial rulings) would likely be objectionable to you and those who agree with you. This just makes my key point from my prior post:
Should we boycott only Indiana or also boycott
the other 19 states, including Virginia,
that have passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act
("RFRA") law? What about the ten or so states
where court decisions have provided a religious
exemption equivalent to RFRA? What about
boycotting the whole USA since the feds passed a
version of federal RFRA in 1993? [end quote from my prior post]
> Observations
> from CNN...
>
> "And standing behind Pence as he signed the bill
> were several socially conservative lobbyists, the
> ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely
> opposed to same-sex marriage.
>
> One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly
> wrote on his website that the law would protect
> businesses from participating in "homosexual
> marriage."
>
> "The only reason these laws have passed is because
> of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that,"
> Toobin said. The political calculation that states
> are going to have to make is, is the reward from
> the religious groups greater than the cost in lost
> business."
To the extent that the quoted lobbyist is accurate about the law, it still doesn't show that the law is different than the 19 other state RFRA laws or the federal RFRA law.
Basically the argument here is that "the bad guys [i.e., from your standpoint] supported this Indiana RFRA so it must be bad." Might be a valid argument for your side being against the law on its merits, but did you guys drop the ball by not opposing RFRA in the 19 other states and the federal RFRA? Those same alleged bad guys or similar guys in the other states supported those other RFRA laws.
Is there a real problem with discrimination in those other 19 states with RFRA or with the federal RFRA?
>
> The only way you right wing nuts can pass
> legislation anymore is to pretend that it's not
> what it is. Grow some balls and own it, you
> dipshits.
Intellectually sound arguments do NOT need
ad hominem.
I'll respect your point of view and argue in a civil fashion. Since junior high is a distant memory for me, name-calling is not amusing. I'll ask you to kindly reciprocate.