Twilight Sparkle is being sent to Ponyville to learn about friendship. She's not happy about it.
Letters From A Disgruntled Friendship Student
by milesprower06
Hiatus Bonus Chapter
Racial Freedom Restoration Act Passed
FOAL FREE PRESS
NEW PONYVILLE LAW GRANTS RACIAL FREEDOM TO BUSINESS OWNERS
Today, Princess Twilight signed a controversial bill behind closed doors that proponents claim will bring racial freedom to business owners of Ponyville. In laypony's terms, a business owner can refuse service to a customer on racial and religious grounds. The bill has been highly controversial.
"SB101? More like BS101," offered resident farmer Caramel, one of the ponies opposed to the bill's passing.
"This isn't about discrimination. This new bill will allow ponies to run their businesses without compromising their religious beliefs," Princess Twilight defended.
Opponents still claim the bill is too broad, claiming many will use it for discriminatory purposes.
"No wings, no horns, no service!" Was the main chant outside the Friendship Castle by satirical protesters.
"Oh please. Whenever a unicorn mentions freedom of religion, they really mean Celestianity." claimed Lyra Heartstrings, leader of the Denomination of Anthropomorphic Believers.
Page generated in 0.036 seconds
Total duration
654 users online
785,685 hits today, 2,591,549 yesterday
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Fanfiction
Designed and coded by knighty & Xaquseg - © 2011-2024
Support us
SubStar
Chat!
Discord
Follow us
Twitter
MLP: Friendship is Magic® - © 2024 Hasbro Inc.®
Fimfiction is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Hasbro Inc.®
What in the F@#k is this one about?
5791372
It's about this steaming pile of horseapples.
Yeah, we're all impatient for season 5 to start.
5791391
Please, please tell me this is some bad joke. This is someone playing the biggest 'You got punked' prank of all time. This can't, can-f**king-not be a real thing.
No!!! You don't understand, in order to have religious freedoms, i have to be allowed to discriminate!
After all, it's not like when I started a business I purchased a business license that said I was subject to anti-discrimination laws or anything.
/sarcasm
5791400
I wish it were a joke...
That is a lot of chapters
5791405 If it's any consolation, an up-and-coming tech company is already pulling out of the state in response, and it's likely to encourage others to do the same.
Seriously. I don't even. I am out of evens.
5791515 You mean Salesforce? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they a Fortune 500 company? If so, that is waaay past up-and-coming.
Do not worry, everyone. Mistress Princess Twilight Sparkle has assured me that it is none of my business and I should stop thinking and start cleaning or she will break my fucking teeth. So there is nothing to worry about in Ponyville. However, the human world sure has gone to pot.
~KBO.
5791515
Yeah, I saw that. While I applaud them for taking a stand, I don't know that a boycott's gonna do a whole lot of good, TBH. These days, it's kind of a knee-jerk reaction to developments you don't like, and I don't think the message would get across to the Neanderthals who perpetrated this farce. They're likely to find some convenient scapegoat to blame and take other regressive actions against to make up the shortfall. (e.g., slashing education funds to thumb their noses at the evil, water-fluoridating Teacher's unions, 'cause every patriot worth his salt knows that book-learnin' leads to homosexuality. )
5791391 That's putting it lightly, it's an insult to everything this country stands for and would make our founding fathers cringe in disgust and disappointment.
5791394 Patience my friend, patience. Exactly one week from today, it'll all be over.
Twilight at this rate is going to leave Discord without work, almost everypony hate her and now is making 'legal chaos' in Ponyville.
I would love to start a business there which discriminated against only bigots. And I'd put a hella big sign out front saying that, too.
Gotta admit, I'm ok with the bill. I think business owners should have the right to refuse service for any reason, especially in an age where information can be spread in an intant. If business owners use it to be discrimatory, people will hear about it and those that disagree will avoid it and buy from competitors. This gives individuals control over their futures, it also helps those who want to get into the market. If a resturant actively bans gays, then I know starting a resturant that supports gays will have a whole market that other resturant is missing out on, giving me the advantage. Plus, it will cost those who discriminate, and they will have to make the choice of losing customers or keeping their biases.
5791544
So, too my understanding, I can practice my faith and personal ideals freely, as long as it coincides within the boundaries of another person's personal views and expectations of those within power. So just make sure that you're own religion and personal preferences don't conflict with others and you'll be perfectly fine. Please pass the industrial brain bleach, extra strength.
5791625 You'd think so, but if the common opinion is that it's ok to discriminate, or just too indifferent to do a boycott, then the business won't experience enough losses to stop them from discriminating.
What that legalese says, boiled down, is "Towns are not allowed to pass their own anti-discrimination measures because anyone at all can claim that their religion requires them to discriminate."
5791609
So what you're saying is that you're ok with discrimination, as long as it's against people you don't like? That's a curious stance to take. I'm not really sure how it's different from the stance of the people you say you oppose, save presumably for the targets of your ire.
Me, I think that a business should be able to refuse service to anyone at all, for any reason or none. If you can be compelled to provide a service against your will... what kind of freedom is that? The whole point of a market is voluntary exchange of goods or services. Key word: voluntary.
5791744
Wow were to even began...
Because, you know, a law that allows for something to not be illegal is somehow not the same as making it legal. (Really?)
Laws in this country tell you what you can't do. That's why there is a law that says it's illegal to murder, because otherwise it would be legal.
I'll give you that this is great legalize. but the net effect is allowing someone to NOT provide goods and services for compensation to someone if it violates their 'sincerely held religious beliefs' This is a great cover statement for discrimination. You can call it whatever you want.
Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Marketing it as something else and then hiding behind 'sincerely held religious beliefs' does not somehow make a turd not a turd.
You're directly referring to this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Guess what, Freedoms (Even these) are not absolute. You cannot yell fire in a crowded room. You cannot talk about assassinating the president. and you cannot hide behind your religion to justify providing goods and services to one group of people and not another.
Additional defense for what? Be SPECIFIC HERE. You know the answer and so do I.
Market it however you want. I don't care what the law says I care what it does. WHAT THE NET EFFECT IS.
A rose under any other name, a turd under any other name.
This law is a pathetic attempt to provide a legal defense for those who choose to discriminate. In the end it will be challenged in court for years and be found unconstitutional. Costing the state millions, and for what? You said yourself there is already a law like this on the books. (How many gun laws do we need? How many religious freedom laws do we need?)
5791820
So in your view it's discriminatory to discriminate against those who discriminate. I'd argue that 'thats' the only acceptable kind.
The kind you willing agreed to surrender when you opened a PUBLIC BUSINESS. (Anti-discriminatory laws applied to you the moment you applied for a license to operate said business.) You agreed to follow said laws when you applied for the license. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Don't like it? You have two options of the top of my head.
A. Don't open said business
B. Open a PRIVATE business.
5791900
The principle is the same: "deny goods and services to people I don't like". The only difference is that you nominally oppose this principle, and therefore seek to apply it only to "bigots". It's hypocrisy at its finest.
If you claim that it is morally incumbent on business owners to provide their wares to any and all without any kind of discrimination, then it is logically morally incumbent on you to do likewise. If you claim it is acceptable to deny goods and services to people based on their holding of certain opinions, well then, we're just negotiating what thoughts one is allowed to think, aren't we? Either you must claim that all kinds of discrimination are immoral, or else claim that certain groups can be discriminated against without compromising morality. If the latter, then said groups can naturally apply the same principle in their own dealings/
I claim it is acceptable to deny service to anyone for any reason, and that any law contrary to this is immoral.
5791930
Ahh, the old it's immoral to not be allowed to be immoral argument. Even if it is, it's hypocritical to call out their immorality when you're being immoral.
Yeah, no.
The only way we ensure the freedoms for all is by ensuring everyone has to be treated equally. We have to do this because we left it up to people to act morally and THEY DIDN'T.
You seem to be for 'Discrimination for all'
How about Discrimination for none. Everyone is equal to everyone else. Again, if you don't like it you don't have to do it. But you cannot open a public business. Them's the breaks.
5791950
Everyone is not equal to everyone else. That is transparently obvious from the most basic of observations. Some are smarter, dumber, shorter, taller, milder, wilder, stronger, weaker, etc. To deny this is to deny reality. In the practice of law, equality simply means that all are bound to the same laws and subject to the same legal sanctions for breaking them. There is no right whatsoever to the same principle applying to non-governmental entities. In practice, of course, equality under the law doesn't exist, never has, and never will. It's a fine ideal though.
To put this very simply: you have no right under any circumstances to the goods or services of anyone else unless there is a voluntary exchange or transfer of these assets. Prior to any such transaction, you have no right to anything they have or may wish to sell. Period. No one can be morally obliged to do business with you under any circumstances. Your feelings on the matter mean nothing whatsoever.
Further, the government has no legitimate role in legislating morality, and should never be allowed to do so. It is rather amusing to note, however, that both you and your opponents agree that morality should be socially legislated and forcibly imposed. You simply disagree on what it should be.
Why do you hate freedom of association?
5791980
I love Reductio ad absurdum arguments
They so easily go both ways.
Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence?
Of course it was a Republican who did this. I'm not even American and I know those guys are a bunch of bigots The article I read said that it was the 20th state to put in such legislation. I'd bet good money they are all Republican states. The sooner America eliminates all Republicans the better.
5791996
Lovely ideal. Shame it isn't true, and never has been.
But look, I'll make this simple for you: if you hold it to be morally just to use democratic means to legislate your morality onto society, then it logically acceptable for your opponents to do the same. Turnabout is fair play. So long as they have the means - and, from the looks of this, they do.
Either accept a simple principle of governmental noninterference in issues of public morality, or else expect your opposition to fight back via the same legal channels. Don't start a brawl if you're not prepared for your opponent to punch you back.
Yeah I'm getting tired of parodying news. Honestly I thought we could be political neutral.
Also how many of you dehumanize someone who doesn't agree with you? All of you. Now then shut up about this because honesty I care less about these laws.
Now then the fact this thing seems almost like a propaganda piece.
No soup for you!
5792017
How very open-minded and tolerant of you.
5792084 Sorry, it's just hard to tolerate those who don't tolerate others. After seeing a bunch of crap the Republicans have done, well I guess this shouldn't surprise me. Also, when I said eliminate them, I meant the party, not the people in it.
Also, how does this law even work, isn't there suppose to be a seperation of church and state?
5792114
Does not compute.
According to the worst possible interpretation of this, they wish to give their constituents the right to deny business to others based on their religious convictions. You have just expressed the wish to eliminate roughly half the nation altogether. The cognitive dissonance here is truly stunning.
And saying that you were speaking of the party doesn't work either, because it has millions of members who support it and make it what it is. If it were somehow disbanded, a new political party would immediately appear to soak up all those voters. So that would do nothing more than inconvenience them somewhat. Either you didn't think this through very well, or you are attempting to dissimulate vis-a-vis the intent of your earlier statement.
5792114
Not to rain on your parade, but the republican party were the ones who emancipated the slaves, fought against Jim Crow laws instituted by Democrats, and desegregated schools (though admittedly Democrat states that had segregation, both parties voted to desegregate).
5792135
Yep, up until the early 1960s, the Republicans were the party with the most-forward-minded racial policies.
Gee, I wonder what happened?
5792180
They still are, Democrat policies are still extremely divisive especially on racial and sexual lines. Republicans just started doing what the Democrats did, which is impose a belief on others. Democrats impose the idea of equality of outcome, while Republicans impose a moral system. Can't say Republicans still stand for their original small government/individual liberty beginnings, but calling them racist is unfair.
5792134 Ah Crap, you have a point there. Really should think these things through more. Seriously though, isn't this a breech of the seperation of church and state?
5792235
How is giving private citizens the right to discretion in their own businesses a violation of said separation? If anything, the state imposing itself onto business owners who do not wish to engage in certain transactions for religious reasons is a violation of that.
I hold to the simple principle that man's goods are his to do with as he wishes, and no one has any right to force him to engage in any business transaction whatsoever. And I would note to all aspiring thought police out there: if the state can force someone else to engage in a transaction to which they do not consent, it can do the same to you. I always find it very amusing that no one ever seems to see that coming.
A good Jim Wright rant is always fun.
5792235 Tecnically speaking, no. If I, hypotetically speaking, owned a business, and refused to attend christians because I'm an atheist, and the government doesn't let me do so, but lets christian do the same thing in reverse, then it would be breaching the separation of church and state.
5792245 5792199 5791744 Its different from "violation of separation of church and state" in the same way that "intelligent design" is different from "Christian Creationism":
It isn't.
As has been demonstrated repeatedly by this modern version of the republican party (which in effect is just the labels of (Southern) Democrat and (Lincoln) Republican of the civil War era switched--- ie: notice how it's still the Bible Belt, regardless of the party name, that is the relied-upon voter block), it's practice is intended for Christian 'law' and discrimination.
[youtube=bDlT1OMGD28]
Additionally, that it IS "By Christians, For Christians, at the expense of others"--- well, a regular Panic Button the Christian/Republican party leans on is the fear of Sharia Law/Muslims/et al establishing itself in the US...
prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/osama-bin-bush.jpg
On top of the fact that The God of Abraham of Judism is the God of Abraham of Christianity is the god of Abraham of Islam, yet said Panic Buttion use on, for example, Republicans (still) saying Obama "is" Muslim and fear implementation of Sharia Law, even though the letters of those religious laws (ahem, Timothy; the letter of the law you claim makes that bill not discriminatory in any way or possibility--- and if you're not disputing that this bill "may" be used as such: then isn't it better that it be struck down, taken out back, and given the Ol' Yeller Treatment, if not the moral obligation to do so, until that bill-- and the society that enacts it-- are changed into a form that will not abuse it?) are highly congruent: kill the gays, don't eat this, leave no enemy unconverted/alive, that the spirit of the law is blatantly of factions of what're nearly the same religion making personal power grabs.
Again, nevermind "Democrat" -- Civil-war era Southern or modern Liberals -- and "Republican" -- with Unionist northerner Lincolin being the first Republican President or Dubyuh and mike Pence-- just ask the simple question: "Who are these people doing this bullshit?"
Rich white socially-conservative Christians who will benefit.
ie: Southern plantation owners who fought for "state's rights *coughtokeepslavescough*", or Christians for "Religious freedom *coughChristianityistheonlytruereligioneverythingelseisSatanthereforeitonlyappliestoChristianityallotherswillgotoHellsowhynotmakeitHellonearthforthemrightnow?cough*"
Considering this involve politics, a sensitive topic, and apparently religion and race, I think, two even more sensitive topics, I'm not touching THIS with a ten foot pole for my own safety.
5792329
If you're making claims as to the similarity of Christianity and Islam, as an historian I suggest you do a little studying of both history and systemic theology before you state such things so confidently. Because you seem like yet another historically-ignorant ass to me.
In any case, I've already established that I believe in the right of anyone to refuse to do business with anyone else for any reason whatsoever. And I don't much care who's precious little feelings get hurt by it.
5792022 When has it ever been 'fair play' or equal means? Certainly not in terms of money, and control over a voting block that takes the word from the pulpit and the politician equally.
5792411 You mean how they have the same god, the same ideals, a running parallel bloody history, periods as scientifically influential social groups that fell to suspect individuals who codified their respective religion into bronze-age throwbacks--- in the case of Islam, scholars like like Hamid Al-Ghazali, 1058-1111 CE, hmm?
Please, do tell.
Then you acknowledge that it goes both ways, that people can refuse to do business with christian business owners included, or refuse to vote for christian politicians included, and if they get their precious religion's feelings (as well as their profits) hurt ... well, as you say: "Turnabout is fair play."
5792308 Ah, that's a good point.
Season 5 is now one week away. About how long do you think the chapter about the first episode will be?
I'm actually from Indiana and I was born there.. I'm a closeted bisexual and I'm 15 years old.. Part of me is actually outraged and embarrassed to call myself hoosier now. Another part of me thinks that I should not be going through this now because i'm a freshmen in highschool now. I should be worried about going to college and other stuff.. The latter, I'm ignoring.
But in other words, this chapter made my day!
Like the chapter about the transexual boy who wanted to be a girl, this was not as funny as it should have been. What ever happened to reserving the right to refuse service? Your business, your money, your decision?