Indiana's 'Religious Freedom Bill'

[Fanatical Meat]

Because if I were a black person, it would personally offend me to facilitate in any way the lifestyle of a klansman.

A klans man is not going to want to pay a black baker nor eat a cake cooked by a black baker. Again this law addresses a practically non existent problem.

 

[Atreus21]

Okay, so you're fine with the government forcing people to perform economic transactions then.

Very few, insofar as they are deemed necessary, yes.

Since you're fine with that in principle, why are you fine with the government forcing people to perform economic transactions with insurance companies but not fine with the government forcing people to perform economic transactions with black or gay people?

I know that sounds unfair, but that's seriously what your argument is.

For one, because there's a need to require people or companies to purchase insurance. It protects the consumer in the event of a trade made in bad faith. I don't see people proudly rejecting services to gays. What I do see is bakers or photographers refusing to provide one specific service: attending a gay wedding. That doesn't strike me as a dire threat for which government involvement is needed.

Part of my problem with this, in my opinion, is that liberals seem to think that there are multitudes of Christians lurking around every corner, pining to disenfranchise gays in any way they can, who are held in check only by the righteous arm of the law. I don't know any Christian in my family or friends who act like this.

It was a simple way of saying what the law says. More specifically it says if you serve the public you can't deny service based on membership in a protected class.

I'm not debating legalities. I'm debating the morality of forcing people to violate their consciences.

No it doesn't. You cannot force a company to speak in a way you want (1st amendment).

You can still force them to engage in commerce. (not protected by the 1st amendment).

Yet you can force a company to act in contravention to reasonable religious convictions?

Because that's simply not how they are defined under the law. For a general explanation of what is, read here:

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enfo.../discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html

Again, I'm not arguing the law. In this case I'm saying that in principle there's no difference between a brick-and-mortar company which sells pencils, and me selling my labor. We're both selling products or services to anyone who wants them, with some conditions.

 

[senseamp]

To counter that, the state senator who authored the bill is the owner of one of the largest ice machine distributors in Indiana and several companies have told him to come and get his machines. He will likely lose MILLIONS.

"Religious Freedom" isn't Free

 

[shira]

No, they shouldn't. That's not tolerance. That's unreasonable coercion. You shouldn't be forced to trade with someone who hates your guts.

What's the difference between being required to provide service to - on the one hand - someone who's a member of a protected class that hates you, and - on the other hand - someone who's a member of a protected class that you hate?

 

[Atreus21]

I understand that viewpoint, but it is hard for me to reconcile the double standard.

It's reconciled by allowing people freedom of conscience. It's coercive and cruel to force people to engage in such a trade.

 

[senseamp]

Your imaginary friends shouldn't exempt you from real world laws.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It's coercive and cruel to force people to engage in such a trade.

It's coercive and cruel to force people to accept that there are people in this country who don't share every single one of their beliefs? If you can't rationalize having to deal with all members of the public then you shouldn't be operating a business in the first place since the law doesn't allow infants to incorporate.

 

[Atreus21]

What's the difference between being required to provide service to - on the one hand - someone who's a member of a protected class that hates you, and - on the other hand - someone who's a member of a protected class that you hate?

I'm not sure I see a difference.

 

[Atreus21]

It's coercive and cruel to force people to accept that there are people in this country who don't share every single one of their beliefs? If you can't rationalize having to deal with all members of the public then you shouldn't be operating a business in the first place since the law doesn't allow infants to incorporate.

Are you kidding? Every opposition to gay marriage is labeled a hate group. CEOs get fired. Whole states boycotted. The coach of a freaking NCAA basketball team excoriated because he failed to get in line.

And we're the ones who have a hard time coming to grips with differences of opinion?

 

[fskimospy]

Very few, insofar as they are deemed necessary, yes.

For one, because there's a need to require people or companies to purchase insurance. It protects the consumer in the event of a trade made in bad faith. I don't see people proudly rejecting services to gays. What I do see is bakers or photographers refusing to provide one specific service: attending a gay wedding. That doesn't strike me as a dire threat for which government involvement is needed.

Part of my problem with this, in my opinion, is that liberals seem to think that there are multitudes of Christians lurking around every corner, pining to disenfranchise gays in any way they can, who are held in check only by the righteous arm of the law. I don't know any Christian in my family or friends who act like this.

The south not so long ago showed us why equal access to public accommodations is important, which is why these laws are in place.

I'm not debating legalities. I'm debating the morality of forcing people to violate their consciences.

Yet you can force a company to act in contravention to reasonable religious convictions?

I've searched the bible very thoroughly and I can't for the life of me find any part of it or any other Christian theology where it says you cannot sell a cake to a gay person if they might eat it at a wedding.

Religious beliefs do not exempt a business from generally applicable regulation though, no. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring equal access to public accommodations, and a religious objection to certain protected classes does not change that. Even the Hobby Lobby ruling, despite being utterly insane, rested on the text of the federal RFRA, not any constitutional right to exempt yourself from generally applicable laws on a constitutional level.

Again, I'm not arguing the law. In this case I'm saying that in principle there's no difference between a brick-and-mortar company which sells pencils, and me selling my labor. We're both selling products or services to anyone who wants them, with some conditions.

In both the law and in principle there is a large difference. You aren't a public accommodation.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you kidding? Every opposition to gay marriage is labeled a hate group. CEOs get fired. Whole states boycotted. The coach of a freaking NCAA basketball team excoriated because he failed to get in line.

And we're the ones who have a hard time coming to grips with things?

Who would you consider as having trouble coming to grips with racial equality, the people who might fire an individual for being a member of the KKK, or the KKK?

I am aware of no rational arguments as to why the government should bar gay weddings or why individuals should not bake cakes for gay weddings, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Again, prop 8 lost on rational basis grounds in court. That never happens. What that basically means is that the court found that people holding that opinion are nuts.

 

[CitizenKain]

Part of my problem with this, in my opinion, is that liberals seem to think that there are multitudes of Christians lurking around every corner, pining to disenfranchise gays in any way they can, who are held in check only by the righteous arm of the law. I don't know any Christian in my family or friends who act like this.

I mean, there are only countless attempts by Christians who are doing exactly that in recent years that have only been stopped by the law. I'm sure there are multiple people in your circle of family and friends who support it though.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Are you kidding? Every opposition to gay marriage is labeled a hate group. CEOs get fired. Whole states boycotted. The coach of a freaking NCAA basketball team excoriated because he failed to get in line.

And we're the ones who have a hard time coming to grips with things?

You're the ones choosing your hill to die on over the unthinkable crime of forcing a baker to sell cakes without considering the sexuality of the person they're selling to. You're the ones trying to make it legal for states to find ways to legally disenfranchise undesirable individuals by mirroring, in what has evolved almost to the level of satirical performance art but for it's complete tone-deaf lack of awareness, the civil rights struggles of blacks in the 1960s. So, yeah, you're the ones having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that there are gays out there, and they're not going anywhere, and they form pair bonds and raise children and go antiquing in much the same way "normal" folk do, but apparently treating them with even a shred of dignity or respect violates your covenant with an eternal loving and forgiving God, because you're either too stupid to know what those words mean or your interpretation of religion is a matter of convenience to reflect your own internal prejudices that have nothing to do with what's contained in the Bible. Either way the government shouldn't kowtow to your willful ignorance, no matter how proud you may be of it, because it's detrimental to a free society to let intolerance drive public policy regardless of what form it takes.

 

[HomerJS]

Are you kidding? Every opposition to gay marriage is labeled a hate group. CEOs get fired. Whole states boycotted. The coach of a freaking NCAA basketball team excoriated because he failed to get in line.

And we're the ones who have a hard time coming to grips with differences of opinion?

Damn dude! You really want to go back to this don't you

After all its just a difference of opinion

 

[Atreus21]

I mean, there are only countless attempts by Christians who are doing exactly that in recent years that have only been stopped by the law. I'm sure there are multiple people in your circle of family and friends who support it though.

Who?

 

[Atreus21]

Damn dude! You really want to go back to this don't you

After all its just a difference of opinion

Yes, my precious. I so badly want that. My and fellow cadre of conservatives desire so fervently to restore society to its rightful status, where blacks are kept subservient, women in the kitchen, lawns neatly cut, and white men privileged. It's so TEMPTING. I want it so, so badly.

But, goddammit, the liberals. They're just so...clever. Crafty. Heroic. They see through our every machination!

Jesus Christ.

 

[FerrelGeek]

A person does not practice homosexuality. It is not a musical instrument. Do you practice hetrosexuality? Do you say you dislike people who practice red hair but not gingers?

One is or is not homosexual. Saying that one does not like homosexuality IS saying that someone does not like homosexuals.

Wrong. This is the problem with many today. They are incapable of distinguishing between approval and acceptance, which is the essence of true tolerance.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Lol...According to this article, the First Church of Cannabis will be arguing for their rights under the new law.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/...ns-the-door-for-the-first-church-of-cannabis/

Church founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that the church’s registration has been approved, writing, “Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana – “Congratulations your registration has been approved!” Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health.”
...
According to Indiana attorney and political commentator Abdul-Hakim Shabazz, Indiana legislators, in their haste to protect the religious values and practices of their constituents, may have unwittingly put the state in an awkward position with those who profess to smoke pot as a religious sacrament.
...
“So, with that said, what ‘compelling interest’ would the state of Indiana have to prohibit me from using marijuana as part of my religious practice?” he asked. ” I would argue marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and wine used in religious ceremonies. Marijuana isn’t anymore ‘addictive’ than alcohol and wine is used in some religious ceremonies. And marijuana isn’t any more of a ‘gateway’ drug than the wine used in a religious ceremony will make you go out any buy hard liquor. (At least not on Sunday.)”

 

[HomerJS]

Yes, my precious. I so badly want that. My and fellow cadre of conservatives desire so fervently to restore society to its rightful status, where blacks are kept subservient, women in the kitchen, lawns neatly cut, and white men privileged. It's so TEMPTING. I want it so, so badly.

But, goddammit, the liberals. They're just so...clever. Crafty. Heroic. They see through our every machination!

Jesus Christ.

Love an honest conservative

 

[realibrad]

Wrong. This is the problem with many today. They are incapable of distinguishing between approval and acceptance, which is the essence of true tolerance.

You are not understanding the words you are using.

If you accept

believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct.

If you approve

officially agree to or accept as satisfactory.

If you accept, you approve of the person. If you approve of the person you accept the person.

What you are trying to say, is that you don't like what is inherent to people, but you would not stop them. You also seem to think that you can dissuade someone from having homosexual relations buy not interacting with the person.

 

[alzan]

It's reconciled by allowing people freedom of conscience. It's coercive and cruel to force people to engage in such a trade.

Coercive and cruel? Appeal to emotion much?

A person wants a wedding cake and is willing to pay the listed price, your shop sells wedding cakes. What the hell is coercive and cruel about that?

 

[realibrad]

Coercive and cruel? Appeal to emotion much?

A person wants a wedding cake and is willing to pay the listed price, your shop sells wedding cakes. What the hell is coercive and cruel about that?

The coercion happens when you tell someone that they have to sell to the customer or else face legal action. Because the legal system is enforced by force, its literally true to say coercion. Most would try and say its not, but truly it is. Its just that most people think coercion means something else.

 

[realibrad]

I've searched the bible very thoroughly and I can't for the life of me find any part of it or any other Christian theology where it says you cannot sell a cake to a gay person if they might eat it at a wedding.

Its right next to the part about clergy should perform marriages...

 

[alzan]

The coercion happens when you tell someone that they have to sell to the customer or else face legal action. Because the legal system is enforced by force, its literally true to say coercion. Most would try and say its not, but truly it is. Its just that most people think coercion means something else.

If you run a public accommodation business you get certain government benefits for which you agree, among other things, to serve the public. Coercion not found.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Has anyone ever made a stink about making a wedding cake for a 2nd marriage?