Indiana's 'Religious Freedom Bill'

[moonbogg]

I don't agree with tricky conservatives trying to fool us into allowing discrimination. But I also don't think there needs to be a law that tells them who they MUST do business with. They should be able to refuse service to anyone they want and on any grounds. They can then be picketed, roasted on social media and boycotted. No laws needed.

 

[Patranus]

Should a homosexual owned bakery should be legally compelled to cater any WBC protests even when those protests are against homosexuals? As refusing to do so would be discriminating against the WBC based on their religion?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Should a homosexual owned bakery should be legally compelled to cater any WBC protests even when those protests are against homosexuals? As refusing to do so would be discriminating against the WBC based on their religion?

Yes, provided they offer catering services to any other protests. You can draw the line at having a "God hates f*gs" message written on the cake, since the baker could reasonably claim they don't decorate cakes with profanity or whatever, but they shouldn't be allowed to refuse the WBC order just because they disagree with their religious views.

 

[Patranus]

Yes, provided they offer catering services to any other protests. You can draw the line at having a "God hates f*gs" message written on the cake, since the baker could reasonably claim they don't decorate cakes with profanity or whatever, but they shouldn't be allowed to refuse the WBC order just because they disagree with their religious views.

Just for clarification, you believe that the government should both criminally and civilly require a homosexual owned bakery which offers catering to attend a protest by the WBC disparaging of the homosexual lifestyle/marriage/ect?

That seems pretty fucked up.

Would you say the same thing if the KKK got religious 501c3 recognition and they requested a african-american owned bakery to cater a clan rally?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just for clarification, you believe that the government should both criminally and civilly require a homosexual owned bakery which offers catering to attend a protest by the WBC disparaging of the homosexual lifestyle/marriage/ect?

That seems pretty fucked up.

Would you say the same thing if the KKK got religious 501c3 recognition and they requested a african-american owned bakery to cater a clan rally?

These are theoretical neither group would want food made from those businesses. Also the instant someone threw a slur, threat or bad look they could leave. Again almost nobody is going to order a food service from someone who states I can do it but I cannot guarantee the quality of service.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Just for clarification, you believe that the government should both criminally and civilly require a homosexual owned bakery which offers catering to attend a protest by the WBC disparaging of the homosexual lifestyle/marriage/ect?

That seems pretty fucked up.

Would you say the same thing if the KKK got religious 501c3 recognition and they requested a african-american owned bakery to cater a clan rally?

I think reasonable accommodations can be made; very few bakers attend the events they provide baked goods for. So the baker could provide baked goods while also not being present for the actual rally/protest event. In my mind, that's perfectly reasonable, and a perfect counterpoint to the Christian bakers refusing to make gay marriage cakes; you don't need to attend the wedding in order to provide the cake for it. How many people actually have the baker attend their wedding? That's just weird. Have the WBC pick up the cakes from the storefront and take them to their rally; if the baker refuses that reasonable request, I think they should be sanctioned for it.

The KKK isn't eligible for religious 501(c)(3) recognition, but let's say they manage to get it and KKK membership is now seen as a religion; a black-owned bakery would have to provide accommodation to the KKK rally as long as providing services to large events is something they have done or would do for other groups. You can come up with any scenario of "these people and the people who hate them" you want, my answer is not going to change. If you provide a service to the public, you provide it to everyone, regardless of how big an asshole you may privately think that person is. That's basic professionalism, and, hell, just basic human decency; you treat people with respect even if you think they deserve none.

 

[fskimospy]

Just for clarification, you believe that the government should both criminally and civilly require a homosexual owned bakery which offers catering to attend a protest by the WBC disparaging of the homosexual lifestyle/marriage/ect?

That seems pretty fucked up.

Would you say the same thing if the KKK got religious 501c3 recognition and they requested a african-american owned bakery to cater a clan rally?

Considering the environment of a WBC protest and a Klan rally both frequently involve implicit and explicit threats and slurs directed to those individuals of course they wouldn't have to attend. The law doesn't work that way.

It's really telling that these are the kind of examples you have to reach for.

 

[fskimospy]

I think reasonable accommodations can be made; very few bakers attend the events they provide baked goods for. So the baker could provide baked goods while also not being present for the actual rally/protest event. In my mind, that's perfectly reasonable, and a perfect counterpoint to the Christian bakers refusing to make gay marriage cakes; you don't need to attend the wedding in order to provide the cake for it. How many people actually have the baker attend their wedding? That's just weird. Have the WBC pick up the cakes from the storefront and take them to their rally; if the baker refuses that reasonable request, I think they should be sanctioned for it.

The KKK isn't eligible for religious 501(c)(3) recognition, but let's say they manage to get it and KKK membership is now seen as a religion; a black-owned bakery would have to provide accommodation to the KKK rally as long as providing services to large events is something they have done or would do for other groups. You can come up with any scenario of "these people and the people who hate them" you want, my answer is not going to change. If you provide a service to the public, you provide it to everyone, regardless of how big an asshole you may privately think that person is. That's basic professionalism, and, hell, just basic human decency; you treat people with respect even if you think they deserve none.

Exactly. These laws aren't complicated.

You have to provide your services without respect to religion. That doesn't mean that if someone is yelling homophobic slurs at you that you have to go cater their protest anyway.

 

[Patranus]

You have to provide your services without respect to religion. That doesn't mean that if someone is yelling homophobic slurs at you that you have to go cater their protest anyway.

So why would someone be forced to say photograph a homosexual wedding when the speech at that wedding (the ceremony) is equally offensive to that person?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So why would someone be forced to say photograph a homosexual wedding when the speech at that wedding (the ceremony) is equally offensive to that person?

Because that's the service they sell? Pretty hard to take pictures of an event when you aren't at it. So their attendance would be part of the product they are selling in a way the baker's doesn't have to be. If working at certain weddings is so offensive to them, they should probably go into a different line of work.

 

[Patranus]

Because that's the service they sell? Pretty hard to take pictures of an event when you aren't at it. So their attendance would be part of the product they are selling in a way the baker's doesn't have to be. If working at certain weddings is so offensive to them, they should probably go into a different line of work.

So your position is that a homosexual wouldn't be required to cater/service/photograph an event containing what they view as hate speech but a heterosexual would be required to cater/service/photograph an event containing what they view as hate speech.

Got it.

 

[fskimospy]

So why would someone be forced to say photograph a homosexual wedding when the speech at that wedding (the ceremony) is equally offensive to that person?

Because people existing and getting married isn't the same as someone yelling slurs at you.

How is that even a question? This is common sense.

 

[Patranus]

Because people existing and getting married isn't the same as someone yelling slurs at you.

How is that even a question? This is common sense.

To that person, the words during the ceremony are equally offensive as it is a perversion of their religion as any slur.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So your position is that a homosexual wouldn't be required to cater/service/photograph an event containing what they view as hate speech but a heterosexual would be required to cater/service/photograph an event containing what they view as hate speech.

Got it.

That's not even remotely my opinion, as I've already outlined multiple times in this thread. A homosexual would be required to do an event, regardless of their views on it, provided it's a service they otherwise offer to other groups, exactly the same as a heterosexual, or a Christian, or a black person, or a woman, or any other protected class. No one gets to discriminate when serving the public. You're trying to pull some "GOTCHA" where I give special rights to leftist groups because you're not bothering to read what I'm writing, you're just inventing me as a caricature of your delusional right-wing fantasyland. After all, if YOU don't want to serve the gays, surely your opponent must not want to serve the Christians. The difference between us seems to be that I'm willing to set aside my differences with people when engaging them in commerce and you can't seem to fathom how anyone could possibly do that.

And who on Earth is going to classify a wedding as "hate speech" in the same vein as the Westboro Baptist Church? I mean, unless the vows include "kill all the straight people," I don't really think anyone is going to confuse the two. Acting like a photographer having to take pictures of a gay couple on their wedding day is anything remotely similar to being asked to photograph a KKK rally isn't just wildly disingenuous, it offers some keen insight into the mental contortions necessary to say "yeah, refusing to sell cakes to a gay person is something we should absolutely be able to do." You can't justify it without comparing it to hate groups. "Gay marriage? That's basically just a liberal WBC rally, right?" That's mind-boggling.

 

[Patranus]

That's not even remotely my opinion, as I've already outlined multiple times in this thread. A homosexual would be required to do an event, regardless of their views on it, provided it's a service they otherwise offer to other groups, exactly the same as a heterosexual, or a Christian, or a black person, or a woman, or any other protected class. No one gets to discriminate when serving the public. You're trying to pull some "GOTCHA" where I give special rights to leftist groups because you're not bothering to read what I'm writing, you're just inventing me as a caricature of your delusional right-wing fantasyland. After all, if YOU don't want to serve the gays, surely your opponent must not want to serve the Christians. The difference between us seems to be that I'm willing to set aside my differences with people when engaging them in commerce and you can't seem to fathom how anyone could possibly do that.

And who on Earth is going to classify a wedding as "hate speech" in the same vein as the Westboro Baptist Church? I mean, unless the vows include "kill all the straight people," I don't really think anyone is going to confuse the two. Acting like a photographer having to take pictures of a gay couple on their wedding day is anything remotely similar to being asked to photograph a KKK rally isn't just wildly disingenuous, it offers some keen insight into the mental contortions necessary to say "yeah, refusing to sell cakes to a gay person is something we should absolutely be able to do." You can't justify it without comparing it to hate groups. "Gay marriage? That's basically just a liberal WBC rally, right?" That's mind-boggling.

Who are you to judge what is/is not hate speech? The simple fact that you are trying to discredit certain forms of speech because you and you alone may not agree with it undermines the core foundation of what the United States was founded on.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Mind-boggling that you believe that rights/laws only protect/compel certain groups if they fit within your narrow view of the world.

Who are you to judge what is/is not hate speech? The simple fact that you are trying to discredit certain forms of speech because you and you alone may not agree with it undermines the core foundation of what the United States was founded on.

If you think "Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?" qualifies as hate speech, you truly have absolutely no concept of what the term means.

 

[fskimospy]

To that person, the words during the ceremony are equally offensive as it is a perversion of their religion as any slur.

I eagerly await you to link a court case where someone successfully uses two people getting gay married as an incitement to violence, etc, the same as those slurs can be.

Seriously, this argument is so stupid it merits no further response. Two people getting married is not the same as someone screaming a slur at you under any even remotely rational definition of the word.

If you need this kind of rationalization to maintain your bubble, knock yourself out. Nobody else will take it seriously.

 

[fskimospy]

If you think "Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?" qualifies as hate speech, you truly have absolutely no concept of what the term means.

Hahaha. "Saying that two people getting married isn't the same as screaming N***** N***** in someone's face undermines what the U.S. was founded on."

I honestly love that. That's Texashiker levels of stupidity.

 

[ivwshane]

I think someone clearly doesn't know what hate a speech is😱

 

[Patranus]

I think someone clearly doesn't know what hate a speech is😱

The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times including Snyder v. Phelps that government cannot be the arbiter of speech thus making the term 'hate speech' complete subjective and without meaning.

 

[fskimospy]

The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times including Snyder v. Phelps that government cannot be the arbiter of speech thus making the term 'hate speech' complete subjective and without meaning.

They most certainly did not rule that. They ruled that offensive speech was protected by the first amendment, but they have explicitly called out other forms of speech, such as "fighting words", that the government can regulate. Guess what? Slurs can and have absolutely fallen into that. Gay weddings never have.

Nice job with the self ownage.

 

[ivwshane]

The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times including Snyder v. Phelps that government cannot be the arbiter of speech thus making the term 'hate speech' complete subjective and without meaning.

Oh so there is no definition for hate speech?

https://www.google.com/search?q=hat...a=X&ei=BIYcVe3lI5KtogTzmoDACg&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAA


Why are righties so fucking retarded?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Who are you to judge what is/is not hate speech? The simple fact that you are trying to discredit certain forms of speech because you and you alone may not agree with it undermines the core foundation of what the United States was founded on.

We do have people that get to determine what hate speech is, that is a judge's job. While I can not say with 100% certainty, since as far as I know no one has ever tested it in a court of law, probably because no one has been foolish enough to waste the courts time that way, but I bet that no court would find the normal language of a Same Sex marriage hate speech.

For one a Same Sex Marriage does not reference anyone as being hated, it is actually very inclusive. I am pretty sure that for something to be hate speech it has to actually have the intention of being hateful. And the words of a Same Sex Marriage is in no way hateful, it is just something a your theoretical photographer hates to hear. In other words it is not the words that are hateful, it is the person hearing them.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times including Snyder v. Phelps that government cannot be the arbiter of speech thus making the term 'hate speech' complete subjective and without meaning.

You were the person who brought up "hate speech" to begin with. You were literally the first person in the thread who used those words in that order. We were never talking about hate speech until you piped in that maybe a gay wedding could be called that. You can't bring something up and them immediately disavow it.

"Gay weddings are hate speech."
"No they aren't."
"THAT'S CAUSE HATE SPEECH DOESN'T EXIST, HAH!"
"Do you have to practice being this stupid or does it come naturally?"

 

[sportage]

The truly big news today was over in Arkansas.
Where you have a republican governor from a southern state, a very Conservative state, a very hard right winged religious faith based state, a full on anti Obama state, when you have republicans in leadership roles begin to talk of tolerance, justice, fairness, openness, and acceptance of gay rights or more so their acknowledgement that gays have rights.
Now, that is a real mind blower.
And a major 180 to be noted.

Until now, those so strongly opposed to gay rights and marriage rights, had a solid companion within the far right republican party supporting their anti-gay agenda.
Should that support from right wing faith based republicans start to turn, what then?
To whom would or could those anti gay homophobic folks turn to seeking support and comfort with their homophobic agenda?

I've said it all along. I believe most gays are very Ronald Reagan hard right conservative mined at heart. They tend to be better educated and higher income'd. Personally conservative in their private lives. And while gay, very straight forward and realistic when it comes to financial planning and decision.
In short, they sound and act republican.

The problem until late was that hard right conservative republicans we so insistently anti gay. And that forced gays and lesbians to turn against the republican party for the more accepting democratic party.
More accepting socially, however not necessarily in tune with their conservative philosophy.

Should what happened in Arkansas with republican leadership become the new trend, open acceptance despite religious objections, if republicans can find the ability to separate the two, that would be major development in attitude.

If republicans can begin to separate their religion from social judgment, that might be the opening conservative minded gays have been waiting for.
Where gay people would begin to relate more so to the republican party, over the democratic party.
Could Arkansas become the turning point?

Here we have a republican governor, from a very conservative state, listening and moved by his own family member, rethinking social issue without weighing both solely by religious faith.
If indeed the governor was earnest with his thoughts, and not simply driven by fears of economic impact, if the governor indeed has had a change of heart, that is the real news story of the day.

And this could be the beginning of a national trend for republicans that the democrats should fear.
And should democratic leaders fear such a shift in attitude within the republican party, what does that say about the Democrats?
Could that prove democrats have always fed upon that fear held by minorities?
Proving democrats were embracing that fear all along solely for the sake of benefit?

The times, they are a truly changing.