Indiana "religious freedom" law

[Rex Kickass]

As much as I really dislike this law, I do wonder if stores should have the right to refuse service.

 

On a theoretical point, imagine a group of protesters inside a steak restaurant chanting against eating meat. Obviously we all agree the owner should have the right to remove the group because they are harming that business. Now, what if you have a really messed up business (IMHO it is messed up) that caters to a very anti-XX crowd. A large group of XX show up just to drive away the core customers. They will be gone next month along with the regulars. Can you protest by just being you?

 

Stores do have a right to refuse service. But as I understand it, and I could be wrong on this, employees in general can refuse to serve a customer/client/guest based on their religious preferences. And the furor is about bakeries and cakes, but in reality the real harm will come when people refuse things like providing medical service. One thing I'm curious about is if it covers government workers as well. Could someone be refused consitituent services because of the state employee's religious belief?

 

 

[Texsox]

You arent refusing service to protesters that are disrupting business. They dont want to eat what you are providing, and they dont want others to eat it. They are trying to harm your business.

 

I dont think this analogy is applicable at all.

 

That was my final question. Can you be a protester by just being yourself? I don't want to bog down into specific groups but sit ins were basically blacks protesting by wanting to be served. They weren't really protesting other than being in a store where they were not welcomed. Now we all know I'd rather be on the side of inclusion. But if you are a black business owner and the local racist idiots decide they want to just walk around your store, shouldn't you be allowed to have them removed? Even if they aren't doing anything? If you are a conservative store owner with a conservative customer base and your regulars leave without buying when that ABC person is in the store, isn't that the same?

 

Again, I am talking hypothetical, I believe we know this law is much more sinister in focus.

[Texsox]

And as a religious person, I am really offended by this law and it does not represent my beliefs or any of the beliefs of my friends who would also identify as religious. It seems more in that crazy world of Politico-Religion.

[Kyyle23]

That was my final question. Can you be a protester by just being yourself? I don't want to bog down into specific groups but sit ins were basically blacks protesting by wanting to be served. They weren't really protesting other than being in a store where they were not welcomed. Now we all know I'd rather be on the side of inclusion. But if you are a black business owner and the local racist idiots decide they want to just walk around your store, shouldn't you be allowed to have them removed? Even if they aren't doing anything? If you are a conservative store owner with a conservative customer base and your regulars leave without buying when that ABC person is in the store, isn't that the same?

 

Again, I am talking hypothetical, I believe we know this law is much more sinister in focus.

 

I dont know, your examples are involving situations where service isnt being refused, but access is. There is a lot to your example here that would complicate the situation. Is the racist walking around the store saying racist things and making people uncomfortable and causing them to leave? I would say that the Religious freedom law wouldnt even matter because this person is damaging your business by causing people to leave. Is he just a known racist who sat down quietly to have coffee and didnt bother anyone, but the store owner knows him and says "Get out, i know what you say when you are somewhere else".

 

 

And yes, the law is much more sinister than what they are trying to spin it as.

[Jenksismyhero]

The Indiana based Church of Cannabis has now been incorporated and its sincerely held belief is that their religion has the right to use marijuana.

 

Drug cases have failed at the federal level. This law does nothing to change that. Whether they can win at the state level I guess is a question for their courts, but technically they'd still be in violation of federal law.

[Balta1701]

As much as I really dislike this law, I do wonder if stores should have the right to refuse service.

 

On a theoretical point, imagine a group of protesters inside a steak restaurant chanting against eating meat. Obviously we all agree the owner should have the right to remove the group because they are harming that business. Now, what if you have a really messed up business (IMHO it is messed up) that caters to a very anti-XX crowd. A large group of XX show up just to drive away the core customers. They will be gone next month along with the regulars. Can you protest by just being you?

If I'm a white southern kitchen owner and I don't want to serve African Americans at my counter, can I put up a "Whites Only" sign?

 

If a group of black people sit down there and I refuse to serve them, doesn't the owner have the right to remove them for harming the business?

 

This has something of an historical precedent.

[Balta1701]

By the way, there are now several legal articles outlining how this case is much broader than the national-level religious freedom act that has already caused so much annoyance.

SB 101 is substantially broader than the federal law. It extends religious rights to all businesses, no matter how large and completely secular they are. In addition, the federal law can only be invoked against government action. SB 101 goes much further, inviting discrimination by allowing religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in lawsuits and administrative proceedings brought by workers, tenants and customers who have suffered discrimination in a business transaction based on someone else’s religious beliefs.

[Jenksismyhero]

If I'm a white southern kitchen owner and I don't want to serve African Americans at my counter, can I put up a "Whites Only" sign?

 

If a group of black people sit down there and I refuse to serve them, doesn't the owner have the right to remove them for harming the business?

 

This has something of an historical precedent.

 

I still say, in 2015, yes. Let them do that and see what the response is.

 

But regardless, keeping it to the law in question, I have a hard time believing that anyone will be able to claim that serving black folks substantially burdens their religious practice AND that the government doesn't have a compelling reason to prevent that sort of discrimination given existing federal law and precedent on discrimination based on race, the second key requirement to the law.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

But why? What good does that do for society?

[Jenksismyhero]

But why? What good does that do for society?

 

Which part?

 

edit: if you're referring to letting people discriminate, it's because I don't think people should be required to serve anyone they don't want to. Society is going to dictate what kind of discrimination is acceptable (e.g., not serving a black person because they're black), while other types of discrimination are going to be ok (e.g., a gay store owner serving a known Christian zealot hell bent on going after gay people). To me that's a better system than laws that dictate only certain people are afforded protections while others aren't. I asked Balta about who else should be added to the list of protected classes, at what point do we draw the line? Why not just not have the line when there aren't fears of a segregated society anymore.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

If I read all the "negatives" correctly, you think the government has a compelling reason to prevent discrimination against black people by private businesses, but the government shouldn't do the same thing for homosexuals?

 

I have a hard time believing....that the government doesn't have a compelling reason to prevent that sort of discrimination given existing federal law and precedent on discrimination based on race

[Jenksismyhero]

If I read all the "negatives" correctly, you think the government has a compelling reason to prevent discrimination against black people by private businesses, but the government shouldn't do the same thing for homosexuals?

 

Based on case law and precedent, yes.

[Texsox]

I dont know, your examples are involving situations where service isnt being refused, but access is. There is a lot to your example here that would complicate the situation. Is the racist walking around the store saying racist things and making people uncomfortable and causing them to leave? I would say that the Religious freedom law wouldnt even matter because this person is damaging your business by causing people to leave. Is he just a known racist who sat down quietly to have coffee and didnt bother anyone, but the store owner knows him and says "Get out, i know what you say when you are somewhere else".

 

 

And yes, the law is much more sinister than what they are trying to spin it as.

 

Sorry, my examples are confusing the question I was trying to ask. I was also discussing a tangent, should a business be allowed to refuse service?

 

Can a person be a protester just by standing there doing nothing? If a shop keeper is known for refusing to serve a Muslim, would any Muslim person walking into the shop be in affect protesting?

[Balta1701]

Based on case law and precedent, yes.

Therefore, I fully stand by my sit-in comparison.

[Balta1701]

Sorry, my examples are confusing the question I was trying to ask. I was also discussing a tangent, should a business be allowed to refuse service?

 

Can a person be a protester just by standing there doing nothing? If a shop keeper is known for refusing to serve a Muslim, would any Muslim person walking into the shop be in affect protesting?

Again, this is exactly what the sit ins were. Black people sitting down at whites only counters just wanting to be served while the businesses refused to do so, while waiting for them to remove the people by force for wanting to buy lunch.

[Texsox]

Again, this is exactly what the sit ins were. Black people sitting down at whites only counters just wanting to be served while the businesses refused to do so, while waiting for them to remove the people by force for wanting to buy lunch.

 

Exactly. But connecting the dots leads to an quagmire. If we allow protesters who harm a business to be removed, and anyone can be a protester just by being themselves in the store, then laws like this are reasonable at worse or even unnecessary at best.

[StrangeSox]

Again, this is exactly what the sit ins were. Black people sitting down at whites only counters just wanting to be served while the businesses refused to do so, while waiting for them to remove the people by force for wanting to buy lunch.

And for some reason Jenks thinks we should roll back those protections.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Again, I said in a perfect world. And I acknowledged that we might not be there yet.

 

But I don't think we'll ever go back to that situation, and if a restaurant owner refused to serve blacks, the response would be massive. You can't even tell a racist joke these days without a massive response and boycott. What's a better outcome there: the restaurant goes out of business because of the backlash, or they get sued, pay some damages, and stay open for business? Other than some nutjob KKK-types, who discriminate with a law or without a law, no one is supporting that owner.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

This law wasn't about protesters or disruption, it was a response to the Elane photography and the cake baker in Colorado cases.

[StrangeSox]

Again, I said in a perfect world. And I acknowledged that we might not be there yet.

 

But I don't think we'll ever go back to that situation, and if a restaurant owner refused to serve blacks, the response would be massive. You can't even tell a racist joke these days without a massive response and boycott. What's a better outcome there: the restaurant goes out of business because of the backlash, or they get sued, pay some damages, and stay open for business? Other than some nutjob KKK-types, who discriminate with a law or without a law, no one is supporting that owner.

The best answer is that we keep public accommodation laws because there's no reason to get rid of them and lots of historical reasons to keep them.

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The best answer is that we keep public accommodation laws because there's no reason to get rid of them and lots of historical reasons to keep them.

 

So given my example of the gay copy shop owners, you think it's right and just that they have to serve Christians that openly hate them and work to deny them equal treatment, or be faced with a lawsuit?

Edited March 30, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

If they just want some regular stuff printed, sure they should be served.

[bmags]

So given my example of the gay copy shop owners, you think it's right and just that they have to serve Christians that openly hate them and work to deny them equal treatment, or be faced with a lawsuit?

 

Yeah.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

 

Edit: i'm curious, why does the content matter? Let's say it's not objectionable (e.g. porn) and it's not threatening, but it's still anti-gay. A bunch of "gay marriage is a sin" type stuff. Even then?

Edited March 30, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Rex Kickass]

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

 

Edit: i'm curious, why does the content matter? Let's say it's not objectionable (e.g. porn) and it's not threatening, but it's still anti-gay. A bunch of "gay marriage is a sin" type stuff. Even then?

 

Objectionable is pretty debatable. Lots of people can have lots of objections. Obscene might be a better term.

 

I think you have the right to not produce goods that you find objectionable. But I think there's a difference between not producing printing that's offensive to the printer, and not baking a cake that a couple wants for their wedding, because you don't like the genders of the couple. There's a difference there, no?