Indiana "religious freedom" law

[EvilMonkey]

He's refusing service to someone based on their uncontrolled attribute that has zero affect on the product/service. It's no different than rejecting black customers, or Christian customers, or Mexican customers.

 

 

 

Because this form of discrimination is bad for society, and people shouldn't have to worry about getting service at public accommodations.

They wish to not perform in or for a wedding. The store in the link above said they have no problem serving gay people, they will serve anyone, just don;t want to be endorsing something they believe is against their religion. Now if they said 'gays stay out, all of you', that would be closer to your analogy.

 

[Balta1701]

Did I say anything about it encompassing all? Just showing an example, of which there are many.

There are many examples of people sending death threats to Barack Obama. Therefore, all christian republicans are black-hating murderers. You make me sick, how dare you threaten to kill the president just because he's black?

[EvilMonkey]

There are many examples of people sending death threats to Barack Obama. Therefore, all christian republicans are black-hating murderers. You make me sick, how dare you threaten to kill the president just because he's black?

Well that is certainly what Huffpo and most screaming liberal talking heads kept saying every time one of those popped up. Strangely though whenever someone threatened Bush, it was always some lone crazy person, not representative of the left as a whole at all!

[CrimsonWeltall]

They wish to not perform in or for a wedding.

 

They're not performing in a wedding. They're baking a cake and then giving it to someone.

 

The store in the link above said they have no problem serving gay people, they will serve anyone

 

They will serve gay people *some* products, and refuse to serve gay people other products. If one is allowed to refuse service for any set of available products, they can just as easily make that set include every product.

 

, just don;t want to be endorsing something they believe is against their religion. Now if they said 'gays stay out, all of you', that would be closer to your analogy.

 

Those particular bakers didn't refuse service for every product, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

[Balta1701]

Well that is certainly what Huffpo and most screaming liberal talking heads kept saying every time one of those popped up. Strangely though whenever someone threatened Bush, it was always some lone crazy person, not representative of the left as a whole at all!

Just to make sure I get this straight then:

 

People who send death threats to pizzeria: indictment of everyone who opposes this bill.

 

People who send death threats to Obama: totally not an indictment of you or anyone else who opposes Obama.

 

I agree with the sentiment of this post. Anyone who uses the rantings of some lunatic as a means to smear another side in a political debate has embarrassed him or herself and does not deserve respect. For example, this person:

An example of real 'tolerance' here.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/01/cris...r-gay-weddings/

Death threats. Threats to burn the place down. Yeah, way to win over hearts and minds there with your extreme tolerance.

 

[farmteam]

I think that the root of much anti-gay sentiment can be traced to a belief that sexual orientation isn't an immutable trait. I think if we (society) can change change that erroneous belief, we can greatly improve gay rights.

[StrangeSox]

If only the tolerance crowd weren't so damned intolerant of those that disagree with them, some states might not feel compelled to do these things.

this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard

[EvilMonkey]

Just to make sure I get this straight then:

 

People who send death threats to pizzeria: indictment of everyone who opposes this bill.

 

People who send death threats to Obama: totally not an indictment of you or anyone else who opposes Obama.

 

I agree with the sentiment of this post. Anyone who uses the rantings of some lunatic as a means to smear another side in a political debate has embarrassed him or herself and does not deserve respect. For example, this person:

Your hatred seems to make reading comprehension an issue for you. I never said death threats were an indictment of all. I expressly said that. Yet here you claim that is what I just said. Have fun in your closed little world.

[Quin]

Your hatred seems to make reading comprehension an issue for you. I never said death threats were an indictment of all. I expressly said that. Yet here you claim that is what I just said. Have fun in your closed little world.

 

How is the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake being intolerant? He is saying that he doesn't want anything to do with your ceremony, but go ahead and get married, or whatever, just don't involve me. The other side is saying 'do as i say or we'll force you to do it thru the use of government power'. It is not a crime to think that gay marriage isn't right or against your religion. (a stance I do not share, btw) SO why try and force someone to do something against their will?

 

An example of real 'tolerance' here.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/01/cris...r-gay-weddings/

Death threats. Threats to burn the place down. Yeah, way to win over hearts and minds there with your extreme tolerance.

 

1) Your article is posted by someone too afraid to use their real name in their work and shows an extreme bias in their reporting.

 

2) He's refusing service on grounds that they're gay. Now what if he refused it because they were Jewish, black, etc.? That's intolerance. Is it his right, sure, but he is turning away income for his business solely because the customers are gay.

 

3) You use the death threats and threats to burn down the place as an example of the lack of tolerance of the 'pro-tolerance' crowd. Balta merely flipped it to point out that death threats get slung back and forth by both sides. Now, you didn't say it indicts all people in the 'pro-tolerance' group, but you're using it as an example to exemplify the whole. If you take an isolated, extremely vocal minority and use it as an example, that is your implication to paint the picture in your argument's favor.

[Soxbadger]

I think really the most concerning part is once again we are allowing govt to make more rules/laws to govern us. I mean I get why they had to create the laws because having black/white bathrooms, etc.. created a society where once race was implicitly seen as lower, but itd be a much better place if we didnt have to have that law. It was only a last resort because some people couldnt be normal human beings.

 

Which brings us to the current issue. Is there such a scourge of litigation where gay people are suing that this is really an issue? Are there so many verdicts in Indiana against business owners denying services, that we need a law to fix it?

 

My guess is no, especially because half of the arguments I read are about how this is to prevent future issues. So now we are just creating laws to create laws.

 

 

[greg775]

Folks, I am all for gay rights. For sure.

But I think people are overreacting. This law isn't mean to deny gays service. The problem, and I'm glad the governor is getting fried, is nobody can understand how to read a f***ing law. The mumbo jumbo legalese is impossible to understand.

So this is a lesson to governors everywhere. Write your damn laws in words we can all understand!

[Balta1701]

Folks, I am all for gay rights. For sure.

But I think people are overreacting. This law isn't mean to deny gays service. The problem, and I'm glad the governor is getting fried, is nobody can understand how to read a f***ing law. The mumbo jumbo legalese is impossible to understand.

So this is a lesson to governors everywhere. Write your damn laws in words we can all understand!

YES. IT. IS.

 

That is explicitly the point.

 

No one has given a single example of how this could be applied that isn't denying someone service based on who they are.

 

The "how dare you make a religious person make a cake for a gay wedding" is explicitly an argument that people should be able to decide that it's ok to discriminate because their religion tells them too, and of course, that's the least offensive version of this anyone has thought of. We've got plenty of other much more disheartening versions we could come up with, all of which fit the text of this law and all of which are discriminating against people that aren't liked.

 

The Governor himself was given half a dozen chances to explain how that wasn't the point and ducked the question every time.

[Jenksismyhero]

YES. IT. IS.

 

That is explicitly the point.

 

No one has given a single example of how this could be applied that isn't denying someone service based on who they are.

 

The "how dare you make a religious person make a cake for a gay wedding" is explicitly an argument that people should be able to decide that it's ok to discriminate because their religion tells them too, and of course, that's the least offensive version of this anyone has thought of. We've got plenty of other much more disheartening versions we could come up with, all of which fit the text of this law and all of which are discriminating against people that aren't liked.

 

The Governor himself was given half a dozen chances to explain how that wasn't the point and ducked the question every time.

 

It's not though. That's the intended consequence in a limited, specific circumstance, but the point of the law is to provide protection to Christians that don't want to work gay weddings or in some way support gay weddings. As some people have already come out and said, they'll serve gay people, they won't serve at a gay function. There is a distinction there, whether you agree with it or not.

[southsider2k5]

It's not though. That's the intended consequence in a limited, specific circumstance, but the point of the law is to provide protection to Christians that don't want to work gay weddings or in some way support gay weddings. As some people have already come out and said, they'll serve gay people, they won't serve at a gay function. There is a distinction there, whether you agree with it or not.

 

As someone who knows the Pence agenda well, this is a flat out lie. It is absolutely meant for that. They are hiding behind a couple of technicalities to make that claim with a straight face, but it isn't true. By not having an protections for gays, and refusing to add them, until the public shaming happened, this is exactly what the bill accomplished. You can't claim discrimination without the ability to be recognized as a class. That is how Pence gets to keep lying to everyone without actually "lying".

[Iwritecode]

It's not though. That's the intended consequence in a limited, specific circumstance, but the point of the law is to provide protection to Christians that don't want to work gay weddings or in some way support gay weddings. As some people have already come out and said, they'll serve gay people, they won't serve at a gay function. There is a distinction there, whether you agree with it or not.

 

I'm struggling to understand what the difference is between serving pizza at a gay wedding (which they won't do) and serving pizza to a married gay couple out on a date in their restaurant (which they will do).

[Jenksismyhero]

As someone who knows the Pence agenda well, this is a flat out lie. It is absolutely meant for that. They are hiding behind a couple of technicalities to make that claim with a straight face, but it isn't true. By not having an protections for gays, and refusing to add them, until the public shaming happened, this is exactly what the bill accomplished. You can't claim discrimination without the ability to be recognized as a class. That is how Pence gets to keep lying to everyone without actually "lying".

 

Why would they pass a law to provide a defense to something that is already legal? They were trying to get votes for backing religious voters who have an issue with gay marriage. It's the same reason other states have passed the same type of defense of religion law.

 

Not to mention that the wording of the law makes it applicable in extremely narrow and limited circumstances. You couldn't deny a gay person pizza because there is no substantial burden of a religious practice there. Maybe at a wedding because that may be an activity supporting a sin or whatever, but even then it's a tough case to defend in states that have this law but also have sexuality as a protected class.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm struggling to understand what the difference is between serving pizza at a gay wedding (which they won't do) and serving pizza to a married gay couple out on a date in their restaurant (which they will do).

 

It's a dumb argument, I agree. I'm sure it has something to do with indirectly promoting/supporting gay marriage.

[southsider2k5]

Why would they pass a law to provide a defense to something that is already legal? They were trying to get votes for backing religious voters who have an issue with gay marriage. It's the same reason other states have passed the same type of defense of religion law.

 

Not to mention that the wording of the law makes it applicable in extremely narrow and limited circumstances. You couldn't deny a gay person pizza because there is no substantial burden of a religious practice there. Maybe at a wedding because that may be an activity supporting a sin or whatever, but even then it's a tough case to defend in states that have this law but also have sexuality as a protected class.

 

Pence has been pandering to the religious right his whole term. This law was to pander to those people and legalize gay discrimination. It was the same thing they were doing with a gay marriage ban constitutional amendment, even when they knew the Supreme Court was throwing this crap out.

 

A big part of this law that they aren't also acknowledging is this was the first state to take the RFRA stuff, and apply it to businesses, not just individuals.

[southsider2k5]

this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard

 

I had someone tell me yesterday that this would now allow someone to go into a Muslim printer and have Allah's face along with the word "pedophile" put on to a shirt.

[Kyyle23]

Memories pizza has a gofundme account opened that has already collected $50,000 to compensate for future lost business

[pettie4sox]

Memories pizza has a gofundme account opened that has already collected $50,000 to compensate for future lost business

 

People are really really loose with their money. Wow!

 

I guess these people believe in handouts.

[Balta1701]

It's not though. That's the intended consequence in a limited, specific circumstance, but the point of the law is to provide protection to Christians that don't want to work gay weddings or in some way support gay weddings. As some people have already come out and said, they'll serve gay people, they won't serve at a gay function. There is a distinction there, whether you agree with it or not.

Would you be ok with a restaurant refusing service due to miscegenation?

[Jenksismyhero]

Would you be ok with a restaurant refusing service due to miscegenation?

 

See page 2 or somewhere early on in this thread. That analogy doesn't work.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

See page 2 or somewhere early on in this thread. That analogy doesn't work.

I did not see any explanation for why that doesn't work on page 2.

[Jenksismyhero]

I did not see any explanation for why that doesn't work on page 2.

 

At some point you brought that up and I said it doesn't work because what religious practice would be substantially burdened in that situation? On top of the fact that race is a protected class whereas sexuality is not.

 

edit: page 3, btw.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Jenksismybitch