Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
southsider2k5

Indiana "religious freedom" law

Recommended Posts

I posted this on facebook, but thought it apt for discussion here as well, as Governor Pence is about to sign this bill into law today.

 

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101

 

Maybe I was a bit harsh on the whole "Religious Freedom" law about to go into effect. I got to thinking about it, and while to me I read the bible as saying that even if we don't agree with the sin, we still love the sinner, not all do. Christ himself had an inner-circle of sinners, and washed the feet of a prostitute. But many people don't agree with that interpretation, so I digress.

 

Here is my offer. If you want the ability to exclude serving people who are sinners, I want to see it done right. Don't just exclude gay's. I want to see a sign of the following sort on your door. Cover all sinners and sin.

 

"To protect our religious freedoms and sensibility, we will not be serving the following...

 

Gays, Bisexuals, Lesbians, Transvestites, Divorcees, Fornicators, Masturbators, Pork-eaters, Women who are Menstruating (and any other ritually unpure), Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddists, Mormons, Gentiles, (or any other non-approved religious group, Christian or otherwise), Idolators, People not obeying their parents, Husbands not obeying their wives, Wives not obeying their husbands, Children not obeying their parents, Blasphemers, Any business on Sunday, anyone working on Sunday's, Murderers, Thieves, Adulterers (including the divorced and remarried, anyone marrying their brother's wife, etc), Liars, Covetors, Interest chargers, Interest receivers, Alcoholics, Drug Addicts, The Lazy, The Rich, The Proud, and any others I might have missed, and reserve the right to add at a later date.

 

Thanks, Management."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO if you're not receiving government money, you should be able to exclude whoever you want. But that's just me. You don't want to serve Cubs fans? Fine, don't. You don't want to serve gays? Fine, don't.

 

It's 2015. Unless you're in the deep south in a town of 200, that kind of business isn't staying open very long.

Edited by Jenksismybitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if someone claims that their religion states all Mexicans and Africans are sinners, they can refuse to serve them? I don't see how that's any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Separation of church and state, love it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 04:27 PM)
So if someone claims that their religion states all Mexicans and Africans are sinners, they can refuse to serve them? I don't see how that's any different.

 

Sure, you can claim anything is against your religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 10:38 AM)
Separation of church and state, love it

 

What jenks said makes sense. If you aren't government-funded, you're not required to separate religion and your business. However, if you do discriminate, your business won't last and you'd just be a terrible business owner.

 

However, if I remember correctly, the religious freedom law in Kansas allowed government-run businesses to turn away certain people. That's just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 10:20 AM)
IMO if you're not receiving government money, you should be able to exclude whoever you want. But that's just me. You don't want to serve Cubs fans? Fine, don't. You don't want to serve gays? Fine, don't.

 

It's 2015. Unless you're in the deep south in a town of 200, that kind of business isn't staying open very long.

 

Exactly, and like it or not, that really hasn't been the law in this country for over 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (chw42 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 09:42 AM)
What jenks said makes sense. If you aren't government-funded, you're not required to separate religion and your business. However, if you do discriminate, your business won't last and you'd just be a terrible business owner.

 

However, if I remember correctly, the religious freedom law in Kansas allowed government-run businesses to turn away certain people. That's just wrong.

 

There are certain classes that are protected and cannot be legally discriminated against under federal law, no matter what your religion says (race, gender, etc.). Unfortunately, sexual orientation is not currently a federally protected class for those purposes.

 

To Jenks' point, there's a reason these laws have such widespread support. I think it vastly overstates things to say that a business that discriminates based on sexual orientation would only thrive in a small town in the Deep South. If that was the case, Indiana's legislature wouldn't be signing this bill into law.

 

I like SS's first post though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 10:20 AM)
IMO if you're not receiving government money, you should be able to exclude whoever you want. But that's just me. You don't want to serve Cubs fans? Fine, don't. You don't want to serve gays? Fine, don't.

 

It's 2015. Unless you're in the deep south in a town of 200, that kind of business isn't staying open very long.

 

Somehow I think if a business found some part of your personal life and used it to refuse service to you, you wouldnt be so open to it. But thats just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 11:51 AM)
Somehow I think if a business found some part of your personal life and used it to refuse service to you, you wouldnt be so open to it. But thats just me.

 

I think it'd be fine with it actually. There are places I don't go because I know i'm not wanted. I don't walk into Cubs bars wearing Sox gear because it's not worth the aggravation. Does it really matter if they go the extra step of telling you they won't serve you?

 

On top of that, no major retail shop/restaurant is going to take the chance of doing being so openly discriminatory. Not only because of the money lost from those customers, but also because of the PR nightmare it would cause. You think Chick-Fil-A is going to put out a statement that gays are no longer served in Indiana? Not a chance. At best you're talking about mom and pop shops like the photographer in Kansas that didn't want to photograph a gay wedding. So what, gay people can't go to the homophobic photographer. Is that really a big deal?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:16 PM)
I think it'd be fine with it actually. There are places I don't go because I know i'm not wanted. I don't walk into Cubs bars wearing Sox gear because it's not worth the aggravation. Does it really matter if they go the extra step of telling you they won't serve you?

 

On top of that, no major retail shop/restaurant is going to take the chance of doing being so openly discriminatory. Not only because of the money lost from those customers, but also because of the PR nightmare it would cause. You think Chick-Fil-A is going to put out a statement that gays are no longer served in Indiana? Not a chance. At best you're talking about mom and pop shops like the photographer in Kansas that didn't want to photograph a gay wedding. So what, gay people can't go to the homophobic photographer. Is that really a big deal?

 

Your Cubs vs. White Sox analogy is really wide of the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if they are the only photographer in town?

 

What if someone in a small town wants to rent an apartment and they are not allowed to because they are gay. They should have to possibly move to another town?

 

What if there are multiple businesses in one town that do this. Pretty much saying get out of our town if you are gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:26 PM)
Your Cubs vs. White Sox analogy is really wide of the mark.

 

Probably, but so is the reaction to this as open season on discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:29 PM)
What if they are the only photographer in town?

 

What if someone in a small town wants to rent an apartment and they are not allowed to because they are gay. They should have to possibly move to another town?

 

What if there are multiple businesses in one town that do this. Pretty much saying get out of our town if you are gay.

 

All tough questions, and good ones, but IMO when it's about the government mandating you do something, that something shouldn't ignore a constitutional right that you have. These laws don't say "anyone can discriminate on anyone if they have a religious objection to it." There has to be a substantial burden involved. They can still be sued and it's their burden to prove the substantial standard. Given that I see the impact of the law being pretty low, I don't have an issue with it.

 

And again, IMO, in a perfect world you should be able to discriminate all you want. Society will determine if your actions are acceptable or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I would doubt the same people would be OK if an Islamic business practicing Sharia law was opened up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 11:31 AM)
It also looks like this law is modeled after a federal law:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Fre...Restoration_Act (still applicable at the federal level)

 

which, gasp!, was introduced by Chuck Schumer and signed by President Clinton.

 

Yes, the law was modeled after RFRA, but if you read quotes from supporters of the law, they are talking about this law protecting the rights of photographers, bakers, caterers, etc., to not have to provide services at gay weddings. This law is not proposed, or passed, without that issue being litigated in the court system in other states. It is a law with a discriminatory intent against a specific subset of the population, regardless of how people try to spin its intent.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So anyway, Congrats Indiana. I have friends in Australia who know nothing about you except now they know you're bigots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 11:40 AM)
All tough questions, and good ones, but IMO when it's about the government mandating you do something, that something shouldn't ignore a constitutional right that you have. These laws don't say "anyone can discriminate on anyone if they have a religious objection to it." There has to be a substantial burden involved. They can still be sued and it's their burden to prove the substantial standard. Given that I see the impact of the law being pretty low, I don't have an issue with it.

 

And again, IMO, in a perfect world you should be able to discriminate all you want. Society will determine if your actions are acceptable or not.

 

Until the 1960s (when the federal government finally acted), society in the South was quite happy to allow its businesses to discriminate based on race. This isn't a perfect world and allowing "society" to determine if actions are acceptable allows the majority to trample the rights of the minority.

Edited by illinilaw08

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 01:40 PM)
Somehow I would doubt the same people would be OK if an Islamic business practicing Sharia law was opened up.

How so? Run by males, with women who wear the appropriately required head scarves, closing down for Ramadan? I'm pretty sure I've been in those restaurants before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 01:55 PM)
Until the 1960s (when the federal government finally acted), society in the South was quite happy to allow its businesses to discriminate based on race. This isn't a perfect world and allowing "society" to determine if actions are acceptable allows the majority to trample the rights of the minority.

That's the appropriate counterexample. "Heteros only" sign on the door.

 

Everyone's ok with that right? And "Whites only"? We are a worse country for having banned that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:55 PM)
So anyway, Congrats Indiana. I have friends in Australia who know nothing about you except now they know you're bigots.

You'd have to have your head in the sand in the US to not know that most of Indiana is racist as hell. Its pretty funny considering some of the most famous Indiana natives are or were black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 02:00 PM)
You'd have to have your head in the sand in the US to not know that most of Indiana is racist as hell. Its pretty funny considering some of the most famous Indiana natives are or were black.

You're not exactly telling someone who is unfamiliar, I did grow up there. I'm impressed that people in Australia now know it. That took skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×