Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh

Qhue · Mar 31, 2015

I find their lack of faith disturbing. I mean if born again Jesus can absolve you of your sins including theft, adultery, murder, raging coke addiction, etc. all by saying "please forgive me" then how does he not have you covered for baking a cake?

Royal · Mar 31, 2015

Hoss_sl said:
I joined the thread late, has anyone linked the text of the new law yet?

A few pages back.Here

Izo · Mar 31, 2015

Qhue_sl said:
I find their lack of faith disturbing. I mean if born again Jesus can absolve you of your sins including theft, adultery, murder, raging coke addiction, etc. all by saying "please forgive me" then how does he not have you covered for baking a cake?

Would bring them closer to Jesus too. Him and his 12 friendly drinking buddies. What's gay about wine and no women you say?

Borzak · Mar 31, 2015

Hoss_sl said:
I've only seen this with guns or gun parts in places like california. In those cases I think it's justified because the added aggravation probably isn't worth the sale. When else have you seen it?

Same here, but if someone wants to boycott, they can knock themselves out. I boycott about 3 businesses for various reasons. But I don't have any delusions that my boycott is hurting them.

Mostly in the firearm industry. As noted even when the laws don't specify sending to an FFL lots of places now just refuse to ship straight to CA.

I have also seen it in hobby related businesses online, they just refuse to ship to CA mostly for whatever reason not related to a rule on shipping or whatever.

Hoss · Mar 31, 2015

Royal_sl said:
Just off the cuff, I'd point out that the blush isn't off of the Hobby Lobby rose yet. We haven't had a lot of time pass under the expanded scope of the RFRA and this is just the first of the state laws that exceeds it. More are coming and some may go even further. The backlash from Christian conservatives and others over the continuous repeal of state same sex marriage bans and the prospect of national same sex marriage hasn't reached it's crescendo. There's no reason to expect the next twenty years to look like the previous twenty.

Good points.

hodj_sl said:
For me, the thing is that we're even talking about it as a possibility should be a warning sign that these types of laws could be used to this effect.

That's quite a precedent you're setting there. Are you sure you don't wanna walk this back?

Royal_sl said:
A few pages back.Here

Grassy ass. I'll take a look at it when I get home.

General Antony · Mar 31, 2015

Rhuma_sl said:
My feelings towards it is, you now have places that gays can walk past certain businesses and say "were not allowed there" which goes against everything this country stands for. Nobody should be barred from any place without committing a crime.

That is the way people need to look at this, it's not about freedom of religion, it's about not treating certain people like criminals.

You do not have a right to go on someone else's property unwanted. What kind of entitled mindset do the unwashed masses of this country have? This country used to stand for the principle of liberty, sadly that is not the case anyway. Now it's I'm an American so I get my way because I'm a special snowflake. You people are fucking disgusting.

hodj · Mar 31, 2015

Hoss_sl said:
That's quite a precedent you're setting there. Are you sure you don't wanna walk this back?

Nah cause I'm not setting a precedent, I'm just expressing a personal opinion on why I think these laws are generally not a great idea.

The seriousness of the charge doesn't necessarily warrant presuming guilt, though, I agree.

I'm only saying that it leads me to be extra wary of these types of laws, especially with the types of people backing them that are (The Ken Ham types)

Downhammer · Mar 31, 2015

General Antony_sl said:
You do not have a right to go on someone else's property unwanted.

I agree. I can even understand if a business doesn't want to serve gays. I just think they need to clearly state their allowable clientele so people can decide for themselves if they want give them their business.

If you want to only bake wedding cakes for heteros then clearly advertise yourself as Man-Woman Cakes or something like that. No one has a problem not being able to buy bacon at the halal market because they clearly state their religious beliefs.

Kedwyn · Mar 31, 2015

Decision to not carry a product is not even close to the same thing as refusing to serve entire classes of people in your normal course and scope of business.

Merrith · Mar 31, 2015

Kedwyn_sl said:
Decision to not carry a product is not even close to the same thing as refusing to serve entire classes of people in your normal course and scope of business.

Right...no one is going to complain that Autozone doesn't sell groceries.

Downhammer · Mar 31, 2015

I knew I'd get pushback on that one. I'll admit to not being well read on this issue but i don't recall any cases where people were outright refused based on their orientation. The issue with a baker near where I live involved putting two male figures on the cake. If the man walked into the bakery and wanted a cake with flowers on it though I'm sure he would have been served no problem.

What do you do about someone in the service industry that is personally put off by certain situations? Are you going to sue the wedding photographer for not shooting your nudist scat ceremony because it makes them uncomfortable?

There has to be some balance between someone in a service industry doing something they strongly disagree with vs the rights of a consumer to receive service regardless of their orientation.

Fogel · Mar 31, 2015

Once again selective religious beliefs to fit ones agenda/narrative. This is just the latest strategy of the conservatives in the battle of gay marriage. Case in point - The cake shop that started all of this was so strong in their religious beliefs to deny a cake to some gay men, yet last I checked gluttony was a sin and I'm sure they have had no moral outrage being forced to sell cupcake after cupcake to every 300 lb land whale that strolled into their shop. Also, where are all the religious crusades against the cosmetic industry for the horrible sin of vanity?

Intrinsic · Mar 31, 2015

Royal_sl said:
A few pages back.Here

And link to the Arkansas version here:Bill Information

Borzak · Mar 31, 2015

I guess stock in comanies that make signs that read "Management reserves the right to refuse service" are going to tank.

Downhammer · Mar 31, 2015

Can't remember if I saw it here or some other site but someone should start the no shirt/no shoes religion and stick it to every fast food joint ever.

Draegan_sl · Mar 31, 2015

This is a good article that explains things:Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation ??" The Atlantic

The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. "Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA," the Post's Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The problem with this statement is that, well, it's false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA-and most state RFRAs-do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina's; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: "A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has "free exercise" rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court's five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees' statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business's "free exercise" right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there's a lot of evidence that the new wave of "religious freedom" legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple's wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in "public accommodations" on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico's RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state's Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply "because the government is not a party."

Wingz · Mar 31, 2015

No shirt, no shoes, no service. Biggest Discrimination ever.

Rhuma_sl · Apr 1, 2015

Wingz_sl said:
No shirt, no shoes, no service. Biggest Discrimination ever.

It doesn't really need to be said but... You can put a shirt on but you can't pray away the gay.

There's a fine line when we're dealing with this issue and the comment about being uncomfortable photographing scat porn is clearly crossing the line obviously.

There's two clear discussion focus points here, the blanket "will not sell to people that offend our religion" and "will not sell to people that want us to condone acts that offend our religion"

Should people be allowed to not want to have any part in catering to a satanic event? Absolutely.

Should people be allowed to not want to ring up groceries for someone at a supermarket that they know attends satanic events? No.

It's a murky subject that can be abused and I feel some are arguing and defending their point for both instances which isn't going to work.

If the law was a bit more specific I don't think there would be such an uproar over it but here we are.

Rhuma_sl · Apr 1, 2015

Of course after the fact, I asked myself if it was okay for a business to refuse service to a satanic event, would that be discriminating against their religious freedom and a part of me wants to say yes but it seems there isn't a compromise here besides an atheist catering service or satanic catering service to fulfill those needs and I don't see that business model working out for very long and said religion is basically screwed on that front.

So, there's that.

Chukzombi · Apr 1, 2015

seems pretty stupid to me to make businesses serve people they clearly dont want to. you have the right to not serve assholes like me at your establishment, just like i have the right to get butthurt about it and boycott your store along with other like minded assholes. basically, people want a store to be forced to serve people, but if you made a customer be forced to buy stuff from a certain store they dont want to, then is that ok too?

personally, why would gays or trannies want food and provide revenue at a store that hates their fucking guts? you gonna eat that pastry? wanna bet how much spit is in there?

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

Tranny Chaser

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures

Tranny Chaser

Bronze Baron of the Realm

Make America's Team Great Again

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vyemm Raider

Silver Squire

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Vyemm Raider

Mr. Poopybutthole

Person of Whiteness

Bronze Baron of the Realm

Vyemm Raider

2 Minutes Hate

Being Poor Sucks.

shitlord

shitlord

Millie's Staff Member

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh