Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
khalid_sl said:
What exactly are you arguing for? Sure, we as a society often fuck over certain groups. That doesn't mean we should do it more often or allow the ability to do so be entrenched in law.

As for "take away the high minded principle of the thing", no actually, let's not. What is behind the pushback against this law is people fed the fuck up with religious bigots and their attempts to enforce their religious bigotry with laws to let them shun people.
Click to expand...
Oh, to you and tuco... reading that it came off more aggressive than I meant it to.

This law is purdy dumb and a bad law. If I were GodKing of Arakkis I would tell them, "Nope. Try again". There is a situation where this sort of law could apply to. But that isn't the situation that they're dealing with. And I'd say, "lets wait until we actually have that problem before we decide how to fix it."

I still think you should separate the actual from the theoretical. I might have been loose with my language as well, Tuco, in "take away the high minded princicple of the thing." You still consider the principle of the thing, but you consider it in the context of the actual rather than the possible.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,823
100,031
Maester Chuk_sl said:
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?
Click to expand...
This is what I don't get, why the hell are you going to force people who want nothing to do with you to have something to do with you?

ya know maybe it is white privilege but in this day and age if someone said they are going to refuse my business because in straight or white I would just laugh at them and walk away. I wouldn't give two shits about forcing someone to serve, as I would want nothing to do with such retards.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Big Phoenix_sl said:
ya know maybe it is white privilege but in this day and age if someone said they are going to refuse my business because in straight or white I would just laugh at them and walk away. I wouldn't give two shits about forcing someone to serve, as I would want nothing to do with such retards.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is exactly privilege. You know that no one is going to refuse business to whites, or if they did, it would be an extremely small group. On the other hand, if you happen to unfortunately live in some rural religious area, it is possible that every group (or a significant number at least) would decide to turn away gay people and make their life hard. I (and many others) believe the government should have a role in saying that type of shunning should not be allowed.
 
TheBeagle

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
8,947
31,006
When Indianapolis starts losing out on revenue from conventions and sporting events then this will go away. There will never be another Final Four or Super Bowl there again that isn't already on the books as long as this law is in existence. Same thing with Texas, the last thing Jerry Jones wants is a similar law to pass or the only thing that will be happening at his big shiny new stadium will be Cowboy games and country music concerts. If these dumbass states want to pass dumbass laws then corporate interests and collegiate organizations (which must remain politically correct) can choose not to do business with them.

If you give these idiots enough rope they will inevitably hang themselves with it.
 
LachiusTZ

LachiusTZ

Rogue Deathwalker Box
<Silver Donator>
14,472
27,162
Never imagined you guys would be so opposed to this.

Should be a proprietors right to not serve someone. Whatever the reason.

If gays in Indiana are starving to death in the streets because they can't order cakes, move to San Francisco.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,959
82,719
Rhuma_sl said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything here.

Iannis_sl said:
Oh, to you and tuco... reading that it came off more aggressive than I meant it to.

This law is purdy dumb and a bad law. If I were GodKing of Arakkis I would tell them, "Nope. Try again". There is a situation where this sort of law could apply to. But that isn't the situation that they're dealing with. And I'd say, "lets wait until we actually have that problem before we decide how to fix it."

I still think you should separate the actual from the theoretical. I might have been loose with my language as well, Tuco, in "take away the high minded princicple of the thing." You still consider the principle of the thing, but you consider it in the context of the actual rather than the possible.
Click to expand...
My conclusion from the principle and the context is the same: Just cook the bros a cake.
 
Olscratch

Olscratch

tour de salt
<Banned>
2,114
536
LachiusTZ_sl said:
Never imagined you guys would be so opposed to this.

Should be a proprietors right to not serve someone. Whatever the reason.

If gays in Indiana are starving to death in the streets because they can't order cakes, move to San Francisco.
Click to expand...

Yeah you guys are really uppity about corporations having more rights than citizens. The corporations are better people than us and mean more to this country. Get over it. Same reason why all the sustainable native ways of live no longer exist in America and we actively poison groundwater daily for oil and gas we don't need. IF U DONT LUV IT LEAVE IT FAGUT
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
It's uneccesarily stupid, even to codify this sort of thing.

But here's the question they're trying to raise. If they had asked him to bake them a cake, and he said "No, I will not bake you a cake" and then they had gone to the courts to try to FORCE him to bake them the cake... how would you apply that principle? Not what happened, but that's the principled strawman they're trying to promote.

Because if you're going to force him to bake the cake, then you're the one saying "Yeah. Fuck that guy in particular" and invalidating your own stance. Which is pretty fundamentally why this entire train of thought is retarded.

There is a difference between the principle and the context and the application. Which says to me that it really isn't a problem at all if they had to grasp this far for such a small straw.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
When it comes to the cake business, I don't particularly give a shit one way or another. I think its just illustrative of how petty these religious people are, that they'd throw a shit fit over baking a cake when that's their job.

The real issue is when serious businesses, including pharmacists and psychiatrists and physicians and the like, start claiming they don't have to treat gay people or gay couples or the children of gay people, etc. that these laws start to really demonstrate their flaws.

You wanna make a law that says "Wedding cake makers and photographers don't have to service weddings they don't religiously agree with" I might be okay with that.

Its the overly broad language of these bills that is the issue.

The Atlantic article Draegan posted on this topic pretty well explains the issue.
 
Olscratch

Olscratch

tour de salt
<Banned>
2,114
536
Yeah I think quickly in backwoods rural towns you'd see whole towns ostracizing businesses who do still serve gays until they can push them all away or underground.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
The sort of hell you're imagining probably exists, but they will ostracize anyone for any reason. They'll run Peggy-Sue out of town because they don't like her haircut.

That's also a place where you have to separate the actual from the possible.
 
Heylel

Heylel

Trakanon Raider
3,602
430
Getting tired of seeing all this "But Clinton and Obama were for it!" nonsense.

To be absolutely clear, it's very simple. The 1993 RFRA applied to the Federal government to constrain them from impinging on individual religious practice. The earlier state RFRAs did the same for state governments. What throws this for a loop is Hobby Lobby making it so corporations now have religious rights, so suddenly you've taken a law that was intended to keep the DEA from raiding native populations who use peyote in religious rites and turned it into something that gives corporations a "religious" out to any Federal or state law that the management doesn't like.

Where Indiana fucked up is in going even further and allowing this exemption in the case of *private* lawsuits, i.e. citizen v citizen where there is no interest to the state or Federal governments. This is absolutely not the same thing as the earlier RFRA law. The scope of action is vastly larger, and its intended uses are different.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Iannis_sl said:
The sort of hell you're imagining probably exists, but they will ostracize anyone for any reason. They'll run Peggy-Sue out of town because they don't like her haircut.

That's also a place where you have to separate the actual from the possible.
Click to expand...
Man, you go out to some of these communites in the southern most parts of Kentucky and you'll find some pretty insane degrees of religious and racial bigotry.

And that's with most of my state being decidedly Northern

/zing

Try being an atheist or gay in Bowling Green lol. You're gonna have a bad time.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Iannis_sl said:
The sort of hell you're imagining probably exists, but they will ostracize anyone for any reason. They'll run Peggy-Sue out of town because they don't like her haircut.

That's also a place where you have to separate the actual from the possible.
Click to expand...
This just simply isn't true. There isn't some sudden cliff of prejudice people have that jumps from "letting everyone have cake" to "now not even Peggy-Sue with her weird haircut also won't get cake".

There are plenty of regions on the US that have "southern hospitality" and will go out of their way to help you and be kind and surely wouldn't give a shit about your haircut. Unless of course you violate their religious or racial bigotry, in which case good fucking luck getting anything.

I see this kind of attitude all the time while in rural illinois with my father. If my truck breaks down in the middle of nowhere, I will instantly get help. Yet these same people are deeply bigoted against gays and liberals in general and would think nothing of telling some faggot to get the hell out of their store, especially if given legal protection to do so.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
Hell I don't even doubt you. All I can really say is well get the fuck out of Indiana. I live in NC, not exactly the hub of civilization, and honestly I've seen it before -- but it is remarkable for being so rare. And when I have seen it it usually starts a fight afterwards.

What is way more common down here is the sAmerican Inventoring afterwards. "hyue, boss. How many cocks you think he's sucked? No, I mean today!" Now that'll happen almost every time.
 
Merrith

Merrith

Golden Baronet of the Realm
18,595
7,224
Maester Chuk_sl said:
but if you made a customer be forced to buy stuff from a certain store they dont want to, then is that ok too?
Click to expand...
I feel like this happens quite a bit, although just more as a tactic of business than any sort of "forcing something that is against someone's beliefs on them".
 
T

Therage

Vyemm Raider
875
3,969
I am so embarrassed by my state right now. I hope this causes such an economic fall out that Republicans start getting hung out to dry.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
I haven't followed this event or this thread at all, but why are religious people so dumb? Couldn't the bakery just have said "oh we overbooked, sorry we can't accommodate that date and cake" instead of "hurr durr die faggots"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.