Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

Furry_sl said:

Declining service isn't an action, it's a refusal to take action. The difference is huge and distinct. In essence, you support the government compelling a person to take action- perhaps even compelling to commit to speech they may not agree with. A cake maker could be COMPELLED to make a cake they disagree with, essentially compelled speech (art). How is this in any way just? I see it as a huge violation of their rights, where if they refused service, the person who was refused service had no rights violated. They can simply get their cake somewhere else.

Click to expand...

They're walking up to that line but not crossing it. Unless they've been busily crossing that line in the past few pages.

The matter at hand is only one direction. Right now the issue is, "I'm <Denomination> and I shouldn't have to make no faggit cake!"

Well, the thing is that you don't have to make no faggit cake. You really and truly do not have to make a faggit cake if you are <Denomination>. We don't need a law to affirm this as a basic right. There are people I've seen saying, "You're turning away business / good money and that's a moral failing!" Well, that's the point isn't it. It's their business to either pursue or turn away. And they can already do that. You don't need a defense of religion act. You think Wal-Mart gives a SHIT about LGBT? They do not. The problem with this idea is that it is so broad and so damn dumb that someone could sue Wal-Mart over religious beliefs. That's what Wal-Mart has a problem with.

Forget all the faggot stuff. You frame this in the context of Shiara and watch the people who are supporting it right now all of a sudden say, "No, it won't support that! That's not what it means!". Yeah, it will. Yeah, it does.

If libtards want to try legislating morality they'll have no better luck doing it than conservatards. Best of luck if anyone is in that group. All us not-completely-shitheaded people will be over here in the corner worrying more about doing our jobs and not caring what you end up deciding amongst yourselves.

What exactly are people being compelled to do? Their jobs? The thing they are doing/should be doing anyways? Iannis the conservatards have been "legislating" what they thought was moral for hundreds of years now. Luckily for them, I don't see gays or libtards rising up and burning shopowners at the stake or lynching them like they used to do to anyone who didn't conform to what they thought was moral.

Nobody's basic rights are being violated when they're simply being asked to do the job they are already doing. Think gays are terrible people in your mind and talk about it with your gay hating friends all you want, just provide equal opportunity for service.

BoldW_sl said:

Hai guys, it's 2015. If you're running a business that services the public, you don't have a right to discriminate. Especially if you think it's because a Sky Wizard wants you to. If you operate a Wedding Cake Business, you make Wedding Cakes. WTF kind of business model turns down totally fine business like that, especially considering gay demographics probably pay more, bitch less, and bring in more referral business than straights. No one is forcing you to go to the wedding and talk about Rim Jobs with Kuriin, but make the fucking cake.
Personally, I'd be taking my woman to that wedding and having her talk to Kuriin about the joys of giving Rim Jobs, taking up the rear, and all sorts of Urban-Dictionary stuff I've never heard of. I'd also get myself into the Guinness book of records for baking the biggest Cock-Cake ever.

Click to expand...

Give this man a beer. Winnar.

AngryGerbil_sl said:

I feel compelled to completely disagree with this.

Can I ask you something Tuco? Is sexual orientation a choice?

If so, then yes, this is a silly comparison and I agree with your statement.

But if not, then I would say comparing it to blacks in the 60's is just abouttheperfect example.

This entire law only makes sense if being gay is a choice. If it isn't, then welcome to the civil rights movement.

While we're at it, how do you feel about the curse of Ham? (rhetorical)

Click to expand...

I think the difference is race is not something a person can choose to just not talk about and as a result no one will know there not a certain race.

We could take all the anonymous posts here and link them to individual real life people. The results would be very negative for some people.

Why does society need to protect a persons right to be publicly homosexual while being ok with people being fired for the stupid shit they say on the internet?

Eventually you just have to draw a line in order to protect people individual freedom from the current in vogue group think that wants try and make everyone accept everyone else.

Kuriin_sl said:

Give this man a beer. Winnar.

Click to expand...

Just don't ask what Kuriin wants to do with the bottle after.

Not sure if I missed someone else make this point already, if so my apologies. But, the idea that this law has anything to do with religious freedom is laughable. To continue with the cake example, did the store ask every heterosexual couple if they'd had pre-marital sex, or ever masturbated? Lust. Did they refuse to put pictures of a couple on their cake? Pride. Did they refuse to make excessivley large or opulent cakes? Greed/Gluttony.

We all know that none of those questions were ever asked once, nor were any hetero couples refused for those reasons. The cake store owners might honestly believe that their opposition to gays stems from the bible, but it doesnt. It stems from, and obviously this is an assumption (although I think it VERY probable), having that shit taught and reinforced by the people who embedded those beliefs in them as they were raised. "Religious Freedom" is simply their trump card to avoid having to think about why they dislike gays. It the same reason morons like Kirk Cameron think that because "there aren't duck-odile" fossils evolution can't be real. That is not his reason for believing in creationism. It's just the best/easiest argument that he has to justify his otherwise unjustifiable beliefs.

Watching people try to justify bigotry is always hilarious. Well done Indiana.

edit - Their, there they're...fuck grammar

Siddar_sl said:

Eventually you just have to draw a line in order to protect people individual freedom from the current in vogue group think that wants try and make everyone accept everyone else.

Click to expand...

But it's okay when "the establishment" was the in vogue group for hundreds of years violating individual freedoms trying to make people conform to be like everyone else.

I'm missing the part where people are being forced to accept gays as well. They're still free to disagree with their lifestyle and hate them all they want, but if you choose to be a waiter, and a customer wants a drink and a meal, you serve them, whether gay or not.

Merrith_sl said:

But it's okay when "the establishment" was the in vogue group for hundreds of years violating individual freedoms trying to make people conform to be like everyone else.

I'm missing the part where people are being forced to accept gays as well. They're still free to disagree with their lifestyle and hate them all they want, but if you choose to be a waiter, and a customer wants a drink and a meal, you serve them, whether gay or not.

Click to expand...

Where did I ever say it was ok?

If government forces you to do business with someone you disprove of how that is not forcing you to accept them?

Siddar_sl said:

If government forces you to do business with someone you disprove of how that is not forcing you to accept them?

Click to expand...

lol...really?

Siddar_sl said:

Where did I ever say it was ok?

If government forces you to do business with someone you disprove of how that is not forcing you to accept them?

Click to expand...

You don't have to like every customer that walks in your door (shit lets be honest, who does)? You're simply performing the service/job that you chose to do. How is this accepting?

Siddar_sl said:

If government forces you to do business with someone you disprove of how that is not forcing you to accept them?

Click to expand...

Right now I feel forced to respond to your idiocy, but trust me, I don't accept you.

Siddar_sl said:

Where did I ever say it was ok?

If government forces you to do business with someone you disprove of how that is not forcing you to accept them?

Click to expand...

By this logic does this mean the Republicans finally accept Obama?

In other words you three simply don't have a answer.

When government forces a restaurant to serve blacks when they require banks to give loans to women they are using governmental power to force people to do what they want. Don't try and pretend they're not because they are clearly doing so. In the above two cases I have no problem with government doing so. The question is how far do you take that analogy? How many group are you going to extend the use of governmental force to protect?

Siddar_sl said:

The question is how far do you take that analogy? How many group are you going to extend the use of governmental force to protect?

Click to expand...

To pretty much everyone? If you don't want to bake people cakes, don't make a fucking cake business.

khalid_sl said:

To pretty much everyone? If you don't want to bake people cakes, don't make a fucking cake business.

Click to expand...

Yeah so what your saying fuck individual rights.

Siddar_sl said:

In other words you three simply don't have a answer.

When government forces a restaurant to serve blacks when they require banks to give loans to women they are using governmental power to force people to do what they want. Don't try and pretend they're not because they are clearly doing so. In the above two cases I have no problem with government doing so. The question is how far do you take that analogy? How many group are you going to extend the use of governmental force to protect?

Click to expand...

So basically blacks and women are just as bad as gay people as an "undesirable group", and we need to draw the line somewhere and stop letting the government protect these groups because they shouldn't have any personal freedoms. Is that what you're saying Siddar?

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:

They aren't forcing anyone to do shit. A business can still discriminate or refuse to provide a service to someone, but they just have to be more creative than "i hate fags and naggers".

Click to expand...

You really think that's a better option?

Siddar_sl said:

Yeah so what your saying fuck individual rights.

Click to expand...

So you're saying is blacks, women, and gays shouldn't have individual rights, or we should protect someone's "freedom" to prevent their individual rights over their ACTUAL individual rights because they are undesired groups.