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!
Intrinsic

Intrinsic

Person of Whiteness
<Gold Donor>
15,312
13,716
Did the differentiation betweenyouoryour businesshaving a right, or being compelled, or forced, or whatever the argument is go out the window when corporations were considered people... or something? Only half follow these political threads so maybe in my mind it is still right to separate the two in certain situations.
 
Siddar

Siddar

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,465
6,012
Tuco_sl said:
I agree and I don't think anyone is arguing you, as a baker, should be forced to cook any cake a customer wants. AFAIK it'd be totally legal for you to refuse to cook red velvet cakes on grounds that no one should put 2 tablespoons of food coloring in a cake. The same goes for a baker being asked to make a cake that says "God made Adam and Eve" or "Boy I sure love cocks".
Click to expand...
We agree but what if your recipe for taking wedding pictures involves one female bride and one male groom?
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,594
11,938
Siddar_sl said:
We agree but what if your recipe for taking wedding pictures involves one female bride and one male groom?
Click to expand...
rrr_img_94091.png
 
Siddar

Siddar

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,465
6,012
Tuco_sl said:
What?
Click to expand...
What if a person who takes wedding pictures for a living doesn't want to take pictures of a gay wedding because that doesn't fit there definition of a wedding they want to take pictures for. Just as the baker you used as a analogy doesn't want to make red velvet cakes.
 
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,897
Siddar_sl said:
I would happly make a god loves fags cake and a god hate fags cake for small fee with no problems. I am opposed to being told I have to make ether cake. If my views are no longer valid then individual freedom and rights or dead as well.
Click to expand...
You haven't read this thread. Try page 12ish on standard page size. Where Astrocreep very intelligently asked questions about baking cakes, instead of jumping to ludicrous conclusions like you are today.

So I'll just repeat myself.

No, the government cannot force you to bake dick cakes. Like Astrocreep, may I assume that you don't actually know what happened at that cake shop in Indiana? Yes? I think it's pretty obvious.

The government can't force you to produce a product that you don't want to produce. This includes dick cakes. However, in the course of daily business, you donotget to refuse to serve a person simply for having a natural and or congenital arrangement of human characteristics that your personal beliefs (religious or not) find distasteful. That is bald-faced dyed-in-the-wool bigotry and your personal and religious freedoms, as important and as valuable as they are, stop here. This is the line.

If they are making you bake dick cakes, or are butt ficking each other in your store, then those are choices being made that can be unmade. They can choose to stop butt fucking each other or choose another cake store to make them a dick cake. You can choose not to tolerate those chosen behaviors, and kick them out.

What you don't get to do, is when a gay person asks for a number 3 with extra sprinkles, is tell them 'we don't serve your kind here fag'. That is bigotry and that is the mindset and behavior that can not be tolerated. Your personal and religious freedoms do not extend to infinity. This issue represents one of the many finite extents of them.
 
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,897
As a general rule i find that most people don't want to compare it to race because that has the implicit effect of subtely acknowledging that sexual orientation is, like race, congenital.

The underlying belief behind all of this is the belief that sexual orientation is a choice, and that it is morally possible to make the 'incorrect' choice.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,952
82,702
Siddar_sl said:
What if a person who takes wedding pictures for a living doesn't want to take pictures of a gay wedding because that doesn't fit there definition of a wedding they want to take pictures for. Just as the baker you used as a analogy doesn't want to make red velvet cakes.
Click to expand...
I think that's a good question. At face value I'd say that a photographer, like a baker, photographs things. But, like a baker can choose what they make, they can choose what they photograph. Photographing a gay wedding is different because a wedding cake is just a wedding cake, but a photograph of a gay wedding is different in content than a photograph of a straight one.

Additionally a baker doesn't have to actually attend the ceremony, just make the cake.

So in this case I'd say yes, a photographer shouldn't be forced to work at a gay wedding just because they're in the field of wedding photography.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Look, unless there is some harm done to people being discriminated against, there needs to be no protection. The market will determine the fate of the business doing the discrimination like what happened to the cake shop and the pizzeria. If there is some harm done, the person should be able to sue. Creating all these special classes of people who enjoy protection is dumb.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Should marriage counselors be able to deny service to married gay couples based on their (the counselor's) religion?

Should psychiatrists be able to deny service to gay people based on their (the psychiatrist's) religion?

Should a pharmacist be able to deny contraceptives to a woman because their (the pharmacist's) religion?

The wedding cake/photographer shit is such a distraction from the fuller impact of these laws its silly.

If it was only about wedding cakes and photographers, who really gives a shit. But its not.

Its about any private business owner being able to deny service based on their religious beliefs.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,952
82,702
hodj_sl said:
Should marriage counselors be able to deny service to married gay couples based on their (the counselor's) religion?

Should psychiatrists be able to deny service to gay people based on their (the psychiatrist's) religion?

Should a pharmacist be able to deny contraceptives to a woman because their (the pharmacist's) religion?
Click to expand...
yes,yes,no

The difference is the work involved is modified by the fact that it's a gay couple.
 
Selix

Selix

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,149
4
Tuco_sl said:
I think that's a good question. At face value I'd say that a photographer, like a baker, photographs things. But, like a baker can choose what they make, they can choose what they photograph. Photographing a gay wedding is different because a wedding cake is just a wedding cake, but a photograph of a gay wedding is different in content than a photograph of a straight one.

Additionally a baker doesn't have to actually attend the ceremony, just make the cake.

So in this case I'd say yes, a photographer shouldn't be forced to work at a gay wedding just because they're in the field of wedding photography.
Click to expand...
Seems like that is making it unnecessarily complicated. The wedding photographer can refuse to photograph a wedding just not on discriminatory grounds. Even if that is the real reason.
 
Siddar

Siddar

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,465
6,012
Tuco_sl said:
I think that's a good question. At face value I'd say that a photographer, like a baker, photographs things. But, like a baker can choose what they make, they can choose what they photograph. Photographing a gay wedding is different because a wedding cake is just a wedding cake, but a photograph of a gay wedding is different in content than a photograph of a straight one.

Additionally a baker doesn't have to actually attend the ceremony, just make the cake.

So in this case I'd say yes, a photographer shouldn't be forced to work at a gay wedding just because they're in the field of wedding photography.
Click to expand...
I would agree again with you.

A wedding photographer refusing to take pictures of a gay wedding is almost certainly what led to Indiana law. The case started a movement for changing state laws to allow for a religious exemption to providing certain services.

Supreme Court won't hear case on gay wedding snub
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Tuco_sl said:
yes,yes,no

The difference is the work involved is modified by the fact that it's a gay couple.
Click to expand...
Psychiatrists and marriage counselors also follow a Hippocratic oath, and denying service based on sexual orientation is a violation of that oath.

Medical practitioners should never be allowed to discriminate as to whom they treat based on the fundamental characteristics of that person or persons, such as their skin color, their religion, their sexual preferences, etc.

A gay atheist psychiatist should not be allowed to refuse to provide their services to a straight Christian couple any more than a straight Christian psychiatrist should be able to refuse to provide their services to a gay Atheist couple.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here, especially when it comes to medicine.

If a gay couple gets in a car accident, and goes to a Baptist hospital in an ambulance, should the doctors at that hospital who happen to be religious be able to refuse service in that emergency to that gay couple based on the religious practices of the hospital and its medical staff? What if doing so costs one or both of them their lives? Should their families not be able to sue for malpractice/failure to provide care in an emergency?
 
Selix

Selix

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,149
4
Tuco_sl said:
yes,yes,no

The difference is the work involved is modified by the fact that it's a gay couple.
Click to expand...
Should marriage counselors be able to deny service to marriedinterracialcouples based on their (the counselor's) religion?

Should psychiatrists be able to deny service tointerracialpeople based on their (the psychiatrist's) religion?

Is race different then sexual preference here? Should religion be allowed to discriminate based on sexual preference but not race?
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
hodj_sl said:
Psychiatrists and marriage counselors also follow a Hippocratic oath, and denying service based on sexual orientation is a violation of that oath.

Medical practitioners should never be allowed to discriminate as to whom they treat based on the fundamental characteristics of that person or persons, such as their skin color, their religion, their sexual preferences, etc.

A gay atheist psychiatist should not be allowed to refuse to provide their services to a straight Christian couple any more than a straight Christian psychiatrist should be able to refuse to provide their services to a gay Atheist couple.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here, especially when it comes to medicine.
Click to expand...
And if the medical practitioner believes that their person views and biases will harm the patient?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
wormie_sl said:
And if the medical practitioner believes that their person views and biases will harm the patient?
Click to expand...
A medical practitioner has a responsibility to provide services in an emergency as per the Hippocratic oath. What, pray tell, could their personal beliefs do to harm the patients, that wouldn't result in a malpractice lawsuit?

Are gay people's anatomy and physiology so different from straights that this is even remotely an issue? No.

This is a non sequitor argument you have made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.