Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill

[+OverSword]

I can't believe nobody has posted this yet. I'm tired of waiting for someone else to do it so here you go

My own opinion on this is I believe we've already gone through this with black people not being able to eat at certain places or drink from the same water fountains as white people.

From the article:

(Reuters) - Indiana Governor Mike Pence on Thursday signed into law a controversial religious freedom bill that could allow businesses and individuals to deny services to gays, in a move that prompted protests from some business leaders.

Supporters of the bill, which was passed overwhelmingly by both chambers of the Republican-controlled state legislature, say it will keep the government from forcing business owners to act against strongly held religious beliefs. Opponents say it is discriminatory and broader than other state religious freedom laws.

Social conservatives have pushed for such laws following court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage and anticipating a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this year on whether states can ban same-sex marriage.

“The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement after signing the bill.

Legal experts say the Religious Freedom Restoration Act sets a legal standard that will allow people of all faiths to bring religious freedom claims, but opinions differ over its impact.

Salesforce Inc Chief Executive Officer Marc Benioff said on Twitter that his San Francisco-based company would cancel programs that require travel to Indiana.

San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee condemned the law and barred city employees from traveling to Indiana at government expense unless essential for public health and safety.

Indiana Chamber of Commerce President and Chief Executive Kevin Brinegar called the law "entirely unnecessary" and said it would bring the state unwanted attention.

Gay rights groups worry it will be used by businesses that do not want to provide services for gay weddings. Gay marriage became legal in Indiana last year following an appeals court ruling.

Read it here

[StarMountainKid]

I can't think of the words to say how despicable this law is, and the people who support it.

[Grandpa Greenman]

Not just blacks, but Jews, Native Americans, Asians, etc...even Irish people at one time. It shows we still have a long way to go. Jim crow law still lives and grows in the US. It is stupid.

[+OverSword]

This will end up costing Indiana much revenue before it's repealed.

[KevinP]

On the one hand, I actually get what they might have intended with this law. And on the other hand, this could open a door to full blown discrimination so long as you can say it's based on your religious principles which can change and do change throughout the course of our lives.

[Paranormalcy]

Either it's illegal to deny service to people based on a criteria that isn't accounted for (violent, spewing blood out of their eyes, proven thief, etc) or it isn't. If it's not, then it's not. You can't be intolerant then complain other people aren't tolerant of your intolerance - there isn't a middle high school debate club in the world that would buy that.

I saw a great image macro of Mary being turned away from the manger/inn with the owner saying "Get out of here ****, we don't accept unmarried women".

Also I'm not a Christian but I don't recall reading that Jesus actually said to not have contact with "sinners". Am I misremembering that he hung out with prostitutes and washed feet and did all kinds of things like that? I don't really see how Jesus, who ostensibly promoted brotherhood and love, would say "See these atheists/gays/WiiU owners? Don't sell anything to them. I love everybody, but come ON!"

I'm unclear how people that quote their holy book in order to turn people away and actively, willfully excise and hurt them, can make any claims of any sort of goodness. That's not ignorance or craziness - that's evil.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Paranormalcy

[Rafterman]

When did we determine that a vendor has any say over how/why I use their product?

If I order a pizza and the guy brings it to my door, I can take it inside and eat it or I can slam it to the ground, set it on fire, and do a dance around it.

It's none of the pizza guy's business what I do with the product he/she sold me.

Likewise, if I order $5,000 worth of flowers, how is it the florists business whether or not I use them for a same-sex wedding ceremony or pile them up in my yard and take a big old dump on them?

Edited March 30, 2015 by Rafterman

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Is discrimination a true honorable trait that truelly religious people want to admire about themselves? I see it as a way that some people, who think they are so pious, to be legally able to judge and lash out at others they don't want to share this world with. Is this something that you want to admit to yourself? I have had so many particular religious individuals in my life telling me that me being their religion would get me to be soooooo wonderful toward others, and yet they want to have the freedom to let me know and others how spiteful they are to me. REALLY?! Is that not hypercritical? I have always found truelly religious and loving individuals want to show love and acceptance and fight for everyone's rights.

Did they forsee how the boycotts is going to be their undoing?

[Bama13]

As a business owner I should be able to refuse service to anyone I want. No explanation needed. As a property owner I can choose who I let on my property and who I ban. No difference. People can boycott to get the business owner to change his ways, or simply put him out of business by not buying anything from him.

[+and-then]

I believe this law is well meaning in inception. It was to protect Christians primarily, who do not wan't to support what they view as sin. But if a Christian wants to have a business that serves the public then they MUST obey the law. The bible instructs us to obey the law and those appointed to leadership except when it directly goes against God's word. So this attempt to protect the Christian is well meaning BUT it is not appropriate to these situations IMO. Christians are about to face much worse discrimination than just lawsuits over cakes and photos. It is time for us to stand boldly for what we believe and if that means leaving public businesses so as to stay on the right side of the law then so be it. God never promised we would be "protected" from the consequences of our faith. In fact just the opposite - he PROMISED that we WOULD suffer persecution for his name's sake. If I had a business that the law said MUST serve those who I disagree with then it is MY duty to find a new livelihood, not the duty of those who the law says I must serve to find another vendor.

[+OverSword]

As a business owner I should be able to refuse service to anyone I want. No explanation needed. As a property owner I can choose who I let on my property and who I ban. No difference. People can boycott to get the business owner to change his ways, or simply put him out of business by not buying anything from him.

Does that include black people because they are black? Jew's or Muslims because of their beliefs? Fat people because they disgust you? If this were legal the way you seem to believe it is then the same diners that wouldn't serve blacks in the south during Jim Crow would still not serve them and never would have. It doesn't work that way.

[Ashotep]

Arkansas passed the same kind of bill. I think this bill will leave the door open to discriminate. Will it spread to discriminating against other religions.

Arkansas Senate overwhelmingly approves anti-LGBT bill similar to one roiling Indiana

Hope Indiana likes this unintended result of their bill. Maybe these religions can discriminate against each other.

Whoops: Indiana’s anti-gay ‘religious freedom’ act opens the door for the First Church of Cannabis

[Rafterman]

I believe this law is well meaning in inception. It was to protect Christians primarily, who do not wan't to support what they view as sin. But if a Christian wants to have a business that serves the public then they MUST obey the law. The bible instructs us to obey the law and those appointed to leadership except when it directly goes against God's word. So this attempt to protect the Christian is well meaning BUT it is not appropriate to these situations IMO. Christians are about to face much worse discrimination than just lawsuits over cakes and photos. It is time for us to stand boldly for what we believe and if that means leaving public businesses so as to stay on the right side of the law then so be it. God never promised we would be "protected" from the consequences of our faith. In fact just the opposite - he PROMISED that we WOULD suffer persecution for his name's sake. If I had a business that the law said MUST serve those who I disagree with then it is MY duty to find a new livelihood, not the duty of those who the law says I must serve to find another vendor.

Does anyone else find it somewhat mind boggling that christians make up EIGHTY FOUR percent of the US population and yet still play the victim card at every turn?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I believe this law is well meaning in inception. It was to protect Christians primarily, who do not wan't to support what they view as sin. But if a Christian wants to have a business that serves the public then they MUST obey the law. The bible instructs us to obey the law and those appointed to leadership except when it directly goes against God's word. So this attempt to protect the Christian is well meaning BUT it is not appropriate to these situations IMO. Christians are about to face much worse discrimination than just lawsuits over cakes and photos. It is time for us to stand boldly for what we believe and if that means leaving public businesses so as to stay on the right side of the law then so be it. God never promised we would be "protected" from the consequences of our faith. In fact just the opposite - he PROMISED that we WOULD suffer persecution for his name's sake. If I had a business that the law said MUST serve those who I disagree with then it is MY duty to find a new livelihood, not the duty of those who the law says I must serve to find another vendor.

I do like what you wrote, don't get me wrong. But what I put in red, is it primarily for Christians? Isn't that prioritizing one religion over another. I would think, if this law was suppose to be well meaning, wouldn't it be for all religions who want protection for their beliefs? To me, this sounds like it's giving rights over one group for another.

[Michelle]

Does that include black people because they are black? Jew's or Muslims because of their beliefs? Fat people because they disgust you? If this were legal the way you seem to believe it is then the same diners that wouldn't serve blacks in the south during Jim Crow would still not serve them and never would have. It doesn't work that way.

We used to have a customer that was a real jerk. After a few times dealing with him, we were suddenly too busy to work him into the schedule...for about a year before he took the hint. I certainly am glad he was a white Christian and not black, gay, Jew, Muslim, etc., or we could have been charged with discrimination.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Michelle

[Ashotep]

I do like what you wrote, don't get me wrong. But what I put in red, is it primarily for Christians? Isn't that prioritizing one religion over another. I would think, if this law was suppose to be well meaning, wouldn't it be for all religions who want protection for their beliefs? To me, this sounds like it's giving rights over one group for another.

It is primarily for Christians, they don't think other religions count. They are just to be tolerated as long as the law makes them.

You would think by having to sell a gay flowers or something they are being forced to be gay.

[Space Commander Travis]

What I don't understand is why a gay person would want to do business with someone that disapproves of gay people. This might actually be useful in flagging up which businesses are run by these kind of people, so they can be avoided.

It is primarily for Christians, they don't think other religions count. They are just to be tolerated as long as the law makes them.

You would think by having to sell a gay flowers or something they are being forced to be gay.

Yes, religious freedom, as long as you're Christian.

[Ashotep]

What I don't understand is why a gay person would want to do business with someone that disapproves of gay people. This might actually be useful in flagging up which businesses are run by these kind of people, so they can be avoided.

If I were gay I would want to know who hated me so I could avoid their business.

[Space Commander Travis]

If I were gay I would want to know who hated me so I could avoid their business.

Exactly, yes.

[+OverSword]

If they are going to allow discrimination based on sin then that should include all sinners. If you get to pick and choose which sinners then it's called discrimination and is against the law.

[Bama13]

Does that include black people because they are black? Jew's or Muslims because of their beliefs? Fat people because they disgust you? If this were legal the way you seem to believe it is then the same diners that wouldn't serve blacks in the south during Jim Crow would still not serve them and never would have. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, I believe that a business owner should be able to decide who his business serves and who it doesn't. Just as you decide who is allowed in your house and who isn't. Same principle.

I wouldn't frequent an establishment that refused service to people because of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, left handed red haired green eyed vixens, etc. but it should be the owner's decision. Hopefully enough people boycott and he closes his doors.

[+OverSword]

Yes, I believe that a business owner should be able to decide who his business serves and who it doesn't. Just as you decide who is allowed in your house and who isn't. Same principle.

I wouldn't frequent an establishment that refused service to people because of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, left handed red haired green eyed vixens, etc. but it should be the owner's decision. Hopefully enough people boycott and he closes his doors.

My home doesn't have to be registered and licensed as a (public) business with the City, County, State, and Nation.

How do you, as one who is not in a class being discriminated against, know which businesses aren't serving left handed green eyed people?

Edited March 30, 2015 by OverSword

[Bama13]

My home doesn't have to be registered and licensed as a (public) business with the City, County, State, and Nation.

How do you, as one who is not in a class being discriminated against, know which businesses aren't serving left handed green eyed people?

Left handed green eyed (you left out red haired. That description fits my ex-wife, who I should be allowed to discriminate against!!) people will get the word out.

[Rafterman]

Yes, I believe that a business owner should be able to decide who his business serves and who it doesn't. Just as you decide who is allowed in your house and who isn't. Same principle.

I wouldn't frequent an establishment that refused service to people because of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, left handed red haired green eyed vixens, etc. but it should be the owner's decision. Hopefully enough people boycott and he closes his doors.

That's the difference between a private home and a PUBLIC accommodation.

If your job is to serve the public, then that is exactly what you have to do - serve the public. You can't deny service because of some trait or characteristic based on your personal beliefs.

[Bama13]

That's the difference between a private home and a PUBLIC accommodation.

If your job is to serve the public, then that is exactly what you have to do - serve the public. You can't deny service because of some trait or characteristic based on your personal beliefs.

I have refused service to plenty of people without giving any reason. My reason could very well have been based on my personal beliefs. The key is not to give a reason. Business owners/managers have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose.