Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill

[Bama13]

I think there is a big difference here, between your personal rights, and then being paid to serve the personal rights of everyone.

I wonder if that is right. I always observed there has to be a good reason if the cops are called, and even then wonder if has damaged an individual who didn't deserve to be treated as such. Kind of like Target employees forced on the Walk of Shame http://www.businessi...despread-2015-2 situation. Yeah, this is where it's the employees being the subject of discussion here and not customers, but I think it has the same point of tragically harming an individual emotionally and psychologically when there is no reason for it. Who is anyone that resorts to things like this, when more harm than good comes from it. I think you have to have a really good reason, and the police should have a more understanding of what is going on to do this.

Well I can assure you that in Alabama and Florida you do not need a reason not to serve anyone. I have done it. Now I had a reason, who turns away paying customers without a reason, but the police never asked. They asked me if I wanted this person off the premises. I said yes. They told the person the could leave or be escorted away.

[Bama13]

Gay people being gay in no way, shape, or form prevents a Christian from being a Christian and selling a wedding cake or flowers to gays does not prevent people from being Christians.

This is opinion, nothing more. Opinion I happen to agree with, but still just opinion. Others opinions may, and do, vary.

[Beany]

If the community feels so strongly that a wedding cake baker should be punished because they don't support gay marriage, let a boycott and bad press do the job of punishing them. Any private business that provides a non-essential service or product should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason.

And this is different from the old Jim Crow laws how?

[Beany]

If the community feels so strongly that a wedding cake baker should be punished because they don't support gay marriage, let a boycott and bad press do the job of punishing them. Any private business that provides a non-essential service or product should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason.

This is a straw man argument. Nobody said the baker should be punished. And I stand by my statement that any law that prevents an individual from participating on an equal footing based on their sexuality is wrong.

[Beany]

You're arguing with the wrong person Beany. He has already stated that he was all for business owners in the south being able to refuse to serve people based on skin color.

That's really sad. I didn't think those opinions were still as common as they used to be. Another instance where I've been totally wrong, but reality is always preferable to illusion.

[Beany]

And nearly all vote Democrat .

Gee, can I think of any legitimate reason why they would vote Democrat. Uhmmmm, thinking, thinking, thinking, bingo!

[Thorvir]

Gee, can I think of any legitimate reason why they would vote Democrat. Uhmmmm, thinking, thinking, thinking, bingo!

Poor decision making?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[Beany]

If the community feels so strongly that a wedding cake baker should be punished because they don't support gay marriage, let a boycott and bad press do the job of punishing them. Any private business that provides a non-essential service or product should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason.

I certainly didn't suggest the baker be punished, I am suggesting looking at the consequences of the "religious freedom" law, because there are consequences. Can we include that in a discussion that isn't limited to "why would you want to do business with someone who discriminates against you" or some such language?

[+OverSword]

\

That's really sad. I didn't think those opinions were still as common as they used to be. Another instance where I've been totally wrong, but reality is always preferable to illusion.

According to Bama I misquoted him but I fail to see how he didn't say that. Although he does state that he would personally boycott such a business.

[Bama13]

\

According to Bama I misquoted him but I fail to see how he didn't say that. Although he does state that he would personally boycott such a business.

Just I could select certain parts of your posts and from those parts misconstrue your meaning.

[Beany]

Okay.

Scenario A:

Gay couple enters wedding cake bakery. They ask for a specific cake, the owner declines stating that she does not support gay marriage, as it is against her faith. Couple go ballistic, make a scene, file a lawsuit, and the bakery is forced to go out of business.

Scenario 2

Gay couple enters wedding cake bakery. They ask for a specific cake, the owner declines stating that she does not support gay marriage, as it is against her faith. Couple understands, says they will go to a different bakery that does, leaves and finds a bakery that does. Everyone wins.

Why in the world is Scenario A acceptable to the masses but 2 is so horribly wrong? Why all of the hatred and bigotry against these kinds of business owners (this more of a rhetorical question, as it's easy to deduce why).

Taken from another forum:

While I may not fully agree that this is a just a left/right thing, it's the left that I'm seeing exercising a great deal of hypocrisy here. There's nothing wrong with everyone trying to get along and coming to a middle ground, I'm not seeing any of that at this time.

Option 2 is not horribly wrong, but it's not an option that everyone is going to choose, and not everyone is going to understand that option as reaching middle ground and just walk away. There's more than just two options, you know, forcing someone to choose just one of two is sort of a false dilemma, isn't it? Some people are going to get angry, upset, or decide to attempt to affect change, or refuse to walk away. Conflict avoidance is not everyone's style, as is clear from many of the posts made on this thread. How one would respond is a matter of personal choice.

Here's a definition of false dilemma from grammar.about.com: A fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in reality more options are available

[Bama13]

That's really sad. I didn't think those opinions were still as common as they used to be. Another instance where I've been totally wrong, but reality is always preferable to illusion.

Okay, I'm done here. Apparently either I am unable to make myself clear or y'all are intent on demonizing any opposition.

Have a good April Fools day everyone.

[Beany]

Poor decision making?

Exactly. If those religious conservatives keep making these kinds of decisions they'll drive voters away instead of attracting them.

[+OverSword]

Just I could select certain parts of your posts and from those parts misconstrue your meaning.

Do you or do you not believe that the owners of diners should be allowed to refuse service for any old reason they feel like including skin color?

edit to add

Okay, I'm done here. Apparently either I am unable to make myself clear or y'all are intent on demonizing any opposition.

Have a good April Fools day everyone.

I apologize for my part in running him off by cornering him with his own words.

Edited March 31, 2015 by OverSword

[Michelle]

You see, I like this post. (if anyone gets the soup nazi example from the show 'Seinfield') I wonder how funny we always find those scenes with the soup nazi and wonder if we are laughing because the soup guy has the gall to not sell to who he sees fits and that it might be wrong. (then again, this was a show about nothing ) And maybe we can learn a lesson from it, because Elaine found the recipe and got him back.

The soup Nazi didn't discriminate, he didn't like anyone. I think that is the point Bama is making. It should be up to the individual who they will do business with and who they won't. I've often wondered about businesses in questionable areas that operate with buzzers on the door to allow entry. How do they decide who to let in or not and what is their criteria? If a scruffy looking guy, in dirty work clothes, goes to the door of an upscale tile distributer to pick up and order for a client do they let him in or talk to him through the door first? They have to make a judgment right then and there.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Michelle

[Thorvir]

Option 2 is not horribly wrong, but it's not an option that everyone is going to choose, and not everyone is going to understand that option as reaching middle ground and just walk away. There's more than just two options, you know, forcing someone to choose just one of two is sort of a false dilemma, isn't it? Some people are going to get angry, upset, or decide to attempt to affect change, or refuse to walk away. Conflict avoidance is not everyone's style, as is clear from many of the posts made on this thread. How one would respond is a matter of personal choice.

List all of the choices and show us which ones don't work against the business in question, nor goes against their faith (and it's just not Christians I'm talking about).

Here's a definition of false dilemma from grammar.about.com: A fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in reality more options are available

Yeah, I know what a fallacy is, and what I posted was not one.

[Thorvir]

Okay, I'm done here. Apparently either I am unable to make myself clear or y'all are intent on demonizing any opposition.

That's the usual tactic, isn't it?

[+OverSword]

That's the usual tactic, isn't it?

Only because the logical outcome of his position is despicable.

[Michelle]

Indiana officials, including Gov. Mike Pence, say it's based on a 1993 federal "religious freedom" law that has been upheld by courts. They note that President Bill Clinton signed the federal law and that President Barack Obama supported similar legislation while an Illinois senator.

Twenty states now have similar laws in place, and Arkansas is poised to follow suit.

cont...

http://hosted.ap.org...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Tiggs]

The soup Nazi didn't discriminate, he didn't like anyone. I think that is the point Bama is making. It should be up to the individual who they will do business with and who they won't. I've often wondered about businesses in questionable areas that operate with buzzers on the door to allow entry. How do they decide who to let in or not and what is their criteria? If a scruffy looking guy, in dirty work clothes, goes to the door of an upscale tile distributer to pick up and order for a client do they let him in or talk to him through the door first? They have to make a judgment right then and there.

Not serving individuals based on their erratic behaviour or dress is different from continually refuse to serve an entire group of people by default, such as Women, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Gays, Left-handed people, Republicans, Christians, etc.

[Tiggs]

Indiana officials, including Gov. Mike Pence, say it's based on a 1993 federal "religious freedom" law that has been upheld by courts. They note that President Bill Clinton signed the federal law and that President Barack Obama supported similar legislation while an Illinois senator.

Twenty states now have similar laws in place, and Arkansas is poised to follow suit.

Republican Senate President Pro Tem David Long stressed that the new law is based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which has been upheld by courts.

But the Human Rights Campaign said it's disingenuous to compare the two laws.

The campaign's legal director, Sarah Warbelow, said the federal law was designed to ensure religious minorities were protected from laws passed by the federal government that might not have been intended to discriminate but had that effect.

The Indiana law, she said, allows individuals to invoke government action even when the government is not a party to a lawsuit. It also allows all businesses to assert religious beliefs regardless of whether they are actually religious organizations.

Source: CBS

[Myles]

I think passing this was a bad move. High risk low reward.

I had thought I read where it doesn't allow a business to discriminate against anyone. Using the "gay" angle, it doesn't allow them not to serve a gay person, but it protects them from having to be gay.

It read stupid just like that.

[Beany]

List all of the choices and show us which ones don't work against the business in question, nor goes against their faith (and it's just not Christians I'm talking about).

Yeah, I know what a fallacy is, and what I posted was not one.

I couldn't possibly list all the options, but some I would consider would be entering the business and being as pleasant as possible without trying to buy anything. I might make up some flyers to hand out while standing in front of the business and recruit some friends to help. I might write a letter to the editor and send them to all the newspapers I can think of, and ask my friends to do the same. I might talk to my local elected officials, I might join an organization of like-minded people, I might make a donation to an LGBTQ organization, try to find a rally that I can participate in. I might attend an evangelical church to get to know these people better and maybe educate myself and build bridges. I have done all of these things in past. What I would not do is just walk away from it, because my experience has taught me that being pro-active can often be an effective strategy. Others might handle it differently than me, which is fine. Walking away, though, is not my style, and years ago I promised myself never to walk away from what I perceive to be injustice without using my voice.

[Tiggs]

List all of the choices and show us which ones don't work against the business in question, nor goes against their faith (and it's just not Christians I'm talking about).

How about the one where the baker sells them the cake?

Why should the gay couple have to compromise their deeply-held belief that they should be treated the same as everyone else?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Tiggs

[+OverSword]

I'm waiting for Indiana to clarify how this law will not allow businesses to discriminate against gays. At this point I fail to see how this law was meant to do anything except allow businesses to refuse service to gays due to religious beliefs without being punished through legal recourse.

There was a bakery in my state which was fined right out of business for their continued refusal to do business with gays for their weddings. I fail to see how selling a cake to someone prevented them from practicing Christianity. My government uses my tax dollars to do many things which offend my own religious convictions, such as killing people with drones in nations we're not a war with, Jesus was pretty specific about how to treat your enemies and it wasn't killing them, but that doesn't keep me from paying taxes and doesn't make me feel like less of a Christian.