Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill

[Michelle]

so then if I find a gay baker I can make him make me a cake that says homosexuality is a sin, and if he wont I can sue him for discriminating against my religious beliefs

That's easy...they don't make specialty cakes.

[Big Jim]

I don't mean to be splitting hairs, but I see a big difference between selling something off the shelf and using one's time and talents to create something. This is why I used the example of a florist and a baker in an earlier post. If I'm running a donut shop and a gay couple came in to buy donuts, no big deal. The same if I'm just running a flower stand. But if I'm a baker or florist and I'm engaged to produce a special, one-of-a-kind item for someone's special day, that requires much more of myself than just throwing another batch of donuts in the fryer. I'm not a business owner nor especially religious but I can imagine myself in a similar situation. I'm an amateur woodworker. If someone asked me to make them a coffee table I wouldn't care who or what they were. But if someone asked me to make an altar for satanic rites I would have to refuse. The end product in either case would be essentially similar in construction, but I put an awful lot of myself into my work and I would feel like in some way I am participating in the final use of the things I make. I see the dilemma of florists and bakers and other artists in a similar fashion. Different from a grocer or car dealer who is merely selling products. Having strong religious beliefs that were being challenged would only make the situation harder to deal with.

[Beefers]

How can this even happen in a "1st-world" country? 100 years ago, racism and discrimination were (sadly) the norm, definitely not nowadays.

[rashore]

How can this even happen in a "1st-world" country? 100 years ago, racism and discrimination were (sadly) the norm, definitely not nowadays.

Oh, I don't know about that. Racism and discrimination is still very norm nowadays. People just handle it a bit differently than they did 100 years ago.

[dmurdock36]

this law was propose by Ted Kennedy and signed into law federally by Bill Clinton and it wasn't written to protect Christians it was so Indians could smoke there Peoti they claimed it was part of there religion even Obama and Clinton signed it, same legislation but if it is going to be used to help Christians we cant have it

[Tiggs]

so then if I find a gay baker I can make him make me a cake that says homosexuality is a sin, and if he wont I can sue him for discriminating against my religious beliefs

Best of luck with that. Forcing someone to write a specific message on a cake is a first amendment freedom of speech issue, and any baker can refuse to do so.

[Tiggs]

While there is a law that allows gay marriage...there is a also a law that says I do not have to sell flowers to gays getting married. The Law is the Law.

Yes, it is. As of July 1st, 2015, when it's due to go into effect.

You'll perhaps note that the governor has asked for an additional bill "making it clear the law does not allow businesses the right to deny services to anyone."

[+joc]

Yes, it is. As of July 1st, 2015, when it's due to go into effect.

You'll perhaps note that the governor has asked for an additional bill "making it clear the law does not allow businesses the right to deny services to anyone."

An additional bill...I did not note that...but at this juncture...an additional bill...is nonexistent

[acidhead]

Yes, it is. As of July 1st, 2015, when it's due to go into effect.

You'll perhaps note that the governor has asked for an additional bill "making it clear the law does not allow businesses the right to deny services to anyone."

CNN has been reporting this all day.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

But where do you stop?

I can see you all saying "but homosexuality is against our beliefs!", but that's not the only things verboten under Abrahamic Law. Will you tell mensurating women to sod off? What about unmarried mothers? People who wear mixed fabrics? People who worship other gods? People With tattoos?

They're all "unclean" people according to Leviticus.

[Tiggs]

An additional bill...I did not note that...but at this juncture...an additional bill...is nonexistent

At this juncture - so is this law's effect.

[+OverSword]

What? Many of us have given many examples.

I'll give it one more go: I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I am not going to indulge in activity that advocates homosexuality. By choosing what kind of activities I will and will not sanction...I am practicing my religion.

Edited to say that: in reality I do not think homosexuality is a sin...that was an example only.

In that case you must also find out which of your clients are living together before they are married because that's a sin, and find out who was previously married because many people view divorce as a sin. The list of things that are a sin goes on and on and if you feel that you can't practice your religion by doing business with sinners then you should just move to the desert. If these people are allowed to discriminate towards some sinners and not others then how can this be fair?

[+OverSword]

You have yet to answer why believing that the people can deal with discrimination without help from the government is despicable.

I don't feel the need to answer you because you already stated that you believe that business owners should be allowed to discriminate for any reason they choose and as long as they don't say why they're doing it they can't get into any trouble. Since that's your stance there's no need to try to talk sense to you.

[Agent0range]

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

All of you Christian's out there...how many stones were thrown? ZERO. If a bakery refused service to sinners, THEY WOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS. Oh, but now the Christian bakery can pick and choose what sins they serve and what sins they don't? Sounds to me like a workaround for discrimination.

[aquatus1]

The issue here isn't about demanding that a business owner do something specific, like bake a cross cake or make a gay flower bouquet (I can't describe how silly it feels to type out those two examples). Business owners are free to sell whatever product they choose, including ones with religious restrictions. We all know of a kosher deli somewhere. You can't go into one and demand a BLT and expect to purchase a product they don't sell. There is no law that forces them to make a product that they do not offer available.

What the law does state is that if a business sells a product, it cannot discriminate whom it sells it to. If you sell flowers, you sell flowers, and that's it. If you sell cakes, you sell cakes, and that is all there is to it. Same goes for soup.

Here is where it gets tricky, and where a lot of overlap in this thread is happening: While the law in regards to selling a product is pretty straightforward, the laws regarding providing a service are less so.

On paper they are generally treated as interchangeable, but those who know me know that I always defer to behavior, not claims. When it comes to service, businesses are often given a great deal of leeway in how they treat their customers. Almost always, it comes down to whether or not the discrimination is arbitrary and not pertaining to business, or whether it affects the business in a negative fashion. Note that nothing here addresses the personal feelings of either the business owner or the customers. Business is business, and laws are laws. If you run a business, you have to obey the laws, and how you feel about the laws are irrelevant. Change them if you want to, but you will follow them or lose your permit.

A customer demanding a cross cake from a bakery that offers customized cakes can be rejected on the grounds of artisanship, meaning that the artisan (the baker) does not feel they can create the specific request for a given reason. A custom cake is a service, not a product that one can buy off-the-shelf. Most wedding cakes can and do fall under that description.

A flower shop can withhold delivery services. Customized delivery is not an off-the-shelf product; it requires a person with a given level of skill (not a particularly high level, but a level nonetheless) to produce the service. On the day that we have drones or automatic cars to perform deliveries, shops will not be able to deny delivery services anymore.

But, for me, the impact of this law is a bit deeper that the mere legal mechanics of it. Contrary to popular belief, no, businesses cannot regulate themselves. Society has to regulate them. Left to their own devices, business will follow the exact same instinctual drive that created them to begin with, and attempt to devour and dominate everything around them. Whether it be the next J.P. Morgan economically owning the entire United States, or the corner shops deciding who gets to eat their bread, it is all a dominance game.

A gay couple looking for a wedding cake and being denied service are unlikely to mount on a mission to put that cake shop out of business. They have a wedding to plan, and much happier thoughts to pursue. The discrimination they feel is simply going to be stuffed deep down inside and left to smolder, much like it is done among any group treated the same way (how well that works out is a matter of history). A shop that caters only to certain classes is not going to go out of business. There will always be plenty of people who are either members of that class, or who never bother to ask if any classes other then theirs are not permitted.

But businesses are far more prominent than individuals. A store that only caters to a certain class will attract that class, which will in turn attract other stores that cater to that class, which will eventually result is a Chinatown, or black neighborhood, or gentrified, or any of the various silly ways humans end up categorizing themselves. At that point, it isn't even a matter of discrimination based on religion or beliefs, just merely on being uncomfortable with anyone in the neighborhood who looks or acts differently.

I object to this law because it is a reflection of, and will emphasize, the sort of base, primitive, instinctual behavior that inevitably leads to social segregation and political unrest. People throughout history have complained about having to follow the rules, but as long as everyone is being treated equally, that is generally as far as it has gone. When all is said and done, business is business, and the money looks the same regardless of whom it comes from. It is only when businesses have been allowed to discriminate that social problems begin to grow. Individual discrimination is bad, but largely insignificant to anyone other than the one being discriminated on; institutionalized discrimination (or, as in this case, protected discrimination) leads to segregation (social or otherwise). Segregation leads to unfamiliarity. Unfamiliarity leads to fear, which is, ultimately, the cause of all discrimination (and, unfortunately, precisely the marketing tactic employed by way too many businesses who make coin from it *looking at you, NRA*).

Once you have a society divided into groups afraid of each other, well, Yoda had it pretty much spot on from there.

[F3SS]

Between Big Jim who's always spot on and A1 who is who he is there's nothing left to say. Great posts.

Sure - but volunteer firefighter organisations also come under Indiana's definition of person - see above.

You are comparing life and death based to baking a cake.

Without researching I would argue that an organization that is voluntary and aims to save lives and property must fall under some legal obligation to act when needed. I have read that they can use discretion if no lives are in danger and let the property burn but lives are the key issue. There is no way a VFC could knowingly let people die or not respond if able without repercussion. It's beyond reason but if you're right then that would just be insanity. I just can't ever see it happening here.

[Tiggs]

You are comparing life and death based to baking a cake.

I don't recall saying that anyone would die.

Without researching I would argue that an organization that is voluntary and aims to save lives and property must fall under some legal obligation to act when needed

I strongly doubt that voluntary organisations have any legal obligations to act to save property.

Especially since non-voluntary firefighters can happily watch someone's house burn.

[F3SS]

I don't recall saying that anyone would die.

I strongly doubt that voluntary organisations have any legal obligations to act to save property.

Especially since non-voluntary firefighters can happily watch someone's house burn.

It's strongly implied just by odds that if VFC's weren't showing up to fires that somebody may just be in a deadly circumstance.

And that's why I put in a sort of disclaimer about property that you so happily snipped.

[aquatus1]

No more so than regular citizens. I don't believe professional firefighters are under any obligation to save property either, particularly if there is a risk to the firefighters themselves. They do, of course, but more out of necessity than requirement.

[F3SS]

Right. I'm thinking a fire that can spread and spread to other properties until dealt with might be something that applies.

[aquatus1]

Exactly. If there is a risk to property, but not firefighters, such as lava burning down a rich neighborhood and threatening to cut off escape routes, the neighborhood will be written off (as long as the owners are safely evacuated, of course). Since few rich neighborhoods border the more populated, less wealthy, ones, the danger of fire spread is minimal. In a more run down neighborhood, however, where the population is such that the chances of everyone being gone or even capable of evacuating, and the buildings are much closer together, the danger of spread is much higher, and the corresponding risk to firefighters is more justified.

[Tiggs]

It's strongly implied just by odds that if VFC's weren't showing up to fires that somebody may just be in a deadly circumstance.

And that's why I put in a sort of disclaimer about property that you so happily snipped.

That's mostly because I'm otherwise occupied, at the moment.

Just to keep you happy though:

I have read that they can use discretion if no lives are in danger and let the property burn but lives are the key issue. There is no way a VFC could knowingly let people die or not respond if able without repercussion. It's beyond reason but if you're right then that would just be insanity. I just can't ever see it happening here.

So this kind of thing would never happen, right?

Do you think that all the fire departments were prompt back in the mid-20th century, when the KKK were burning houses?

Or do you think that there was the odd KKK-run fire department back then, too, that took it's sweet merry time to turn up?

[Michelle]

So this kind of thing would never happen, right?

Do you think that all the fire departments were prompt back in the mid-20th century, when the KKK were burning houses?

Or do you think that there was the odd KKK-run fire department back then, too, that took it's sweet merry time to turn up?

"This kind of thing" is so rare you had to go back to 1991 to find it.

[F3SS]

That validates what I said that there is no way this could happen without repercussion. Besides, that article is 24 years old and involves the extreme case of klansmen running the station. All that really tells me is that stuff happens and nothing is perfect as would be the case if the most perfectly satisfying and fairest laws were in place.

[Tiggs]

"This kind of thing" is so rare you had to go back to 1991 to find it.

I could show you a KKK fire Chief from 2014, if you like?