These laws are appearing more and more, in just about every state; and if not, they will be. So I thought that it was time to get the “PWI” take on them.
The essence of the Laws (and PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong), is that the “State” could not punish someone if they choose to not provide a good or service based on ones Religious Beliefs. (The “Ground Zero” examples were the baker who did not want to bake a cake for a Gay couple, and Hobby Lobby not wanting to provide contraception coverage as a health benefit. There are others; but I provide these for context and discussion. Also, keep in mind that the Supreme Court decision was a narrow one, in that Hobby Lobby is a Family Owned business).
Some thoughts for our discussion:
I think that the challenges will be for small businesses; and medium to large Private/Family Owed Businesses. In other words, for Target and Wal-Mart it’s all a non-issue; they will avoid the controversy like the plague.
I don’t think that we will truly know the implications of these laws until they are challenged and fought in the Courts. The cases brought to the Supreme Court, again, we VERY narrow decisions.
Are the laws “fair”?
DO they open the door for “sanctioned” discrimination?
I have zero problem with this law. I have zero problem with discrimination in general, when it comes from private citizens.
If someone wants to bar blacks or Jews or whatever from their business, so be it. I’d prefer to know exactly who all the racists and bigots are so I can avoid giving them my business. All of these laws that outlaw discrimination make it easier for those people to operate in the shadows. Shit, I don’t even have a problem with some baker flying an ISIS flag outside of his shop. Now I know exactly where NOT to get some pastries and coffee.
On top of all that, the business or organization is someone’s property. Let them dispose of their property however they want. There is no natural right to the purchase of someone else’s property, so discrimination is not an inherent violation of anything other than political law. If a business owner is forced to allow a black patron in his store and accept his legal tender in exchange for a good, that business owner is essentially being forced to make a transaction he wouldn’t normally make, which removes the possibility for an economic gain.
In the free market of ideas, I’d like to think that the good ones will rise to the surface and the bad ideas will never gain traction.
If a business owner already has the right not to do business with you, do they need the right to be able to put reason for it in your face?
Instead of saying, “we’re all booked up that weekend” the cake-shop owner can go on Facebook and tell all their friends how they kicked some gay people out of their store?
Who is this Indiana politician championing this law? Is this dude trying to be the next George Wallace or something? What year are we living in?
I just love how people act like gays will starve to death, die of untreated illnesses, be forced to use separate bathrooms…all because an orthodox religious wedding cake maker is now just as protected as the gay baker who can refuse to make the “God hates fags” cake. It wasn’t happening 15 years ago when the religious wedding cake bakers didn’t even need this law. The anger over this isn’t about some bullcrap scenario that didn’t even exist years prior to the need for such laws. It’s about not being able to take away another man’s living because he won’t spit on what to him is a Sacrament.
What a bunch of phony outrage. The real anger is at non-total conformity in all aspects of our lives to the new mono-culture. It’s about being on a power trip when you ask the local Christian book/art store to order you the Queer Jesus art. And hey, since they order other books/art for their other customers…Gay Passion of Christ Envisioned and Attacked | HuffPost Voices
So being Queer, if someone does not want my business, so be it.
Will be interesting though as a non paid first responder when I come across an accident , and ask that person their religion and they respond “christian” how I am going to say…Oh well to bad, guess god had other plans for you than for me to help you.
The law of unintended consequences is and will surely play out interestingly here.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Goodmorning Mufasa, just this:
So being Queer, if someone does not want my business, so be it.
Will be interesting though as a non paid first responder when I come across an accident , and ask that person their religion and they respond “christian” how I am going to say…Oh well to bad, guess god had other plans for you than for me to help you.
The law of unintended consequences is and will surely play out interestingly here.
[/quote]
Good morning, KD!
Your last statement is important; sometimes laws can really have some unintended consequences. What those are should definitely be interesting to watch when it comes to these Laws.
I tend to “vote” with my money too.
Curious; anyone know where the ACLU stands on these laws?
" Religious freedom is a core American value, one that the ACLU has been defending since its founding. However, we will continue to oppose any attempts to use religion to discriminate."
[quote]Mufasa wrote: A Statement from the Indiana ACLU:
" Religious freedom is a core American value, one that the ACLU has been defending since its founding. However, we will continue to oppose any attempts to use religion to discriminate."
Thoughts?
Mufasa[/quote]
Yeah, what’s their thoughts on being able to refuse making a “Gays will burn in hell” cake.
" Religious freedom is a core American value, one that the ACLU has been defending…"
Mufasa[/quote]
Translation; “So long as you only live by it inside your home. In any other voluntary transaction/association you must follow the present mono-culture even when it strikes at the most sacred of your beliefs. If you do not, we will support the government taking away your ability to make a living for yourself and your family.”
[quote]Mufasa wrote: A Statement from the Indiana ACLU:
" Religious freedom is a core American value, one that the ACLU has been defending since its founding. However, we will continue to oppose any attempts to use religion to discriminate."
Thoughts?
Mufasa[/quote]
The mistake in this law is using religion. If you want to discriminate fine but don’t limit it to religious reasons.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What a bunch of phony outrage. The real anger is at non-total conformity in all aspects of our lives to the new mono-culture. [/quote]
Sloth, I tend not to agree with a lot of what you post, but you hit the nail on the head here. Of course, the “mono-culture” isn’t new, it’s just ever-expanding. Just like the entity that gets credit for “ending” slavery on this piece of land is the same entity that passed and enforced laws that prevented slaves from helping themselves, the entity that has passed and enforced many laws discriminating against gays will now get credit for helping them by taking rights from others.
It’s always about taking the greatest amount of freedom from the greatest number of people.
(I tend to look at a desire for a “mono-culture” as what we are witnessing by ISIS; the complete and utter destruction of any semblance of other cultures and beliefs in favor of one).
I just don’t see that in the United States; so help me understand where you are coming from.
(I tend to look at a desire for a “mono-culture” as what we are witnessing by ISIS; the complete and utter destruction of any semblance of other cultures and beliefs in favor of one).
I just don’t see that in the United States; so help me understand where you are coming from.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Don’t open that can of worms, Mufasa. Mono-culture could be anything from “different from what I grew up with” to “coercive enforcement of one culture’s beliefs over those of all other cultures” when it comes to this forum. SexMachine will be back in here ranting about people accusing him of racism in one post while then turning around and lamenting the fact that he is now outnumbered by people of a decidedly darker race than he.
(I tend to look at a desire for a “mono-culture” as what we are witnessing by ISIS; the complete and utter destruction of any semblance of other cultures and beliefs in favor of one).
I just don’t see that in the United States; so help me understand where you are coming from.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I would imagine that if we take an honest look at ISIS vs. Dominant Western Culture, we would see many similarities. ISIS has to use more violent tactics, because it is far weaker.
ISIS seems extreme to us, mostly because it’s a product of a different culture. Here, we’re at the point that we can just call those that don’t play along “criminals.” (If ISIS wasn’t punishing people for committing victimless crimes, would we have a problem with them?)
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I have zero problem with this law. I have zero problem with discrimination in general, when it comes from private citizens.
If someone wants to bar blacks or Jews or whatever from their business, so be it. I’d prefer to know exactly who all the racists and bigots are so I can avoid giving them my business. All of these laws that outlaw discrimination make it easier for those people to operate in the shadows. Shit, I don’t even have a problem with some baker flying an ISIS flag outside of his shop. Now I know exactly where NOT to get some pastries and coffee.
On top of all that, the business or organization is someone’s property. Let them dispose of their property however they want. There is no natural right to the purchase of someone else’s property, so discrimination is not an inherent violation of anything other than political law. If a business owner is forced to allow a black patron in his store and accept his legal tender in exchange for a good, that business owner is essentially being forced to make a transaction he wouldn’t normally make, which removes the possibility for an economic gain.
In the free market of ideas, I’d like to think that the good ones will rise to the surface and the bad ideas will never gain traction.[/quote]
