Religious Liberties Laws

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

This whole thing is spiraling out of control… I was talking to a buddy of mine about this the other night and we came the conclusion that it’s a damn shame a law like this is needed when we have the 1st amendment.

The way I see it, if a gay couple is refused service because they’re gay they can simply go to another store. They really aren’t put out that much and actually helps their cause in two ways. It outs small businesses that discriminate against gays and also hurts said business monetarily. On the other hand, if you require small businesses’ to provide services to anyone and everyone they have limited options if their religious beliefs come first. They can accept a government penalty (a direct violation of the 1st amendment imo) or close their business. Those are their only two options, I can think of, if their religious beliefs come first and they stand by their convictions.

182
184

A developing case related to this debacle:

185

[quote]JR249 wrote:
A developing case related to this debacle:

http://time.com/3768536/indiana-pizza-no-gay-wedding/[/quote]

Ridiculous.

186

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The way I see it, if a gay couple is refused service because they’re gay

[/quote]

My understanding is they can only be refused based on religious ceremonies.

So, gay couple walks into family owned Hardware Store looking for brake cleaner. Owner says “you homo’s get out, and here’s a free can of bearing grease for yur anus”. Owner is going to get the fuck sued out of him and lose.

Same gay couple walks into a Photographers shop to book pictures for their niece and nephew. Photographer will get sued if they say “damn homo’s, no way, I hatez da gays.”

Same couple, same photographer, except trying to book for their wedding. Photographer can say, and not get the shit sued out of them “I’m very sorry, but that particular ceremony is a religious institution to me, and my faith prevents me from being able to participate. Here is my friend’s card who isn’t barred by their faith from servicing you, and a 5% discount for your inconvenience.”

188

What I don’t get is that if LGBT is not a protected class in Indiana already, which is apparently the case, then technically it wasn’t illegal, prior to the passage of the law, to refuse service based on sexual orientation if you’re a private business - in that specific state. Since it’s not a federally protected class either, there shouldn’t have been any legal consequences for the business.

So why pass this legislation and then specifically exclude LGBT as a protected if they weren’t already protected by anti-discrimination in public accommodation laws in the first place? I must be missing something here, unless they found there needed to be protections for other religious based cases, such as Native American groups, etc.

189

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Same gay couple walks into a Photographers shop to book pictures for their niece and nephew. Photographer will get sued if they say “damn homo’s, no way, I hatez da gays.”
[/quote]

Sued for what? IIRC, Indiana does not have anti-discrimination laws protecting sexual preference. At least not state wide (although municipalities might have local codes). Most states don’t protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

190

So is the federal government going to force Chick-fil-a to sell me spicy chicken sandwiches on sunday, because that would be awesome ?

191

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The way I see it, if a gay couple is refused service because they’re gay

[/quote]

My understanding is they can only be refused based on religious ceremonies.

So, gay couple walks into family owned Hardware Store looking for brake cleaner. Owner says “you homo’s get out, and here’s a free can of bearing grease for yur anus”. Owner is going to get the fuck sued out of him and lose. [/quote]

That may be true, but I don’t understand why. If you are a devout Catholic, for example, you should be able to refuse to serve anyone that you feel is in violation of your beliefs, imo. The first amendment seems pretty cut and dry to me.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Note, that doesn’t mean I agree with them or that they’re right.

[quote]
Same gay couple walks into a Photographers shop to book pictures for their niece and nephew. Photographer will get sued if they say “damn homo’s, no way, I hatez da gays.” [/quote]

Same deal.

[quote]
Same couple, same photographer, except trying to book for their wedding. Photographer can say, and not get the shit sued out of them “I’m very sorry, but that particular ceremony is a religious institution to me, and my faith prevents me from being able to participate. Here is my friend’s card who isn’t barred by their faith from servicing you, and a 5% discount for your inconvenience.”[/quote]

That is stupid, imo. Can a photographer deny a same sex couple engagement pictures (nothing to do with the ceremony)? How about the pictures before and after the ceremony? How about during the rehearsal dinner? I’m pretty sure no one serves cake during the actual religious ceremony so bakers should be compelled by law to serve everyone, correct?

I don’t see why it’s okay to discriminate against one group in order to eliminate discrimination from another group. You can’t have your cake and eat it too…

192

[quote]Aggv wrote:
So is the federal government going to force Chick-fil-a to sell me spicy chicken sandwiches on sunday, because that would be awesome ?[/quote]

I’d say that’s the logical conclusion.

193

I cant wait to go into the local Jewish deli and demand that they make me swastika shaped latkes.

194

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Same gay couple walks into a Photographers shop to book pictures for their niece and nephew. Photographer will get sued if they say “damn homo’s, no way, I hatez da gays.”
[/quote]

Sued for what? IIRC, Indiana does not have anti-discrimination laws protecting sexual preference. At least not state wide (although municipalities might have local codes). Most states don’t protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. [/quote]

I’m saying, the intent of the law. May not be written as such, but the intent is to try and clearly discriminate as little as possible against both groups, because one is going to get discriminated against in any case.

195

[quote]Aggv wrote:
I cant wait to go into the local Jewish deli and demand that they make me swastika shaped latkes. [/quote]

ANd bacon cheesburgers.

196

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

That is stupid, imo. Can a photographer deny a same sex couple engagement pictures (nothing to do with the ceremony)? How about the pictures before and after the ceremony? How about during the rehearsal dinner? I’m pretty sure no one serves cake during the actual religious ceremony so bakers should be compelled by law to serve everyone, correct?

I don’t see why it’s okay to discriminate against one group in order to eliminate discrimination from another group. You can’t have your cake and eat it too…

[/quote]

As of right now, refusing service to homosexuals in the aforesaid manner has been resulting in losses for the businesses in court. I posted a link a few pages back to 5-6 actual cases all over the country in the 20 or so states that have these laws on the books.

It was pointed out earlier that what constitutes denying service to someone based on his or her sexual orientation versus denying a specific service related to a ceremony (e.g., baking a wedding cake or taking photos) seems somewhat dubious the way some of the laws are written, BUT states are winning in their court systems against the businesses, and the Supreme Court refused to take the case out of NM that involved a photographer, thereby implying that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination in the private sector that trumps one’s free exercise of religion. So as of right now refusing to sell a good or service, even if tied to a ceremony and the customer is a homosexual, violates the law in places like CO, NM, WA and IL.

197

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I don’t see why it’s okay to discriminate against one group in order to eliminate discrimination from another group. You can’t have your cake and eat it too…

[/quote]

That’s the point. This isn’t a clear cut line in the sand. It is blurry as fuck, and these laws SHOULD be clearing it up.

You can refuse service to anyone, for any reason. However if the person refused feels it was improper (they were black, woman, old, gay, etc) they can sue the living shit out of you. In a lot of those cases you’ll lose.

198

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
I cant wait to go into the local Jewish deli and demand that they make me swastika shaped latkes. [/quote]

ANd bacon cheesburgers. [/quote]

That’s for the muslim place.

199

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Same gay couple walks into a Photographers shop to book pictures for their niece and nephew. Photographer will get sued if they say “damn homo’s, no way, I hatez da gays.”
[/quote]

Sued for what? IIRC, Indiana does not have anti-discrimination laws protecting sexual preference. At least not state wide (although municipalities might have local codes). Most states don’t protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. [/quote]

I’m saying, the intent of the law. May not be written as such, but the intent is to try and clearly discriminate as little as possible against both groups, because one is going to get discriminated against in any case. [/quote]

I’m confused by the whole thing, frankly, because I think before the law, like in the majority of states (IIRC 29), it was perfectly legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in both employment and in private businesses providing services.

200

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

That is stupid, imo. Can a photographer deny a same sex couple engagement pictures (nothing to do with the ceremony)? How about the pictures before and after the ceremony? How about during the rehearsal dinner? I’m pretty sure no one serves cake during the actual religious ceremony so bakers should be compelled by law to serve everyone, correct?

I don’t see why it’s okay to discriminate against one group in order to eliminate discrimination from another group. You can’t have your cake and eat it too…

[/quote]

As of right now, refusing service to homosexuals in the aforesaid manner has been resulting in losses for the businesses in court. I posted a link a few pages back to 5-6 actual cases all over the country in the 20 or so states that have these laws on the books.

It was pointed out earlier that what constitutes denying service to someone based on his or her sexual orientation versus denying a specific service related to a ceremony (e.g., baking a wedding cake or taking photos) seems somewhat dubious the way some of the laws are written, BUT states are winning in their court systems against the businesses, and the Supreme Court refused to take the case out of NM that involved a photographer, thereby implying that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination in the private sector that trumps one’s free exercise of religion. So as of right now refusing to sell a good or service, even if tied to a ceremony and the customer is a homosexual, violates the law in places like CO, NM, WA and IL.
[/quote]

And that is bullshit in my opinion (Note, I would serve gays because I don’t really give a shit). I always thought the constitution was the law of the land.