Religious Liberties Laws

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Question:

How are you guys using the term “mono-culture”?

(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]

The culture that is supposedly the champion of diversity and tolerance turning out to only being so when it comes to taste in food, attire, music, languages, and orifice filling. You know, the shallow stuff. The window-dressing of culture. The stuff you sample at some downtown festival. Actual meat and potatoes diversity in living, association, and conduct though?

Nah, it, the monoculture is busy trying to use the law to smash any real meaningful cultural diversity. Willing to make cakes for a homosexual? Yes, can earn a living in our country with your business! Oh, wait, but you think you’ll refrain from specifically make a WEDDING cake though? Then your family will starve. Your religious doctrines have been deemed by the holy state to not be legitimate doctrines (though they rob or murder no man), and are thus, all of a sudden (despite long tradition in the nation), no longer protected.

The monoculture.

22

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[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]

And this.[/quote]

How many times have you seen some shocked person on TV struggling to comprehend how the person they’ve lived next to for 30 years could have killed all those people?

23

You want to know who to blame for the appearance/need for this legislation? The righteous “diversity” crusaders, the modern inquisitors and witch-hunters, who decided that a christian private-business owner wasn’t meeting the requirement of the mono-culture by ‘simply’ serving homosexuals birthday cakes, cakes for promotions, cakes for parties, and just-for-the-hell-of-it cakes. That same business owner lost all right to earning a living in their trade when they said “I will have to pass though on making you a wedding cake for your gay wedding because I hold orthodox christian beliefs. And,marriage is a sacrament for us. Otherwise, I’d be glad to make you a cake for any other occasions, if you still wish to do business with me at some other time.”

That one single exception, that one specific circumstance…It’s all or nothing.

24

I’m going to go to Jewish restaurant and demand they make me latkes in the shape a swastika …

25

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You want to know who to blame for the appearance/need for this legislation? The righteous “diversity” crusaders, the modern inquisitors and witch-hunters, who decided that a christian private-business owner wasn’t meeting the requirement of the mono-culture by ‘simply’ serving homosexuals birthday cakes, cakes for promotions, cakes for parties, and just-for-the-hell-of-it cakes. That same business owner lost all right to earning a living in their trade when they said “I will have to pass though on making you a wedding cake for your gay wedding because I hold orthodox christian beliefs. And,marriage is a sacrament for us. Otherwise, I’d be glad to make you a cake for any other occasions, if you still wish to do business with me at some other time.”

That one single exception, that one specific circumstance…It’s all or nothing.[/quote]

What’s to blame are those who feel the need to persecute minorities for whatever makes them different. If gays, blacks, Muslims, whatever didn’t suffer legitimate, violent racism at the hands of others, there would be no clarion call to end racism and whatnot.

And without that clarion call, there is no momentum that sweeps up things like basic property and speech rights in the process. Legislation, in many cases, is an overreaction to a legitimate problem. It’s typically a forced solution to a problem people are capable of solving on their own, but they have become accustomed to the gov’t fixing everything for them.

Racism is bad, so the thinking goes. But rather than the personal solution of not going to places whose owners are racists/bigots/whatever, and rather than encouraging others to voluntarily make the same choice (thereby empowering themselves), they demand that someone else fix the problem for them. Hence, gov’t intrusion into the operation of someone’s business.

26

I’m just surprised some enterprising, hairy legged yet shaved head, nose pierced college feminist hasn’t walked into another known Christian business owner’s bakery to order a “Congrats on a safe and successful abortion” cake. And then, turns around and sues the baker out of his/her business based on a bizarre application of rights. Hey, they have a “right” to an abortion, presently. So how can some tyrannical private citizen (a humble baker…) discriminate on that, yet make other cakes with other congratulatory messages?! After all, it’s discriminatory towards to one of the most sacred measuring sticks of female liberation in this nation. Hell, it’s practically like the SI unit of women’s liberation across the western world.

27

Why would a person insist upon doing business with another person who they found obnoxious in the first place?

The cry babies ruin it for everyone.

28

[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]

100% this.

And the economic impacts of this type of legislation are going to be frightening enough anyways. You can already see Pence trying to walk it back.

Like you said, put it out in the open so I know who to avoid. Unfortunately most business owners aren’t going to have the balls to do that. Put the sign up that says we don’t serve gays so I know where not to go like you said.

29

[quote]H factor wrote:

[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]

100% this.

And the economic impacts of this type of legislation are going to be frightening enough anyways. You can already see Pence trying to walk it back.

Like you said, put it out in the open so I know who to avoid. Unfortunately most business owners aren’t going to have the balls to do that. Put the sign up that says we don’t serve gays so I know where not to go like you said. [/quote]

The ones who would openly discriminate by placing the typical “no fags/niggers/queers/Jews/Muslims/Catholics/women” signs are the ones to really avoid, though. Transparency won’t ever be fully accomplished, but the good thing about increased transparency is this: the most vile ones are the first to be exposed and the ones that take longer to expose are generally less of an issue to begin with.

30

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[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]

Exactly. A business owner should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. A person does not have a right to another persons property. However when a business owner is forced by the state to provide service against their will, they are being deprived of their rights and their property.

Let the free market do its job, and allow people to do with their property as they wish. If a business decides to discriminate, they have the market to answer to, but not the threat of force from the state.

31

Are there actually any cases where a business will not serve someone simply because they are gay, for religious reasons? Or at least claimed they won’t once a law like this is in effect? It seems people are making a bigger deal of this than it actually is, mainly because once it goes in effect nothing will change and they won’t have a reason to complain about the law.

32

Sloth. Nobody is going to change your mind about about this “issue.”

But surely you can see this particular law is ridiculous. Dirk and I could could up with silly scenarios all day. The law itself would just bring up more of the issues it was “designed” to prevent.

Its like that stand your ground law. You can pick a fight, kill someone, and say you were acting in self defense. AFTER PICKING A FIGHT.

This law protects your “rights to make a living”, by opening the door for more people to be able to interfere with your business.

Viar and Cooper. Like you said, bigots are exposed. What politician would want to be the public face of this law? What kind of people would argue loudly in favor of it? This whole situation is crazy!

33

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Sloth. Nobody is going to change your mind about about this “issue.”

But surely you can see this particular law is ridiculous. Dirk and I could could up with silly scenarios all day. The law itself would just bring up more of the issues it was “designed” to prevent.[/quote]

Yes, you could come up with SILLY scenarios. Because, oh, 15 years ago (let’s say), when the same baker unquestionably decided that the only service she/he would refrain from providing a homosexual with was a wedding cake (and only a wedding cake), it was causation for some epidemic of christian first responders (as one analogy implies) not providing emergency care to homosexuals.

Eh?

What?

You’re correct, the actual bigots are exposed. The dangerous ones.

34

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Are there actually any cases where a business will not serve someone simply because they are gay, for religious reasons? Or at least claimed they won’t once a law like this is in effect? It seems people are making a bigger deal of this than it actually is, mainly because once it goes in effect nothing will change and they won’t have a reason to complain about the law.[/quote]

I’m sure there are. And therefore, because some cases can be found, it must have been an epidemic so egregious and widespread, such a national crises, that now a baker can’t even reserve the right to refuse a very specific request (like a wedding cake) while generally fulfilling any other request by the same exact customer ( like a “Happy Birthday” cake).

Such legislation is merely a consequence of quickly trying to protect others from being driven out of their trade as others have already been.

Blame the activist, and blame the courts. For not having even a shred of discernment, not a shred of rational judgement, in order to decide the difference between serving decorative dessert (symbolic of leisure) in a very narrow circumstance, and refusing to sell milk and bread (symbolic of the staples of sustenance) to an identity group in general.

It was never about making sure homosexuals are fed by the same grocery stores that were already servicing them before gays were marrying. They already were serving them before christian bakers suddenly lost the right to refuse one very specific product out of everything else they were still willing to offer. It was about power. A victory lap. It was about rubbing the noses of the losers in the poop. It’s about being able to walk into a christian’s bakery, one who’d serve you a “Congrats on your promotion” with warmth and a smile, and making him–through the threat of law–produce a cake with two grooms or two brides on it (and the requested rainbow flag frosting), while smirking at his capitulation.

35

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[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?

Mufasa[/quote]

So I will try to reply in more depth and completeness later, I am on my phone now and heading to do some chemistry tutoring, but I wanted to say that:

  1. similar–in fact almost identical–laws have been on the books for 20 years in some states. 19 different states already have these laws, and in many cases for more than a decade. There has never been an issue with first responders or medical practitioners of any kind withholding life saving or critical care. In fact, I am unaware of any case of them withholding care of any kind. In fact, the federal government signed a RFRA bill under Clinton in his first term.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/

All legal questions about the laws standings aside, there’s been a whole bunch of nothing as far as these apocalyptic visions of gay people denied EMT or emergency services, or anything else like that.

If there were any cases in the last 3 decades, you could bet your ass they would have been all over the media, so I don’t want to hear anything about this “death in the streets” mantra I’ve been listening to from many activists.

It hasn’t happened. I’m in line with DBCooper in this one as well in regards to my personl views on the matter

36

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Sloth. Nobody is going to change your mind about about this “issue.”

But surely you can see this particular law is ridiculous.[/quote]

How is it ridiculous? I don’t want to support bigots with my dollars. That Indiana douche bag calling the radio station bragging about denying gay services? Let it be known the way he feels and watch him lose money. You know he’s a pussy in his convictions because he stayed anonymous and wouldn’t say which restaurant he owned. He also lied to these people which shows you just what type of phony “Christian” he is to begin with.

Watch businesses avoid or move from Indiana now. Let the backlash take place. I’d much rather know who the bigoted owners were so I could avoid them than accidentally give money to people who deny service based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation.

The point is though the government does NOT need to be telling private business owners what they can and cannot do. I feel the same way about smoking. You want to allow smoking in your restaurant go ahead. YOU OWN THE PLACE. Why does the government need to tell you you can’t allow people to smoke if they are of legal age? I don’t want to go to a smoke filled restaurant so I just won’t go there.

I couldn’t be more in favor of the rights of homosexuals and I’m not against this law. The government has no business forcing private business owners to do something with their property.

38

This law actually has a two-fold benefit. Not only will there be increased transparency due to an increase in the expression of free speech, but this law will also attract like-minded people together.

Think about it. If there are two stores in town that sell coffee, I can go to the one that has the ISIS flag in front, or the one that’s hanging the 3X World Series Champion flag in front. Not only will I be more inclined to frequent the latter, but now I also know that I probably won’t be sitting there reading the NY Times while surrounded by a bunch of people who support ISIS, since they’ll all be down at the ISIS coffee shop.

I can go to the local gun range knowing that I’m at the one that caters primarily to people who don’t refer to blacks as niggers all the time, while if I were inclined in the other direction, I could also go to a gun range knowing that I won’t be using the same space that a “moon cricket” was using prior.

39

Well said H.

I guess what gets me is that the bakers already had the right not to make the cake. They just couldn’t say why they didn’t want to make the cake.

Like I can say, “I’m not hiring you.” I can’t say “I’m not hiring you because your tits are too small.”

I just keep repeating how silly this is.

We need less government, so lets pass a law.

We want to preserve tolerance, so we’ll allow discrimination.

Sloth-
you can picture the liberals looking down their noses at the bakers, but you can’t picture the bakers looking down their noses at the liberal types?

Also, our country has made PROGRESS in the last 20 years. Just because things were OK in the past, doesn’t mean they are now.

40

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Sloth. Nobody is going to change your mind about about this “issue.”

But surely you can see this particular law is ridiculous. Dirk and I could could up with silly scenarios all day. The law itself would just bring up more of the issues it was “designed” to prevent.

Its like that stand your ground law. You can pick a fight, kill someone, and say you were acting in self defense. AFTER PICKING A FIGHT.

This law protects your “rights to make a living”, by opening the door for more people to be able to interfere with your business.

Viar and Cooper. Like you said, bigots are exposed. What politician would want to be the public face of this law? What kind of people would argue loudly in favor of it? This whole situation is crazy![/quote]

Name one thing that is ridiculous about this law. It is serves one purpose only, perhaps two. It serves to protect property rights, which is a natural right and a fundamental aspect of liberty. This is not a law that aims at protecting other political law or the state itself. It squarely aims to protect the property rights of the people of Indiana. That may offend people and so forth, and that’s all unfortunate, but why condemn the law rather than the people who might use it to spread hate speech? Hate speech is still FREE speech, and in the free market of ideas it typically dies off.

The other purpose, of course, is that it protects free speech. I’m not denying any right to anyone by saying that “you cannot come in here and my property is not for sale to you because you are X, Y, and Z.” But by barring me from applying this standard to my business effectively violates my right to free speech and it certainly violates my property rights, both of which are unalienable and cannot be infringed upon when they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

The ONLY way to provide for the general welfare of this country is to protect the only things that we ALL have. Since none of us have the right to go through life free of discomfort, criticism, condemnation, and offensive behavior directed at us, but we ALL have the right to property, including disposing of it in a way that does not violate the rights of others, the ONLY way to provide for the general welfare in this country is to protect that which we all have.

The only thing ridiculous about this law is that it has to be written out in the first place. Madison felt the same way about the first 8 Amendments, but the 9th and 10th took care of any issues that may arise from the inability to make a basic inference.