Indiana's 'Religious Freedom Bill'

[soulcougher73]

I think its a nice thought but it wouldn't work. It gives too much credit to people in general.

People have too short memories, too much to do to, not enough time to research about every little place, and a general callousness for things that don't personally involve them. A few people would be turned off, but most people wouldn't care. Think for example with Hobby Lobby and their refusal to provide birth control. Or Chick fila and their continued support of anti-gay marriage legislation. Or papa johns in the same. All said companies have made their discriminatory views very clear and are thriving.

All these companies do just well because most people just don't care enough and most of the views of these bigots share something in part with the generally accepted views of most people (ie most christians really don't want to see gay marriage, but most of them aren't actively campaigning against it and would tolerate it if it arrived. Thats only a step or two away from the bigot who actively campaigns against it). There's a reason you need legislation to protect the rights of the minorities. Its because they are minorities and will not get the protections they need from the majorities by defacto.

What if the business' had to put signs on their doors to advertise the kind of business they are? NO black, NO gays, etc? Kinda like the no shirt, no serve signs. People would see the signs before they walk in and might take their business elsewhere. I think a lot of these business's would go out of business if they had to wear the badge of shame for their beliefs

I dunno. Just throwing ideas around. Might help keep that short term memory thing going if they always see these signs on the business's that discriminate.

 

[fskimospy]

Friend posted this one facebook about this issue and im pretty much in agreement with him and i think im starting to come around to this side of thinking on these types of issues.

"I want to offer a different take on the situation with Indiana's new attempt to make discrimination legal on religious grounds. I believe a private business owner has the right to hire who they want, and serve who they please. I believe a landlord has the right to determine who should be able to stay in their rental property. To me it doesn't matter if you discriminate based on religious grounds or just personal preference. Here is why I believe we should actually welcome this to be legally practiced.

First, it is a part if our freedom that is important but at the same time difficult for some to accept. We shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets the freedom based on our own personal beliefs. If you are offended by something, it really doesn't matter. People's hurt feelings shouldn't be grounds for legislation to the contrary. I don't like racism, bigotry, homophobia, or a lot of other mindset that some people have in this country, but I believe they have the right to feel that way and practice that in their daily lives if they wish.

Now for why I feel this way. I want to know who the bigots are. I want to know who the racists are. I want to know who the homophobes and sexists are. I don't want them hiding behind a fake smile. I don't want them to be forced to hire someone based on a quota or fear of litigation. I don't want them forced to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. I want them to be open and honest about who they are. This way I can spot exactly the people who I never want to give a single fucking penny to. I don't want to support their business or livelihood. I want their business to fail miserably because of their disgusting practices of discrimination. Because let me tell you something, if I found out that the owner of the local health food store refuses to serve blacks or gays, guess who will never get any of my money? You don't improve race relations by mandating that racists play along. You shame them and make it difficult for them to succeed by making the public aware of their practices."

These laws are in place precisely because in the past this sort of thing didn't work.

 

[Venix]

Bah, just more drama from uneducated useful idiots.

19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting

To be fair, there is one difference between Indiana's law and most other states'-- it can be used in cases where the government isn't directly involved. This change arose out of the New Mexico gay wedding cake case, where the baker lost because of a technicality in the way he filed the lawsuit.

That said, no one raging against the law has bothered to even read it or learn anything about existing RFRAs. The scope of discrimination potentially enabled by these laws is small--in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class, refusal to actively participate in a gay wedding might be allowed, but refusal to serve gay patrons in practically any other business would not. In a state like Indiana where sexual orientation is not protected, businesses can already legally discriminate against gay people.

 

[MongGrel]

Businesses here are already putting "We serve EVERYONE" signs in their windows.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[cubby1223]

I haven't looked at the details of this law, I just love the irony in the opposition.

"We are not a country of intolerance and segregation. #boycottindiana"

 

[fskimospy]

I haven't looked at the details of this law, I just love the irony in the opposition.

"We are not a country of intolerance and segregation. #boycottindiana"

How is that ironic? Opposing bigotry does not make you a bigot yourself.

 

[sandorski]

Friend posted this one facebook about this issue and im pretty much in agreement with him and i think im starting to come around to this side of thinking on these types of issues.

"I want to offer a different take on the situation with Indiana's new attempt to make discrimination legal on religious grounds. I believe a private business owner has the right to hire who they want, and serve who they please. I believe a landlord has the right to determine who should be able to stay in their rental property. To me it doesn't matter if you discriminate based on religious grounds or just personal preference. Here is why I believe we should actually welcome this to be legally practiced.

First, it is a part if our freedom that is important but at the same time difficult for some to accept. We shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets the freedom based on our own personal beliefs. If you are offended by something, it really doesn't matter. People's hurt feelings shouldn't be grounds for legislation to the contrary. I don't like racism, bigotry, homophobia, or a lot of other mindset that some people have in this country, but I believe they have the right to feel that way and practice that in their daily lives if they wish.

Now for why I feel this way. I want to know who the bigots are. I want to know who the racists are. I want to know who the homophobes and sexists are. I don't want them hiding behind a fake smile. I don't want them to be forced to hire someone based on a quota or fear of litigation. I don't want them forced to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. I want them to be open and honest about who they are. This way I can spot exactly the people who I never want to give a single fucking penny to. I don't want to support their business or livelihood. I want their business to fail miserably because of their disgusting practices of discrimination. Because let me tell you something, if I found out that the owner of the local health food store refuses to serve blacks or gays, guess who will never get any of my money? You don't improve race relations by mandating that racists play along. You shame them and make it difficult for them to succeed by making the public aware of their practices."

...or you can pass laws that stomp such things down and in time people will just get used to acting Civil with one another.

 

[boomerang]

To be fair, there is one difference between Indiana's law and most other states'-- it can be used in cases where the government isn't directly involved. This change arose out of the New Mexico gay wedding cake case, where the baker lost because of a technicality in the way he filed the lawsuit.

That said, no one raging against the law has bothered to even read it or learn anything about existing RFRAs. The scope of discrimination potentially enabled by these laws is small--in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class, refusal to actively participate in a gay wedding might be allowed, but refusal to serve gay patrons in practically any other business would not. In a state like Indiana where sexual orientation is not protected, businesses can already legally discriminate against gay people.

You have made numerous posts in this thread is a very calm, deliberate manner explaining this law in detail and I applaud you for it. It has fallen on deaf ears and will continue to do so because this is the rage du jour. The media has hyped this up and the non-thinkers have responded in classic pavlovian fashion.

This forum will wear you down as you beat your head against the wall trying in futility to get people to understand something that should be minor and within the realm of common sense. Topics such as this are a massive undertaking that will have no success whatsoever. Stay as long as you can stand it. Your opinions are very welcome. But eventually you will realize that there are countless ways to better waste your time. I'm very aware of that but here I am. Doesn't say anything very good about me and I know it. You've been warned.

 

[cubby1223]

What if the business' had to put signs on their doors to advertise the kind of business they are? NO black, NO gays, etc? Kinda like the no shirt, no serve signs. People would see the signs before they walk in and might take their business elsewhere. I think a lot of these business's would go out of business if they had to wear the badge of shame for their beliefs

I dunno. Just throwing ideas around. Might help keep that short term memory thing going if they always see these signs on the business's that discriminate.

Please show me one example of a Chick-Fil-A location that has refused service to people based on their sexual preference.

Problem often is people's fantasies of what's going on doesn't match reality

 

[cubby1223]

How is that ironic? Opposing bigotry does not make you a bigot yourself.

It's more on the segregation side with simultaneously advocating segregation

 

[MongGrel]

Friend posted this one facebook about this issue and im pretty much in agreement with him and i think im starting to come around to this side of thinking on these types of issues.

"I want to offer a different take on the situation with Indiana's new attempt to make discrimination legal on religious grounds. I believe a private business owner has the right to hire who they want, and serve who they please. I believe a landlord has the right to determine who should be able to stay in their rental property. To me it doesn't matter if you discriminate based on religious grounds or just personal preference. Here is why I believe we should actually welcome this to be legally practiced.

First, it is a part if our freedom that is important but at the same time difficult for some to accept. We shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets the freedom based on our own personal beliefs. If you are offended by something, it really doesn't matter. People's hurt feelings shouldn't be grounds for legislation to the contrary. I don't like racism, bigotry, homophobia, or a lot of other mindset that some people have in this country, but I believe they have the right to feel that way and practice that in their daily lives if they wish.

Now for why I feel this way. I want to know who the bigots are. I want to know who the racists are. I want to know who the homophobes and sexists are. I don't want them hiding behind a fake smile. I don't want them to be forced to hire someone based on a quota or fear of litigation. I don't want them forced to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. I want them to be open and honest about who they are. This way I can spot exactly the people who I never want to give a single fucking penny to. I don't want to support their business or livelihood. I want their business to fail miserably because of their disgusting practices of discrimination. Because let me tell you something, if I found out that the owner of the local health food store refuses to serve blacks or gays, guess who will never get any of my money? You don't improve race relations by mandating that racists play along. You shame them and make it difficult for them to succeed by making the public aware of their practices."

This is actually true to some extent I belive.

I work with a retired cop who moved here and is a work manager where I am now.

I remember a while back there was a big debate about open carry and went into work one day and asked him his thoughts one that one out of curiosity.

Was somewhat of a similar answer, he actually supported it, as then you would be able to see who actually were packing right off the bat some of the time.

You don't have to worry about the covert end of it as much then, even if there would be some around of course.

 

[fskimospy]

To be fair, there is one difference between Indiana's law and most other states'-- it can be used in cases where the government isn't directly involved. This change arose out of the New Mexico gay wedding cake case, where the baker lost because of a technicality in the way he filed the lawsuit.

That said, no one raging against the law has bothered to even read it or learn anything about existing RFRAs. The scope of discrimination potentially enabled by these laws is small--in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class, refusal to actively participate in a gay wedding might be allowed, but refusal to serve gay patrons in practically any other business would not. In a state like Indiana where sexual orientation is not protected, businesses can already legally discriminate against gay people.

It seems like Hobby Lobby is a pretty good example of the sort of things these laws allow, and that's a pretty good reason to be against them I'd say. When the federal RFRA was passed they did not intend those sorts of consequences. Seems like we should be repealing them instead of passing more.

I do agree though that the idea that this law makes Indiana a particularly hostile place to gay people is inaccurate. It already was a hostile place in the sense that this law protects, haha.

 

[michal1980]

lmsm rage on display.

 

[Venix]

It seems like Hobby Lobby is a pretty good example of the sort of things these laws allow, and that's a pretty good reason to be against them I'd say. When the federal RFRA was passed they did not intend those sorts of consequences. Seems like we should be repealing them instead of passing more.

I do agree though that the idea that this law makes Indiana a particularly hostile place to gay people is inaccurate. It already was a hostile place in the sense that this law protects, haha.

I don't have a very strong opinion about the Hobby Lobby decision either way--mostly because it's limited to "closely held corporations"--but I agree that people who oppose it have a good reason for opposing RFRA. Though I still think the best reason for opposing it in Indiana is simply that it's not needed. There is simply no evidence of government-sponsored religious oppression in Indiana.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans need to realize that bigotry is not tolerated in the modern society. Religious freedom to be a bigot will not work as a defense. You are free to be a bigot, but the rest of society is free to treat you as a pariah for it.

 

[cubby1223]

Friend posted this one facebook about this issue and im pretty much in agreement with him and i think im starting to come around to this side of thinking on these types of issues.

"I want to offer a different take on the situation with Indiana's new attempt to make discrimination legal on religious grounds. I believe a private business owner has the right to hire who they want, and serve who they please. I believe a landlord has the right to determine who should be able to stay in their rental property. To me it doesn't matter if you discriminate based on religious grounds or just personal preference. Here is why I believe we should actually welcome this to be legally practiced.

First, it is a part if our freedom that is important but at the same time difficult for some to accept. We shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets the freedom based on our own personal beliefs. If you are offended by something, it really doesn't matter. People's hurt feelings shouldn't be grounds for legislation to the contrary. I don't like racism, bigotry, homophobia, or a lot of other mindset that some people have in this country, but I believe they have the right to feel that way and practice that in their daily lives if they wish.

Now for why I feel this way. I want to know who the bigots are. I want to know who the racists are. I want to know who the homophobes and sexists are. I don't want them hiding behind a fake smile. I don't want them to be forced to hire someone based on a quota or fear of litigation. I don't want them forced to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. I want them to be open and honest about who they are. This way I can spot exactly the people who I never want to give a single fucking penny to. I don't want to support their business or livelihood. I want their business to fail miserably because of their disgusting practices of discrimination. Because let me tell you something, if I found out that the owner of the local health food store refuses to serve blacks or gays, guess who will never get any of my money? You don't improve race relations by mandating that racists play along. You shame them and make it difficult for them to succeed by making the public aware of their practices."

Deception is so much a part of life, though. Whether it be the gay-hating bigot who secretly still works for a business and occasionally serves gay patrons. Or the manipulative client who always puts on a smile and friendly greeting then behind your back does everything possible to get free work out of you. Or the convicted felon genuinely trying to turn his life around. The individual who has terminal cancer trying to gain employment to help through his/her last few years.


To another extent, this person is advocating something only because he believes he will come out on the winning side. Let's make things more open. How about everyone from this forum have to go around life with a sign clearly informing everyone that he watches internet porn every night? And not the solo softcore variety It's all in the name of openness and bettering this world. Right? The only people who would ever object to full openness are those whom we want to shame anyways. Right? So it's all good.

Businesses exist to provide a product or a service. Anything beyond that product or service should largely be removed out of the equation. Hell, it's similar to the Starbucks move in the name of better race relations that everyone rejected. People have private lives, and people have professional lives with professional conduct. And it is fine if the two are not perfect mirror images of each other. It's fine if people want them separated.

Do you really want to hang labels on people that last them their entire lives? Or do you just advocate placing only the labels you personally choose?

The problem with the facebook post is he is instructing everyone else to be publicly labelled for his knowledge. He wants to know everything about everyone else. You have to be the first one to take the plunge and make absolutely everything about your private life, feelings, and opinions open to the world. Every. Last. Detail.



What are we all doing here on this forum? We are hiding behind usernames. Sign every post of yours with your full name, address, phone number, and place of employment, so that everyone knows who you are so we can apply all your thoughts and opinions to you if we ever happen to meet in a professional setting. Or, provide your friend's name, rather than simply calling him a friend. He wants everything open, he wants everyone to know those thoughts apply to him. Share it to the world. It's what he wants.

I've actually once had someone screenshot some of my posts from the Trayvon Martin thread on this forum and email them to my employer. That's why I no longer have my email address visible in my profile. Go ahead. Practice full openness. I think you might enjoy it!

 

[umbrella39]

I haven't looked at the details of this law, I just love the irony in the opposition.

"We are not a country of intolerance and segregation. #boycottindiana"

I'm not sure you understand what the word irony means...

Choosing not to frequent someone's bigotry is not quite the same as bigot's choosing not to serve the targets of their bigotry.

 

[umbrella39]

lmsm rage on display.

I didn't know you were gay...

 

[Victorian Gray]

I haven't looked at the details of this law, I just love the irony in the opposition.

"We are not a country of intolerance and segregation. #boycottindiana"

You apparently doesn't understand the meaning of the word "irony".

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's more on the segregation side with simultaneously advocating segregation

No, it's not.

 

[schmuckley]

I can refuse to work for whoever I want.
I feel everyone should have that same freedom.
However,I've never turned anyone down because they were gay.
Ofc I'm not a wedding photographer/cake maker.

 

[Meghan54]

It's more on the segregation side with simultaneously advocating segregation

That and all of the other BS being put forth in defense of these laws are the same BS that the southern conservatives used in the 1950's to support segregation and Jim Crow laws.

Guess that's why this "Defense of Marriage" movement has its roots in the south....the conservative base, currently Republican. It's got lots of practice over the centuries of outright hatred, racism, and discrimination, not to mention still bleating the States' Rights mantra that the region's been crying since slavery was outlawed.

Why the Republicans have hitched their wagon to this, I'll never know. I guess maybe the gay hate is surfacing so much because women, blacks, asians, etc. are protected classes and gays haven't achieved that....yet. So it's easy to discriminate on them.

I suppose when you lose the outward ability to put yourself above some people, it's only natural to look for another group you want to feel superior to.....

 

[NeoV]

"In a state like Indiana where sexual orientation is not protected, businesses can already legally discriminate against gay people"

This is the problem in a nutshell.

 

[touchstone]

The crazy part is the law actually allows for discrimination against anybody for 'religious reasons'. It's not just gay people, they can legally now discriminate against jews, muslims, theoretically even christians if they want to get secretarian about it.

 

[Meghan54]

Bah, just more drama from uneducated useful idiots.

19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting

Except a few of those 19 states have specific state laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preferences, like IL, CT, NM, and RI.

Remove those states from the 20 and you have essentially the conservative base.....the south/southeast and midwest, with PA being the real outlier. And is there something familiar about the vast majority of the states left with these unrestriced religion laws? Could it be they represent the core of the old Confederacy with all the attitudes and beliefs that still live there?