Indiana's 'Religious Freedom Bill'

[senseamp]

I don't have time to read previous posts.....

What happens when a doctor refuses to perform an abortion due to religious beliefs?

What happens when a doctor refuses to perform a medically necessary abortion due to religious beliefs?

 

[fskimospy]

Is it a violation of public accommodation if you'll bake birthday cake for a gay customer but not a wedding cake?

Yes. Broadly, public accommodation laws say if you run a business open to the public and provide a good or service you have to provide it to everyone. (or at least cannot deny it to someone based on an attribute of a protected class)

 

[JD50]

Is it a violation of public accommodation if you'll bake birthday cake for a gay customer but not a wedding cake?

Is it a violation if a gay person has to sit at the back of the bus? They still get to ride the bus right?

 

[Angry Irishman]

What happens when a doctor refuses to perform a medically necessary abortion due to religious beliefs?

That's a good question....I suppose another doctor performs the procedure.

 

[Mursilis]

Yes. Broadly, public accommodation laws say if you run a business open to the public and provide a good or service you have to provide it to everyone. (or at least cannot deny it to someone based on an attribute of a protected class)

There's a lot more nuance here. Look at how the Supreme Court handled similar competing interests in Hurley v. GLIB, another case involving gays. I'd love to see what the Court would do with such a case.

Is it a violation if a gay person has to sit at the back of the bus? They still get to ride the bus right?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Is it a violation of public accommodation if you'll bake birthday cake for a gay customer but not a wedding cake?

The question immediately arises of where the line is? It is not so hard to imagine that given the right to refuse to make wedding cakes that next someone will think that gay birthdays are against their religion, then gay car repair, then gay electric service...

 

[JD50]

I wasn't being an ass, do you disagree with the analogy?

 

[Retro Rob]

In this country, can there ever be a balance between "religous freedom" and cilvil rights?

To be honest, some religous people are going to simply have to deal with it.

One guy on the radio last week was saying that we should be allowed to put "we don't serve X" signs in front of business because he's banking on it backfiring and the owner going out of business.

One thing he wasn't considering was the sheer amount of closeted bigots and like-minded people in this world.

 

[cubby1223]

What happens when a doctor refuses to perform a medically necessary abortion due to religious beliefs?

What happens if a person wants to be a doctor helping others, just doesn't want to perform abortions? Should all the people who otherwise would have benefited from the added capacity in care be denied that opportunity?

What was the VA wait-list recently reported as, like 3 months? In many ways it's a simple numbers game, this country needs more doctors. And the more restrictions placed on who can and cannot be a doctor makes the situation worse, not better.

If we had an overabundance of doctors society could be more selective in demanding more requirements of doctors. But we're not.



What if a lawyer refuses to take on divorce cases? Actually, that happens, lawyers do specialize. Do we call it discrimination when a lawyer doesn't take on divorce cases? No.

What if an Islamic butcher only wants to prepare beef and venison products, no pork?

 

[realibrad]

In this country, can there ever be a balance between "religous freedom" and cilvil rights?

This is always the funny thing to me. What it implies is that religious beliefs should mean you get to so something that infringes on others rights.

Religious freedom means you can believe anything you want. It does not mean that you get to do anything you want because your religious beliefs say you should.

I also find it funny that this law was passed on religious grounds, even though there are not religious texts saying to not service sinners. If you believe the logical conclusion of the bible is to not serve gays because they are sinners, then why stop at gays? Everyone is a sinner, so you better just close down.

 

[Mursilis]

The question immediately arises of where the line is? It is not so hard to imagine that given the right to refuse to make wedding cakes that next someone will think that gay birthdays are against their religion, then gay car repair, then gay electric service...

Honest question - has any gay been refused a birthday cake because of their sexual orientation? Maybe it has occurred, I don't know.

And yes, it's going to be hard to draw a clear line, but that doesn't mean we should avoid the effort. I think people are unsympathetic because most here are pro-gay rights (as am I) and there's a general disdain for religion, but you don't have to like the facts of a case to defend the principle. Organizations like the ACLU have defended the rights of people with despicable views because the principle was worth protecting, even if the views weren't.

 

[JD50]

What if a lawyer refuses to take on divorce cases? Actually, that happens, lawyers do specialize. Do we call it discrimination when a lawyer doesn't take on divorce cases? No.

I don't follow. Is anyone making the argument that a neurologist has to perform abortions?

 

[Retro Rob]

This is always the funny thing to me. What it implies is that religious beliefs should mean you get to so something that infringes on others rights.

Religious freedom means you can believe anything you want. It does not mean that you get to do anything you want because your religious beliefs say you should.

So you're saying "yes" there can be and really is because no one is stopping you from believing and practicing your beliefs.


Why not just simply say so?

 

[Mursilis]

I don't follow. Is anyone making the argument that a neurologist has to perform abortions?

Different thing. There are in fact some family law attorneys who don't do divorce cases. They have the necessary expertise - they just refuse to take the work.

 

[JD50]

Different thing. There are in fact some family law attorneys who don't do divorce cases. They have the necessary expertise - they just refuse to take the work.

They won't do divorce cases at all, or won't do divorce cases that involve a gay couple?

Either way I don't think it's a very good analogy.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This is always the funny thing to me. What it implies is that religious beliefs should mean you get to so something that infringes on others rights.

Religious freedom means you can believe anything you want. It does not mean that you get to do anything you want because your religious beliefs say you should.

I also find it funny that this law was passed on religious grounds, even though there are not religious texts saying to not service sinners. If you believe the logical conclusion of the bible is to not serve gays because they are sinners, then why stop at gays? Everyone is a sinner, so you better just close down.

To be fair the law also wasn't passed on the grounds that it is purposely to be used to refuse service. There is concern that given past incidents that it will be used for that reason.

The initial reasoning for these laws was to ensure no government encroachment on the free exercise of religion. Had nothing to do with allow people to refuse anything.

 

[shira]

What happens when a doctor refuses to perform a medically necessary abortion due to religious beliefs?

Fortunately for physicians, the medical field is highly specialized. A doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions can choose to not be a surgeon at all, or can be a cardiac surgeon or a brain surgeon or any other non-gynecological surgeon. And even gynecological surgeons are specialized, and many are not qualified to perform abortions. So there's really no issue here, since a physician knows going in whether he/she wants to receive the necessary training to be able to perform abortions.

Now, there MIGHT be an issue if a gynecologist had a change of heart, and decided that he/she no longer wished to perform abortions, and is then confronted with an emergency case where a woman's life is at risk unless an abortion is performed immediately. In that situation, a surgeon who refused to perform the abortion and jeopardized the woman's life when no other surgeon was available would, I think, face serious civil (and perhaps criminal) penalties.

 

[realibrad]

So you're saying "yes" there can be and really is because no one is stopping you from believing and practicing your beliefs.


Why not just simply say so?

The answer is No or Yes depending on what the actual meaning of your question is.

You can have any belief you want. You cannot act on those beliefs if they infringe on civil rights, ever. If/when it comes down to civil rights or religious beliefs, civil rights should win.

If a cake maker who is atheist does not want to make a cake for a Christian, is an attack on Christianity.

If a cake maker does not want to make a cake for a homosexual because the cake maker is Christian, its freedom of religion.

If a cake maker who is Mormon does not want to make a cake for a black person, because of the curse of Cain, its racism and religious freedom issues?

 

[realibrad]

To be fair the law also wasn't passed on the grounds that it is purposely to be used to refuse service. There is concern that given past incidents that it will be used for that reason.

The initial reasoning for these laws was to ensure no government encroachment on the free exercise of religion. Had nothing to do with allow people to refuse anything.

The law says that if you have religious beliefs, you can discriminate in a way that is different from non-religious beliefs. Exercise of religion does not mean you can do what you want because of your beliefs, simply that you can have beliefs. Look up Reynolds v. United States to help explain.

The ruling was made that if you allow actions to infringe on civil rights, you could protect things like human sacrifice.

 

[senseamp]

That's a good question....I suppose another doctor performs the procedure.

What if it's an emergency, and life of mother is at an immediate risk?

 

[senseamp]

The law says that if you have religious beliefs, you can discriminate in a way that is different from non-religious beliefs. Exercise of religion does not mean you can do what you want because of your beliefs, simply that you can have beliefs. Look up Reynolds v. United States to help explain.

The ruling was made that if you allow actions to infringe on civil rights, you could protect things like human sacrifice.

The Republican "intellectuals" on SCOTUS didn't think that far when they backed Hobby Lobby. That for profit corporations can have religious beliefs, and use those to get around laws. That's not just one, but two cans of worms they opened with one swing.
Now the dominoes are starting to fall, and the consequences of their stupidity are being exposed in the real world.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I did not know about the state run news outlet. That sounds like a shallow cover for taxpayer-funded puffery leading up to a 2016 Presidential bid. Dude has FoxNews and talk radio; if he wants more positive coverage, let him raise money and buy it.

Pence is also the one who decided to cut $2.5 million from the Indiana State Library, which basically would eliminate the genealogical archive section. Meanwhile, he has $55 MILLION allocated to Indiana's bicentennial celebration. WTF

 

[Mursilis]

They won't do divorce cases at all, or won't do divorce cases that involve a gay couple?

The former. I've never heard of the latter occurring, but maybe it has.

 

[fskimospy]

There's a lot more nuance here. Look at how the Supreme Court handled similar competing interests in Hurley v. GLIB, another case involving gays. I'd love to see what the Court would do with such a case.

Well I can say that cases explicitly involving people not making wedding cakes for gay couples the bakers have lost. As I mentioned before, I find the case that baking a cake for someone violates their religious freedom utterly unconvincing. A disapproval of gay sex is so far removed from making a cake for a ceremony involving gay people that it's absurd.

 

[senseamp]

The right lost when Pence refused to say if this will allow for discrimination.
If he had any conviction, he would have said, yes, but "freedom of religion" of the business owner is more important. Instead he punted and ran away from the question.
Effectively, that put the bigots in the closet, where they belong