Indiana's 'Religious Freedom Bill'

[Meghan54]

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.

Actually, if you want to go full retard on this, Muslims can now introduce Shiria law and begin stoning adulterous women, cutting off hands of thieves, etc. Religious freedom and all that.

 

[werepossum]

Bah, just more drama from uneducated useful idiots.

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

The left was losing the issue and so is stepping up its game, drawing a red line in the sand at Indiana.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, as equal accommodation is a pretty basic human right and some Americans losing it quietly is not a good thing.

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."

Two problems here. First, there are a limited number of businesses of any particular type in most areas, so making some of them off limits to some people effectively makes them second class citizens with significantly fewer options. Surely as a nation we've grown past that.

Second, social beliefs tend to cluster, so a business in a conservative small town would likely be pressured to go along with not serving gays. (Or blacks, Muslims, white people with dreadlocks, or whatever.) Maybe (hopefully) this would be less than the pressure to hang a "We serve everyone" sign as Indy pointed out, but it certainly wouldn't be a slam dunk in most areas.

Personally I think if the worst thing that happens to you is being forced to earn a profit catering or selling a wedding cake for a marriage with which you morally disagree, it's been a pretty fucking good day, mate.

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.

Good point, and thank you for your rational, informed posts as always. I remain unconvinced that these laws are a net positive anywhere, but they certainly don't need to be broader and more powerful.

 

[Phokus]

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 doesn't work in states where bigotry is tolerated by most people.

Edit: Or towns. I bet Indianapolis is tolerant, but i'm sure there's pockets of racism in small town parts of Indiana where most people in those towns are bigoted. A city slicker 'boycotting' businesses in those towns won't do squat.

 

[HomerJS]

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."

Imagine in a rural town where distance between pharmacies are great. Gay man with heart condition comes in to get his nitro-glycerin pills refilled and the pharmacist refuses to serve gays.

Let's say we use your rule. Should there be laws that state if you refused to serve certain people (just like no shoes/shirts) you must place a large sign in your front window or front of store stating such?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm outraged at Pence!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm outraged at Pence!

Now, have you taken the steps to see what's different? Why maybe the Indiana bill is far broader? What protections other states have in place that make the concerns in Indiana moot for those states?

 

[VRAMdemon]

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.

Customer: "I'm getting married for the fifth time, to the wife of a neighbor that I had a threesome with and eventually she ended up pregnant and I ruined their marriage. Can you bake me a wedding cake?"

Bakery: "Are you gay?"

Customer: "Nope."

Bakery: "One cake, Coming right up!"

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Now, have you taken the steps to see what's different? Why maybe the Indiana bill is far broader? What protections other states have in place that make the concerns in Indiana moot for those states?

How is the Indiana bill substantially different?

 

[HomerJS]

How is the Indiana bill substantially different?

As pointed out Illinois has civil rights protections built in for gay people.

Pence was asked as a fix for the new law why not add gay people as e CR protected class. Pence said, no.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The left was losing the issue and so is stepping up its game, drawing a red line in the sand at Indiana.

This isn't accurate. There is a big difference in Indiana's law from the Federal statute and all but one of the State statutes. None of the others recognize for profit businesses as being protected. Some states actually went so far as to explicitly state that they did not have the same protections.

That is why Indiana has generated so much attention. They explicitly included businesses and corporations where none of the others (save SC) did.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

How is the Indiana bill substantially different?

See above to werepossum.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

See above to werepossum.

And at the risk of quoting myself, I just want to add that Indiana didn't amend in the language which explicitly extended the protections to businesses until AFTER the case in New Mexico where a photographer tried to use that states RFRA as grounds for refusing service to gays and lost. They also voted down an amendment that would have added language that the law did not permit businesses to discriminate.

 

[Atreus21]

Actually, if you want to go full retard on this, Muslims can now introduce Shiria law and begin stoning adulterous women, cutting off hands of thieves, etc. Religious freedom and all that.

No. They can't.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Something those supporting this bill (and similar bills) always seem to forget is that while they might craft it with certain religions in mind, the laws are not specific to a religion (which is obviously a good thing, establishment clause etc). They might think it's good when this law allows a Christian store owner to adhere to his/her beliefs, but they won't be so happy when the same law is used by a muslim or person of another faith to avoid certain regulations. It falls under "be careful what you wish for"......

This right here. Because what we are going to see, what we always see, is that the compelling interest language is actually meant to mean 'Christian interest'. The Wiccan church has already sent a list of their sincerely held religious tenets that conflict with state law that they feel that they should now be exempt from, including the right to plural marriage and the prohibition of the collection of bodily fluids. Lets see if the state finds 'compelling interest' in those.

 

[nyker96]

One thing I do not tolerate is intolerance. This is legal intolerance, with this law, jews, muslims, blacks, hispanics, gays, lesbians, or even other christians of different denomination, anyone an organization and business deem outcasts in their belief system can use the law to discriminate. I have been to christian churchs that openly put down jews, muslims, other denominations they deem devils followers. This law will be a field day for these establishment and their followers and the businesses under their control. This is pre-civil rights all over again.

 

[gorcorps]

I don't venture to P&N much, but this is an issue I actually have an opinion on. While I don't agree with the ties to religion and homosexuality, I do agree that it should be the business owner's decision to refuse service to anyone... even if it's a terrible reason. If somebody doesn't want to serve gays... fine. If somebody doesn't want to serve fatties... fine. I also think restaurants banning firearms is fine too. They should be allowed to have a smoking section if they want. I strongly believe in giving freedom to business owners, and all of this falls into the same category for me.

But it goes beyond that too. IMO, by allowing businesses to choose who they serve you effectively let them choose how they'll go out of business. If somebody publicly denies service to gays then they'll at least lose business from:

• the gay community
• those supporting the gay community
• Anyone afraid of losing face for supporting such a business (with friends/family)

They'll probably fold and die on their own. If they're not allowed to refuse service to people, then these bigots will probably run a much more successful business. Sure they may be a little disgruntled at who they have to serve, but they'll be more successful than they would be otherwise.

Anyway... I just feel like businesses should be allowed to cater to the crowds they choose, and let the market decide where they want to spend their money. IMO it's a problem that solves itself.

 

[ivwshane]

How many businesses went out of business during the Jim Crow era?



Some people are so ignorant of history that it's just sad.

I don't venture to P&N much, but this is an issue I actually have an opinion on. While I don't agree with the ties to religion and homosexuality, I do agree that it should be the business owner's decision to refuse service to anyone... even if it's a terrible reason. If somebody doesn't want to serve gays... fine. If somebody doesn't want to serve fatties... fine. I also think restaurants banning firearms is fine too. They should be allowed to have a smoking section if they want. I strongly believe in giving freedom to business owners, and all of this falls into the same category for me.

But it goes beyond that too. IMO, by allowing businesses to choose who they serve you effectively let them choose how they'll go out of business. If somebody publicly denies service to gays then they'll at least lose business from:

• the gay community
• those supporting the gay community
• Anyone afraid of losing face for supporting such a business (with friends/family)

They'll probably fold and die on their own. If they're not allowed to refuse service to people, then these bigots will probably run a much more successful business. Sure they may be a little disgruntled at who they have to serve, but they'll be more successful than they would be otherwise.

Anyway... I just feel like businesses should be allowed to cater to the crowds they choose, and let the market decide where they want to spend their money. IMO it's a problem that solves itself.

 

[frowertr]

Here here. I'm also of this mindset. It's not good business, mind you, and the bad PR you would likely generate would put you out of business. But it should still be the business owners right who they serve and who they don't.

I don't venture to P&N much, but this is an issue I actually have an opinion on. While I don't agree with the ties to religion and homosexuality, I do agree that it should be the business owner's decision to refuse service to anyone... even if it's a terrible reason. If somebody doesn't want to serve gays... fine. If somebody doesn't want to serve fatties... fine. I also think restaurants banning firearms is fine too. They should be allowed to have a smoking section if they want. I strongly believe in giving freedom to business owners, and all of this falls into the same category for me.

But it goes beyond that too. IMO, by allowing businesses to choose who they serve you effectively let them choose how they'll go out of business. If somebody publicly denies service to gays then they'll at least lose business from:

• the gay community
• those supporting the gay community
• Anyone afraid of losing face for supporting such a business (with friends/family)

They'll probably fold and die on their own. If they're not allowed to refuse service to people, then these bigots will probably run a much more successful business. Sure they may be a little disgruntled at who they have to serve, but they'll be more successful than they would be otherwise.

Anyway... I just feel like businesses should be allowed to cater to the crowds they choose, and let the market decide where they want to spend their money. IMO it's a problem that solves itself.

 

[fskimospy]

Here here. I'm also of this mindset. It's not good business, mind you, and the bad PR you would likely generate would put you out of business. But it should still be the business owners right who they serve and who they don't.

Yeah all those racist business owners in the Jim Crow south totally went out of business.

People have such short memories it's embarrassing.

 

[gorcorps]

How many businesses went out of business during the Jim Crow era?



Some people are so ignorant of history that it's just sad.

Yeah all those racist business owners in the Jim Crow south totally went out of business.

People have such short memories it's embarrassing.

Maybe I'm just too young and have too much faith in our society, but I think we've progressed enough to where business owners like this would not survive. The speed that information gets shared will get these places blacklisted. There's still intolerance, but overall we're MUCH more tolerant of racial and sexual differences than we were a century (or even a few decades) ago. Comparing the two time periods as exactly the same is just foolish.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Maybe I'm just too young and have too much faith in our society, but I think we've progressed enough to where business owners like this would not survive. The speed that information gets shared will get these places blacklisted. There's still intolerance, but overall we're MUCH more tolerant of racial and sexual differences than we were a century (or even a few decades) ago. Comparing the two time periods as exactly the same is just foolish.

And yet Indiana alone is still suspected of having over 200 "Sundown Towns" right now.

 

[gorcorps]

And yet Indiana alone is still suspected of having over 200 "Sundown Towns" right now.

*shrugs*

I'm only a couple hours outside of Chicago so it might be different up here, but the Indiana people seem to be getting fed to them by the media is not the Indiana I currently live in. I've heard the southern part of Indiana has a lot more hillbillys though, so who knows.

 

[senseamp]

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are now backing this turd of a law. I guess they gotta appeal to the Republican bigots in the primaries.

 

[manimal]

This law makes rastafarians free to smoke pot doesnt it?

 

[touchstone]

*shrugs*

I'm only a couple hours outside of Chicago so it might be different up here, but the Indiana people seem to be getting fed to them by the media is not the Indiana I currently live in. I've heard the southern part of Indiana has a lot more hillbillys though, so who knows.

Didn't you pledge your support for this bill like two posts ago? LOL.


You can rationalize your hate with 'supporting business owners rights', or whatever other crock you think people who read this forum will buy, but the fact is you support hatred and bigotry and you also claim to not be able to see it anywhere around you when you live in a state that is well known for it.