Indiana's 'Religious Freedom Bill'

[HomerJS]

Point of ironing...

Righties screaming about religious liberty. The same righties who flipped their collective lids when a Muslim group wanted to build a community center in NYC because it was 6 blocks from One World Trade.


Question

Why are Pence and other righties blaming the media. Last time I checked...

Apple
NCAA
Angie's List
Tweets from citizens

are not the media

 

[Hugo Drax]

This Religious Freedom law, does that mean I can open up an Islamic supermarket and not serve women who are not wearing a burka since it would be against Islam?

That would be Hilarious if Islamic folks flock to Indiana and turn a section of the town into a Mini Afghanistan.

Or is this Freedom law only for Gay stuff?

 

[ivwshane]

In my opinion this is just another attempt to give businesses more rights than they deserve. Businesses open to the public have no right to descrimnate against broad swaths of people.

 

[senseamp]

This Religious Freedom law, does that mean I can open up an Islamic supermarket and not serve women who are not wearing a burka since it would be against Islam?

That would be Hilarious if Islamic folks flock to Indiana and turn a section of the town into a Mini Afghanistan.

Or is this Freedom law only for Gay stuff?

I thought about this same scenario. I bet they'll start wailing "Sharia" if that happens.

 

[werepossum]

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.

If there's enough support for this bill to make passing it a winning political move, why wouldn't there be enough support for businesses willing to discriminate? Most politicians need majority support within their district; most businesses don't need anything near majority support to flourish.

These laws have some legitimacy in that they were originally aimed at reining in the federal government (and by extension subordinate governments) from enforcing laws that infringe on legitimate religious activity. (One notable example is the use of peyote in Native American ceremonies.) That's a good thing, though not a totally good thing (what law is?) because it establishes activities that are legal for one person but not for others. Everybody needs to be under the same laws in principle, yet as long as these laws are selectively enforced to protect minorities they are fairly benign. Yet now we're seeing people state that government officials should be free to deny services to individuals (e.g. gays) if providing such violates their own religion. Laws aimed at protecting minorities are being used (at least in theory) to deny equal accommodation to minorities. That's a very bad thing. If someone's rights must be infringed, and in this case it seems someone's must be, better it be the straight Christian majority than minorities. The majority is inherently better placed to protect itself.

And as Venix pointed out, Indiana's law is different in that it extends this protection to the private sector. Again, it's better in my opinion that the rights of the majority are infringed than the rights of minorities. Being forced to treat everyone equally (supposedly the point of America and something most of us learn by kindergarten) is surely less injurious than is making some people second class citizens forced to search out government officials and businesses willing to accommodate them. If you truly feel that selling a marriage license or a wedding cake to a gay couple is a sin against G-d, then pray on it and ask for forgiveness. It WILL be granted. That's kind of the point.

 

[pcgeek11]

In my opinion this is just another attempt to give businesses more rights than they deserve. Businesses open to the public have no right to descrimnate against broad swaths of people.

How about Narrow swaths of people? Is that OK.

I think this is getting blown way out of proportion.

 

[master_shake_]

isn't all money green?

isn't the point of capitalism to make all you can while the making is good?

 

[ivwshane]

How about Narrow swaths of people? Is that OK.

I think this is getting blown way out of proportion.

A "narrow swath" is a contradiction.

"No, shoes, no shirt, no service", is narrow and in no way pertains to a certain type of race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc.

 

[ivwshane]

Well said

If there's enough support for this bill to make passing it a winning political move, why wouldn't there be enough support for businesses willing to discriminate? Most politicians need majority support within their district; most businesses don't need anything near majority support to flourish.

These laws have some legitimacy in that they were originally aimed at reining in the federal government (and by extension subordinate governments) from enforcing laws that infringe on legitimate religious activity. (One notable example is the use of peyote in Native American ceremonies.) That's a good thing, though not a totally good thing (what law is?) because it establishes activities that are legal for one person but not for others. Everybody needs to be under the same laws in principle, yet as long as these laws are selectively enforced to protect minorities they are fairly benign. Yet now we're seeing people state that government officials should be free to deny services to individuals (e.g. gays) if providing such violates their own religion. Laws aimed at protecting minorities are being used (at least in theory) to deny equal accommodation to minorities. That's a very bad thing. If someone's rights must be infringed, and in this case it seems someone's must be, better it be the straight Christian majority than minorities. The majority is inherently better placed to protect itself.

And as Venix pointed out, Indiana's law is different in that it extends this protection to the private sector. Again, it's better in my opinion that the rights of the majority are infringed than the rights of minorities. Being forced to treat everyone equally (supposedly the point of America and something most of us learn by kindergarten) is surely less injurious than is making some people second class citizens forced to search out government officials and businesses willing to accommodate them. If you truly feel that selling a marriage license or a wedding cake to a gay couple is a sin against G-d, then pray on it and ask for forgiveness. It WILL be granted. That's kind of the point.

 

[sandorski]

This was somewhat amusing

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This was somewhat amusing

I thought Bret Baier, Fox News host debunking Fox News own propaganda in defense of this on Fox was amusing personally.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/30/watch-bret-baier-debunk-fox-news-defense-of-ind/203080

 

[werepossum]

Well said

Thanks.

 

[nyker96]

This was somewhat amusing

he keeps dodging the same question over and over and over and over again, "are they or are they not allowed to refuse service to a gay couple legally under this law ..." Well it's a question he simply cannot answer because it's a definite YES. He's in a complete passive aggressive mode here, he did exactly what he wanted to do yet refuse to admit he did it.

I still cannot believe this type of thing that used to happen maybe in the 50s/60s is gonna start happening again in 2015! businesses with signs that says:

this is a past, I cannot imaging anyone would like to return to! Shameful, positively shameful!

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If there's enough support for this bill to make passing it a winning political move, why wouldn't there be enough support for businesses willing to discriminate? Most politicians need majority support within their district; most businesses don't need anything near majority support to flourish.

These laws have some legitimacy in that they were originally aimed at reining in the federal government (and by extension subordinate governments) from enforcing laws that infringe on legitimate religious activity. (One notable example is the use of peyote in Native American ceremonies.) That's a good thing, though not a totally good thing (what law is?) because it establishes activities that are legal for one person but not for others. Everybody needs to be under the same laws in principle, yet as long as these laws are selectively enforced to protect minorities they are fairly benign. Yet now we're seeing people state that government officials should be free to deny services to individuals (e.g. gays) if providing such violates their own religion. Laws aimed at protecting minorities are being used (at least in theory) to deny equal accommodation to minorities. That's a very bad thing. If someone's rights must be infringed, and in this case it seems someone's must be, better it be the straight Christian majority than minorities. The majority is inherently better placed to protect itself.

And as Venix pointed out, Indiana's law is different in that it extends this protection to the private sector. Again, it's better in my opinion that the rights of the majority are infringed than the rights of minorities. Being forced to treat everyone equally (supposedly the point of America and something most of us learn by kindergarten) is surely less injurious than is making some people second class citizens forced to search out government officials and businesses willing to accommodate them. If you truly feel that selling a marriage license or a wedding cake to a gay couple is a sin against G-d, then pray on it and ask for forgiveness. It WILL be granted. That's kind of the point.

:thumbsup:

The point of government is to defend all its citizens, not kowtow to a tyranny of the majority. And that's not a 21st century opinion; the founding fathers said as much themselves.

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies...
-John Adams

And lest you think him a hypocrite for complaining of the tyranny of the majority while founding a nation with legalized slavery, Adams (and his son) were among the only founders who never owned slaves. Not relevant to the discussion at hand, but something I didn't learn until today. History is fascinating.

 

[her209]

Some scenarios:

- an employee who refuses to dispense emergency contraception
- an employee who refuses to serve dishes with pork
- an employee who refuses to bake cakes for gay weddings
- an employee who refuses to work on Saturdays

Should all the above be fired? Does the Indiana law extend this religious freedom to employees too?

 

[sportage]

Glad to see this all outrage in Indiana snowballing.
Companies threatening to bail. People actually out in the streets marching, just like China or within other oppressed nations.
It's about time.

We all know sooner than later, that Indiana will fix this turkey of a bill once way or the other.
It's getting to the point, swiftly I might add, where their congress doesn't give a damn anymore what their governor thinks about religious freedom, nor what those embracing their so called religious freedom rights, or lack of, think.
Soon, very soon, what the governor says, or how much lipstick this governor tries to smear on this pig of a law, success of their little nasty bill will no longer matter.
Money will have the final say.

That final say will be for their congress to ignore the governor and tweak the bill specifically re-wording it where Gays can not be discriminated against. Period.
They could just kill the bill itself as it lay helpless in the crib, but more likely they will nutter the bill giving it absolutely no power or legal authority.
Grind it down to a simple group of words that have no meaning or muscle.

What I hope for, is for this little circus act by the governor and some of the members of congress to backfire up through the US Supreme Court.
Having a direct effect on the case before the US Supreme court, if for no other reason but to prove to the justices that discrimination against Gays is a HUGE no no.
And help set the mood in the country for when the US Supreme court gives the green light to nation wide marriage equality come June.
In no way can what is happening in Indiana do anything but further advance attitudes supporting equal rights for all.
And advance to its conclusion marriage equality rights for all.

And if that was the hidden intension behind Indiana passing this bill, to actually help advance support for gays and marriage equality, then Indiana and its governor have done an excellent job.
Yeah. Probably not the true intension, but certainly the end result.
If Indiana and its governor did not plan for this to turn out the way it has, then talk about shooting ones self in the foot. OUCHY! Big time OUCHY!

 

[blankslate]

Let me guess... this is Mike Pence signaling to the base that he's ready to run for President for the 2016 elections.
:hmm:

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/03/31/religious-freedom-pence-gop-candidates/

“I think Gov. Pence has done the right thing,” Jeb Bush said Monday during a radio interview with conservative host Hugh Hewitt

.

“Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious liberty in the Hoosier State,” [Ted] Cruz said. “Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across the country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties. I’m proud to stand with Mike, and I urge Americans to do the same.”

....

 

[Mursilis]

If there's enough support for this bill to make passing it a winning political move, why wouldn't there be enough support for businesses willing to discriminate? Most politicians need majority support within their district; most businesses don't need anything near majority support to flourish.

These laws have some legitimacy in that they were originally aimed at reining in the federal government (and by extension subordinate governments) from enforcing laws that infringe on legitimate religious activity. (One notable example is the use of peyote in Native American ceremonies.) That's a good thing, though not a totally good thing (what law is?) because it establishes activities that are legal for one person but not for others. Everybody needs to be under the same laws in principle, yet as long as these laws are selectively enforced to protect minorities they are fairly benign. Yet now we're seeing people state that government officials should be free to deny services to individuals (e.g. gays) if providing such violates their own religion. Laws aimed at protecting minorities are being used (at least in theory) to deny equal accommodation to minorities. That's a very bad thing. If someone's rights must be infringed, and in this case it seems someone's must be, better it be the straight Christian majority than minorities. The majority is inherently better placed to protect itself.

And as Venix pointed out, Indiana's law is different in that it extends this protection to the private sector. Again, it's better in my opinion that the rights of the majority are infringed than the rights of minorities. Being forced to treat everyone equally (supposedly the point of America and something most of us learn by kindergarten) is surely less injurious than is making some people second class citizens forced to search out government officials and businesses willing to accommodate them. If you truly feel that selling a marriage license or a wedding cake to a gay couple is a sin against G-d, then pray on it and ask for forgiveness. It WILL be granted. That's kind of the point.

I think you need to be careful lumping mandates on gov't officials with those on private citizens (business owners). For one, services provided by gov't officials are often necessary conditions to the activities in which a person may wish to engage, and those officials frequently have a monopoly power on those activities - for example, a county clerk of the court is usually going to be the only official in the county with the ability to issue a marriage license, and that license is a necessary condition to getting legally married. I'm perfectly OK with a court clerk being fired for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple if the law of the land would allow that couple to get married. The clerk shouldn't hold that position if they're unwilling to meet all the legal obligations of that position.

In contrast (using the "Christian baker" example), a wedding cake is not a necessary condition to a legal wedding, and no baker has monopoly power on baking cakes in any community. For these reasons, I think I'm OK with allowing a private bakery to refuse service to an event with which they disagree. I think there's an important distinction between refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, and refusing to serve gay customers for any reason (for example, refusing to provide a birthday cake). The latter should be illegal, but maybe not the former? It's definitely an interesting balancing-of-rights question, and there are still nuances to it which I'm probably missing; thus, my equivocation.

 

[mikeymikec]

I thought about this same scenario. I bet they'll start wailing "Sharia" if that happens.

Nah, just take "religious freedom" to its logical conclusion, being "freedom to tell others what to believe from now on", with the assistance of a collective persecution complex and something pointy if need be.

 

[HomerJS]

Listening to F&F carry Mike Pence's water while sucking his ass at the same time.

Their only defenses...

Al Sharpton talked about it so we know we're right
Clinton signed it in 1993 (even though not same and 22 yrs ago)
It's the lefty medias fault.

Didn't even bring up Pence not answering George Stephanopoulos's question 8 times!
Didn't bring up Pence refusing to make gays a protected class under state civil rights so solve clarification issue

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The legislature will repeal or "fix" the law, I guarantee it. The one positive thing to come out of this is that this incident will hopefully end Governor Dense's political career and he won't get re-elected in 2016.

Remember, this is the same moron who wanted to waste taxpayer money on a state-run "news agency" just a couple of months ago and finally abandoned the plan because of the outrage of the citizens. Trust me, I'm familiar with some of the higher-ups in his administration and top to bottom, they're morons. I mean, REAL morons.

Also, another note -- as much as you guys like to portray it, this isn't a conservative/Christian vs. liberal issue. It is more a fundie evangelical fringe vs. everyone else. Several prominent Republicans and Christians such as Mitch Daniels, the CEO of Angie's List, the Mayor of Indianapolis, etc. are outraged by this bill.

Didn't even bring up Pence not answering George Stephanopoulos's question 8 times!

Dense is a lawyer and you could see the wheels turning when the question was asked 8 times. He knew no matter how he answered, he was in hot water so that's why he kept duhverting.

 

[realibrad]

I have been wanting to see something like this happen for a while now. During Jim Crow days the vast majority of society was overt racists. There was not much shaming to not serving minorities. Society is very different now. The current system of forcing people to serve those who they do not like have allowed racism to be pushed down. That may be a better system, or it might not be. This is a gritty test to see how society will react to people they are biased against.

I think homosexuality has gotten to the point where socially its now accepted. The fact that we have seen big companies react the way they have is a good sign of what will come. If society can build upon this, it can make intolerance more of a taboo. I think doing that will go a long way to improving society. I think that personal growth has been retarded by disconnecting peoples beliefs from the consequences.

 

[HomerJS]

So are Republicans now ok with local communities with a large Muslim population enacting Sharia Law??

 

[realibrad]

So are Republicans now ok with local communities with a large Muslim population enacting Sharia Law??

Only if the Sharia Law they have talks about Jesus being the savior. If they do the Islamic Sharia then its scary devil work.

 

[shira]

A "narrow swath" is a contradiction.

"No, shoes, no shirt, no service", is narrow and in no way pertains to a certain type of race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc.

For most definitions of "swath," there's no contradiction, and in fact "narrow" is strongly suggested.

noun
1.
the space covered by the stroke of a scythe or the cut of a mowing machine.
2.
the piece or strip so cut.
3.
a line or ridge of grass, grain, or the like, cut and thrown together by a scythe or mowing machine.
4.
a strip, belt, or long and relatively narrow extent of anything.