Indiana's Religious Freedom law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed this closely and I'll be honest -- I'm not pro-gay, which is something I have to keep on the DL living on the east coast. If I own my own bakery or dress shop and don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding or sell a dress for a lesbian wedding, how can I be forced to do so regardless of what the law says? I mean if the couple comes together and/or announces "we're a gay couple," can't you conveniently say -- oh sorry, we already have 11 other cake orders for that same Saturday and to be honest we don't have the staff to handle another; let me refer you to another nice bakery in town!?

Why does it matter what the law does or doesn't say -- it's easy to do what you want when you have your own business. (I agree that it's not possible if you're an employee -- if you're General Manager at the local Hilton and a gay couple comes to book a hall, you can't really turn them away without fearing losing your job if they suspect the reason and make allegations.)

How could you be forced to help a hindu couple or a black couple?

[Anonymous]

"Pence and the Indiana Legislature were warned - in advance - that this RFRA was very different than the ones passed in other states."

So he and everyone else that has been spewing the talking point that this is "just like" the one Clinton signed in 1993 are full of Hoosier shit.

Link to the letter to Pence from 30 professors of law, including experts in religious freedom and civil rights, in the article here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374579/-Pence-and-the-Indiana-Legislature-were-warned-by-30-expert-law-professors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed this closely and I'll be honest -- I'm not pro-gay, which is something I have to keep on the DL living on the east coast. If I own my own bakery or dress shop and don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding or sell a dress for a lesbian wedding, how can I be forced to do so regardless of what the law says? I mean if the couple comes together and/or announces "we're a gay couple," can't you conveniently say -- oh sorry, we already have 11 other cake orders for that same Saturday and to be honest we don't have the staff to handle another; let me refer you to another nice bakery in town!?

Why does it matter what the law does or doesn't say -- it's easy to do what you want when you have your own business. (I agree that it's not possible if you're an employee -- if you're General Manager at the local Hilton and a gay couple comes to book a hall, you can't really turn them away without fearing losing your job if they suspect the reason and make allegations.)

How could you be forced to help a hindu couple or a black couple?

That's my point. A small business owner could see a Muslim couple and think -- nah don't want to be catering their wedding -- and make an excuse and turn them down. How could a law prevent that?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed this closely and I'll be honest -- I'm not pro-gay, which is something I have to keep on the DL living on the east coast. If I own my own bakery or dress shop and don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding or sell a dress for a lesbian wedding, how can I be forced to do so regardless of what the law says? I mean if the couple comes together and/or announces "we're a gay couple," can't you conveniently say -- oh sorry, we already have 11 other cake orders for that same Saturday and to be honest we don't have the staff to handle another; let me refer you to another nice bakery in town!?

Why does it matter what the law does or doesn't say -- it's easy to do what you want when you have your own business. (I agree that it's not possible if you're an employee -- if you're General Manager at the local Hilton and a gay couple comes to book a hall, you can't really turn them away without fearing losing your job if they suspect the reason and make allegations.)

How could you be forced to help a hindu couple or a black couple?

That's my point. A small business owner could see a Muslim couple and think -- nah don't want to be catering their wedding -- and make an excuse and turn them down. How could a law prevent that?

You are right. Laws can make things illegal, but they can't always change behavior. Redlining is illegal. But, companies fairly regularly are caught doing it. Mortgage companies don't announce a policy of not lending to black people, but eventually a pattern of not lending to black people shows up. However, if nobody was paying attention, those companies would get away with it. The bakers and florists that have been sued didn't simply not want to do business with gay people. They wanted to make a point of not doing business with gay people. You can call that stupid or principled depending on your perspective.

[Anonymous]

Well, the last time Indiana was all over the national news for being hateful and discriminatory, it led to the Ryan White CARE Act. Hopefully some similar good can come from this pile of rubbish.

[Anonymous]

There should not need to be a law, because private businesses should be able to serve and hire who they want to. We need to remove the governmental agencies, paid for by our tax dollars, that enforce these laws.

As for the Indiana law, the law was popularly passed by the governor and legislature. The opposition, led by leftist elites from media and business, has as its ultimate aim the persecutions of Christians and Jews, removal of all religion from public life, and destruction of churches in America.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed this closely and I'll be honest -- I'm not pro-gay, which is something I have to keep on the DL living on the east coast. If I own my own bakery or dress shop and don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding or sell a dress for a lesbian wedding, how can I be forced to do so regardless of what the law says? I mean if the couple comes together and/or announces "we're a gay couple," can't you conveniently say -- oh sorry, we already have 11 other cake orders for that same Saturday and to be honest we don't have the staff to handle another; let me refer you to another nice bakery in town!?

Why does it matter what the law does or doesn't say -- it's easy to do what you want when you have your own business. (I agree that it's not possible if you're an employee -- if you're General Manager at the local Hilton and a gay couple comes to book a hall, you can't really turn them away without fearing losing your job if they suspect the reason and make allegations.)

How could you be forced to help a hindu couple or a black couple?

That's my point. A small business owner could see a Muslim couple and think -- nah don't want to be catering their wedding -- and make an excuse and turn them down. How could a law prevent that?

You are right. Laws can make things illegal, but they can't always change behavior. Redlining is illegal. But, companies fairly regularly are caught doing it. Mortgage companies don't announce a policy of not lending to black people, but eventually a pattern of not lending to black people shows up. However, if nobody was paying attention, those companies would get away with it. The bakers and florists that have been sued didn't simply not want to do business with gay people. They wanted to make a point of not doing business with gay people. You can call that stupid or principled depending on your perspective.

Huge oversimplification. The bakers and florists did do business with gay people, and had in the past. It was about a specific type of business transaction, i.e. participating in the weddings. That was a line they did not want to cross.

Should a gay bakery be forced to make an anti-gay cake for a Christian celebration? I personally don't think so.

Why are Christian's first amendment rights being trampled on in favor of the gay individuals? Why is the latter more 'important' than the former?

[Anonymous]

Case in point - a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a Christian organization, claiming the words are hateful. The problem is, the bakery won't provide a copy of the order, blaming the Christian organization who ordered it. Note the Christian organization supports the right of the bakery to decline the order.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/02/embattled-baker-claimed-christian-activist-wanted-his-cake-to-read-god-hates-gays-and-that-she-refused-but-theres-a-major-problem-with-that-story/

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Case in point - a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a Christian organization, claiming the words are hateful. The problem is, the bakery won't provide a copy of the order, blaming the Christian organization who ordered it. Note the Christian organization supports the right of the bakery to decline the order.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/02/embattled-baker-claimed-christian-activist-wanted-his-cake-to-read-god-hates-gays-and-that-she-refused-but-theres-a-major-problem-with-that-story/

Those with your point of view repeatedly confuse the discrimination issue. Refusing to provide a product is not automatically discrimination. Refusing to provide a product to a customer because that client's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is discrimination. In the case you highlight, the baker is not refusing to sell cakes to Christians. The baker is simply refusing to provide a specific product (cakes with hateful messages).

I've used this example before, but similarly a Jewish deli cannot be expected to sell ham sandwiches against its will. However, if a Jewish deli refuses to sell certain customers because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc., it could be violating anti-discrimination laws in many places.

For what it is worth, I support the t-shirt business mentioned in that article that didn't want to sell pro-gay t-shirts. Nobody should force him to sell something he doesn't want to sell. But, if he didn't want to sell t-shirts to gay customers, I'd have a problem with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There should not need to be a law, because private businesses should be able to serve and hire who they want to. We need to remove the governmental agencies, paid for by our tax dollars, that enforce these laws.

As for the Indiana law, the law was popularly passed by the governor and legislature. The opposition, led by leftist elites from media and business, has as its ultimate aim the persecutions of Christians and Jews, removal of all religion from public life, and destruction of churches in America.

You don't even believe the junk you just typed, you're just transcribing Michael Savage.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case in point - a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a Christian organization, claiming the words are hateful. The problem is, the bakery won't provide a copy of the order, blaming the Christian organization who ordered it. Note the Christian organization supports the right of the bakery to decline the order.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/02/embattled-baker-claimed-christian-activist-wanted-his-cake-to-read-god-hates-gays-and-that-she-refused-but-theres-a-major-problem-with-that-story/

Those with your point of view repeatedly confuse the discrimination issue. Refusing to provide a product is not automatically discrimination. Refusing to provide a product to a customer because that client's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is discrimination. In the case you highlight, the baker is not refusing to sell cakes to Christians. The baker is simply refusing to provide a specific product (cakes with hateful messages).

I've used this example before, but similarly a Jewish deli cannot be expected to sell ham sandwiches against its will. However, if a Jewish deli refuses to sell certain customers because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc., it could be violating anti-discrimination laws in many places.

For what it is worth, I support the t-shirt business mentioned in that article that didn't want to sell pro-gay t-shirts. Nobody should force him to sell something he doesn't want to sell. But, if he didn't want to sell t-shirts to gay customers, I'd have a problem with it.

Laughable. What makes the message 'hateful'? It's a judgement call, isn't it? You consider a Christian baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding, a 'hateful' move, i.e. discrimination.

In the other cases, the Christian organizations were not refusing to provide their product to gay people. In fact, there was no evidence that they said "You are gay? No service". They were refusing to provide a custom product for a specific event, i.e. gay wedding, due to their religious views, just like the gay baker was refusing to provide a specific product for a specific purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case in point - a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a Christian organization, claiming the words are hateful. The problem is, the bakery won't provide a copy of the order, blaming the Christian organization who ordered it. Note the Christian organization supports the right of the bakery to decline the order.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/02/embattled-baker-claimed-christian-activist-wanted-his-cake-to-read-god-hates-gays-and-that-she-refused-but-theres-a-major-problem-with-that-story/

Those with your point of view repeatedly confuse the discrimination issue. Refusing to provide a product is not automatically discrimination. Refusing to provide a product to a customer because that client's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is discrimination. In the case you highlight, the baker is not refusing to sell cakes to Christians. The baker is simply refusing to provide a specific product (cakes with hateful messages).

I've used this example before, but similarly a Jewish deli cannot be expected to sell ham sandwiches against its will. However, if a Jewish deli refuses to sell certain customers because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc., it could be violating anti-discrimination laws in many places.

For what it is worth, I support the t-shirt business mentioned in that article that didn't want to sell pro-gay t-shirts. Nobody should force him to sell something he doesn't want to sell. But, if he didn't want to sell t-shirts to gay customers, I'd have a problem with it.

Laughable. What makes the message 'hateful'? It's a judgement call, isn't it? You consider a Christian baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding, a 'hateful' move, i.e. discrimination.

In the other cases, the Christian organizations were not refusing to provide their product to gay people. In fact, there was no evidence that they said "You are gay? No service". They were refusing to provide a custom product for a specific event, i.e. gay wedding, due to their religious views, just like the gay baker was refusing to provide a specific product for a specific purpose.

I'm not that poster. But there is an interesting question of whether producing an item with a specific written message is a separate matter -- Compelled Speech. Can the law compel a printer to print a book for Neo-Nazis or pornographers? Could a billboard owner be required to put up the Neo-Nazis message on a billboard? The issue is not merely a customer's right to buy services. It may be a case where there is enough speech content that it becomes speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case in point - a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a Christian organization, claiming the words are hateful. The problem is, the bakery won't provide a copy of the order, blaming the Christian organization who ordered it. Note the Christian organization supports the right of the bakery to decline the order.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/02/embattled-baker-claimed-christian-activist-wanted-his-cake-to-read-god-hates-gays-and-that-she-refused-but-theres-a-major-problem-with-that-story/

Those with your point of view repeatedly confuse the discrimination issue. Refusing to provide a product is not automatically discrimination. Refusing to provide a product to a customer because that client's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is discrimination. In the case you highlight, the baker is not refusing to sell cakes to Christians. The baker is simply refusing to provide a specific product (cakes with hateful messages).

I've used this example before, but similarly a Jewish deli cannot be expected to sell ham sandwiches against its will. However, if a Jewish deli refuses to sell certain customers because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc., it could be violating anti-discrimination laws in many places.

For what it is worth, I support the t-shirt business mentioned in that article that didn't want to sell pro-gay t-shirts. Nobody should force him to sell something he doesn't want to sell. But, if he didn't want to sell t-shirts to gay customers, I'd have a problem with it.

Laughable. What makes the message 'hateful'? It's a judgement call, isn't it? You consider a Christian baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding, a 'hateful' move, i.e. discrimination.

In the other cases, the Christian organizations were not refusing to provide their product to gay people. In fact, there was no evidence that they said "You are gay? No service". They were refusing to provide a custom product for a specific event, i.e. gay wedding, due to their religious views, just like the gay baker was refusing to provide a specific product for a specific purpose.

I see a difference -- in the linked article, the customer agreed that he asked for a cake that said "homosexuality is a detestable sin." That's a pretty special, custom order. There's no evidence that the gay couple wanted anything other than a wedding cake, same as every other engaged couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There should not need to be a law, because private businesses should be able to serve and hire who they want to. We need to remove the governmental agencies, paid for by our tax dollars, that enforce these laws.

As for the Indiana law, the law was popularly passed by the governor and legislature. The opposition, led by leftist elites from media and business, has as its ultimate aim the persecutions of Christians and Jews, removal of all religion from public life, and destruction of churches in America.

Wow. You're basically arguing for "separate but equal" status, Whites Only counters, and blatant discrimination against anyone you don't like. In a perfect world, legislation would not be needed to mandate equal treatment for everyone but attitudes like yours- assuming you're not a Troll- are the very reason such laws are needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed this closely and I'll be honest -- I'm not pro-gay, which is something I have to keep on the DL living on the east coast. If I own my own bakery or dress shop and don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding or sell a dress for a lesbian wedding, how can I be forced to do so regardless of what the law says? I mean if the couple comes together and/or announces "we're a gay couple," can't you conveniently say -- oh sorry, we already have 11 other cake orders for that same Saturday and to be honest we don't have the staff to handle another; let me refer you to another nice bakery in town!?

Why does it matter what the law does or doesn't say -- it's easy to do what you want when you have your own business. (I agree that it's not possible if you're an employee -- if you're General Manager at the local Hilton and a gay couple comes to book a hall, you can't really turn them away without fearing losing your job if they suspect the reason and make allegations.)

How could you be forced to help a hindu couple or a black couple?

That's my point. A small business owner could see a Muslim couple and think -- nah don't want to be catering their wedding -- and make an excuse and turn them down. How could a law prevent that?

Your question is actually a separate one from the issue at hand.

The Indiana RFRA creates an affirmative defense if a company is taken to court (either by the government enforcing an existing law or a private citizen) for violating an existing law. The defense is that complying with the law would have forced the company to do something that violated their religious beliefs.