Indiana's Religious Freedom law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

So what do we do with a hair-dresser who doesn't know what to do with black hair? Just curious what your suggestions will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes denying a gay couple a cake a legitimate religious issue?

Where exactly in the Bible does it say thou shalt turn away people whom you do not agree with?

More specifically, where did Jesus teach anything even remotely like this?

I can't seem to find it anywhere. Certainly not in the Gospels which are the first hand testimony of Christ's teachings. Anyone? Anyone? Citation, please?

If you can't come up with one then it's not really a bonafide religious issue. So please stop trying to wrap your homophobic bigotry up in religion thinking it can act as a shield. If even Jesus isn't backing you up on this then you are full of crap.

The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. A baker, who bakes a wedding cake for a gay couple means that baker is participating in the wedding. This is VERY different than a gay couple simply coming in to buy cookies, or any other baked goods already on the shelf - including a cake. Forcing someone to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs is what this law is about. It does not give shop owners permission to shout 'you're gay, get out".

Should a Halal shop owner be forced to participate in a Jewish wedding? I don't think so.

"Participating in the wedding?" Oh, please. By that calculus, the chinese factory that made the lace for the veil is also "participating in the wedding"

But you still didn't answer the question. Where exactly in the Bible does it say the baker cannot do business with them? And, since we are talking about Christians here, where, specifically, in the Gospels does it say that?

If the veil is special-ordered or custom made, you are talking about shop owner participation. Off the shelf? Nope

Huh. My Bible doesn't seem to have that clause. Did yours come with some kind of special Appendix of random new rules for what does and doesn't constitute "participation?"

[Anonymous]

The issue with the law is that it includes private businesses. The bigger issue is not the Christian florist or Christian baker refusing to supply a gay couple's wedding. (this is awful and abhorrent but doesn't endanger anyone) The issue is the Christian pharmacy, the only one for 20 miles in a rural area of Indiana refusing to fill the prescription for Truvada because homosexuality is a sin and against his/her religion. The same pharmacy also refuses to stock Plan B or birth control pills because birth control is against his or her religion. That is placing a substantial burden on others because of your religion. There are places around this country still served only by the small independent pharmacies and not CVS or Walgreen's. The Federal RFRA was for limiting the STATE encroaching on religious freedom not individuals or businesses claiming a right to religious freedom. The Indiana Law is written much more broadly than other state RFRA around the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

They aren't free to discriminate. That's already been settled. We already had that discussion about a group of blacks at a lunch counter, decades ago, in case you've forgotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

You are making the argument of a segregationist. Sorry, but it's true. White's only establishments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

So what do we do with a hair-dresser who doesn't know what to do with black hair? Just curious what your suggestions will be.

Well, if she wants to be able to cut black hair well, she should study and learn. If her clients like the way she cuts their hair, more power to them. Maybe women who don't like how she cuts hair still come in for a blow-out. But that's not the same as refusing to serve black people. She's offering the same services to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

Yes, if they can in a court of law make a case that it goes against deeply held religious beliefs AND the customer in question has reasonable access to the same service elsewhere. Of course I don't know of any case that could be made in this regard, none whatsoever, but the theory holds I suppose. Besides that, this is truly a straw man that people keep throwing up as race is not a behavior or action and there is no defensible religious argument in that regard. In terms of ACTUAL situations that occur, that are absolutely fucked up ..... we allow "special men" to slice off part of a week-old baby boys penis off with no anesthesia and then put his mouth on the boys erect penis and suck the blood off. Because we allow religious liberty in this country. I may be horrified by it, but I do believe in protecting peoples deeply held beliefs to the extent our government protects them. I think the 1993 federal act was a good one, as are the individual state laws. What's better, having the government make you do or not do things that you have deeply held religious beliefs for/against? The government simply should not have that power except in the most extreme cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The full text is available at http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/ and the language is a little painful to parse, but basically, what it does is create a defense against any lawsuit or prosecution that you did/didn't do whatever you're being accused of because of your religious beliefs.

In the face of anyone who raised such a defense, the government would have to show that forcing them to do/not do whatever is claimed to be a violation of their religious beliefs is "(a) in the furtherance of a compelling government interest and (b) the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest."

So, if you consider yourself a good Christian restaurant that is opposed to the evils the "homosexual lifestyle," (say, Cracker Barrel), you could refuse to serve a male couple that came in holding hands and being affectionate on the grounds that having such behavior in your restaurant violated your religious beliefs, even though you would permit a heterosexual couple to engage in the same behavior.

If you were sued/prosecuted for discrimination based on such an exclusion, the plaintiff/government would have to prove that forcing you to serve that homosexual couple was both in the furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

The compelling interest standard is the highest possible standard that the government can be held to, and it's frequently difficult to achieve.

I think what the law is trying to do is limit lawsuits where plaintiffs claim that they were discriminated against by aggressive behavior, when really they were just trying to stir up trouble, or were terrible employees. Like the woman who booked a table in Claridges and breast fed her baby in front of the other diners. More of a publicity stunt than anything else ...

[Anonymous]

Is this law about cake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So say a gay couple goes to a business that denies them service, citing this law and their conservative Christian ideology.

That would be ok.

But the same Christian can go to a business owned by the same exact gay couple, and they must provide s/he with service? The gay couple cannot deny the Christian service, citing his/her offensive religious beliefs?

What the hell?

Logic flaw: a Christian would never knowingly patronize a business run by gays.

BS. My minister is gay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue with the law is that it includes private businesses. The bigger issue is not the Christian florist or Christian baker refusing to supply a gay couple's wedding. (this is awful and abhorrent but doesn't endanger anyone) The issue is the Christian pharmacy, the only one for 20 miles in a rural area of Indiana refusing to fill the prescription for Truvada because homosexuality is a sin and against his/her religion. The same pharmacy also refuses to stock Plan B or birth control pills because birth control is against his or her religion. That is placing a substantial burden on others because of your religion. There are places around this country still served only by the small independent pharmacies and not CVS or Walgreen's. The Federal RFRA was for limiting the STATE encroaching on religious freedom not individuals or businesses claiming a right to religious freedom. The Indiana Law is written much more broadly than other state RFRA around the country.

Woman's right to birth control does not trump someone else's right to avoid participating in contracepting. They are competing rights and our government is very wise in not forcing either one on the other in most cases. We can be proud of our government - one of the few in the world - that makes a decent attempt at protecting EVERYONE from participating in something that is offensive to them. Obviously it can get extremely complicated but I think the effort is valiant. In the case of the birth control, a court could determine that in a particular individuals case, the extra 20 minute drive was INDEED too great a hardship, and assuming no other accommodations could be made (a mail order from the pharmacy in the next town over, perhaps?) force the sole pharmacist to fill the script. The law is written to cover what can be covered by it. Exceptions in court can always be made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

So what do we do with a hair-dresser who doesn't know what to do with black hair? Just curious what your suggestions will be.

Well, if she wants to be able to cut black hair well, she should study and learn. If her clients like the way she cuts their hair, more power to them. Maybe women who don't like how she cuts hair still come in for a blow-out. But that's not the same as refusing to serve black people. She's offering the same services to everyone.

Dude, which ivory tower are you from? Besides cutting, girls have their hair styled. Do you have a clue about how much effort and skill goes into styling natural black hair? Doesn't sound like you do. A person without specific skills is not going to attempt something like this. And I'd like to see you make someone acquire a skill they may not be interested in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

So what do we do with a hair-dresser who doesn't know what to do with black hair? Just curious what your suggestions will be.

Well, if she wants to be able to cut black hair well, she should study and learn. If her clients like the way she cuts their hair, more power to them. Maybe women who don't like how she cuts hair still come in for a blow-out. But that's not the same as refusing to serve black people. She's offering the same services to everyone.

Dude, which ivory tower are you from? Besides cutting, girls have their hair styled. Do you have a clue about how much effort and skill goes into styling natural black hair? Doesn't sound like you do. A person without specific skills is not going to attempt something like this. And I'd like to see you make someone acquire a skill they may not be interested in.

The difference is that if the hair stylist says, "Listen, I don't get many black customers and I don't have a lot of experience with hair like yours. I'm afraid I'm going to do it badly," and the customer says, "That's ok, I'd like a haircut anyway," the stylist doesn't get to say, "I don't serve black customers."

There's nothing forcing the stylist to acquire those skills, all they have to do is offer the same services to all customers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool, then you are also fine with businesses refusing to serve people of different races

And that envolves which religious beliefs exactly? Apples and oranges, stop being an ass.

Oh, please. The "religious liberty" argument - the exact one used here - was used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/

Change the channel. Private business should be free to do as they please. It is reasonable to expect gov't institutions to be controlled, not the private enterprise.

So, you're saying that yes, private businesses should be allowed to exclude people based on race?

So what do we do with a hair-dresser who doesn't know what to do with black hair? Just curious what your suggestions will be.

Well, if she wants to be able to cut black hair well, she should study and learn. If her clients like the way she cuts their hair, more power to them. Maybe women who don't like how she cuts hair still come in for a blow-out. But that's not the same as refusing to serve black people. She's offering the same services to everyone.

Dude, which ivory tower are you from? Besides cutting, girls have their hair styled. Do you have a clue about how much effort and skill goes into styling natural black hair? Doesn't sound like you do. A person without specific skills is not going to attempt something like this. And I'd like to see you make someone acquire a skill they may not be interested in.

Did you actually read my post, "dude?" Where did I say anyone should be required to learn a skill? And yes, I am aware that girls like to have their hair styled, thanks. I'm saying that the hair stylist in your example is not required to learn how to cut any particular type of hair, but cannot refuse to cut a black person's hair if they want to have their hair cut.

Just out of curiosity, are you claiming that gay people eat a different kind of wedding cake? That there is some skill that florists would have to acquire to provide flowers for a gay wedding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with the law is that it includes private businesses. The bigger issue is not the Christian florist or Christian baker refusing to supply a gay couple's wedding. (this is awful and abhorrent but doesn't endanger anyone) The issue is the Christian pharmacy, the only one for 20 miles in a rural area of Indiana refusing to fill the prescription for Truvada because homosexuality is a sin and against his/her religion. The same pharmacy also refuses to stock Plan B or birth control pills because birth control is against his or her religion. That is placing a substantial burden on others because of your religion. There are places around this country still served only by the small independent pharmacies and not CVS or Walgreen's. The Federal RFRA was for limiting the STATE encroaching on religious freedom not individuals or businesses claiming a right to religious freedom. The Indiana Law is written much more broadly than other state RFRA around the country.

Woman's right to birth control does not trump someone else's right to avoid participating in contracepting. They are competing rights and our government is very wise in not forcing either one on the other in most cases. We can be proud of our government - one of the few in the world - that makes a decent attempt at protecting EVERYONE from participating in something that is offensive to them. Obviously it can get extremely complicated but I think the effort is valiant. In the case of the birth control, a court could determine that in a particular individuals case, the extra 20 minute drive was INDEED too great a hardship, and assuming no other accommodations could be made (a mail order from the pharmacy in the next town over, perhaps?) force the sole pharmacist to fill the script. The law is written to cover what can be covered by it. Exceptions in court can always be made.

No one is forcing anyone to become a pharmacist, so no one is being forced to participate in contracepting. But if you choose to be a pharmacist, you don't get to impose your religious beliefs on others.