Indiana's Religious Freedom law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pharmacist refuses to give a woman who had already had a miscarriage her doctor-prescribed meds:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/walmart-pharmacist-refuses-to-fill-prescription-for-miscarriage-patient-citing-conscience-clause/

Unconscionable. Even the Catholic Church is OK with this.

[Anonymous]

Right but the law isn't. Walmart pharmacies are not religious entities so their pharmacists may not make such decisions.

This STILL does not take away from the bottom line that businesses, organizations, and associations, and INSTITUTIONS too have every right to reject homosexuality if they are religious entities or an association founded on conservative beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, pp, you are misunderstanding the law or simply don't agree with it.

The caterer who is truly running a religious business can use this right to discriminate, because her right to practice her religion freely is more critical than the governments need to protect gays from discrimination. But this right is reserved for those who truly espouse religious principles, not for just anyone who hates gays. The point is to protect religious freedom (or the freedom of assoc), not to permit bigotry and discrimination, because we all should know by now that hatred in bigotry and discrimination is a social harm.

If you as a caterer never thought to make your business a religious entity to begin with, you are not that religious but using religion as an excuse now to discriminate. Not okay. There are religious caterers who only cater to religious events. These businesses can use this exemption. Not you, who was catering universally to all kinds of people before, but now suddenly became aware some of your food will be purchased by gays and dislike it.

The bolded IS the problem - this is outright wrong. It's not about purchasing; it's about participating.

I'm sorry, is the wedding cake served at the altar? Selling a cake to be served at a reception is not in any way participating in a ceremony.

And the law doesn't require that cakes ONLY be served at an alter before they have the right to discriminate gays. The right to discriminate gays is born out of the Freedom of Association and Freedom of Religion clauses of the Constitution. If your religion thinks homosexuality is a sin, and your business is clearly a religious business, then you may reject catering to gays. If your organization thinks homosexuality is wrong, and it was founded on this belief, then you may choose to reject homosexuals from your organization. The law doesn't require the catering be for religious ceremonies for gays; it only requires that your organization or business be founded on anti-homosexuality belief.

Then why is the EEOC suing a company that fired Muslims who refused to deliver alcohol, which was part of their job?

Not familiar with the case you are referencing. But I'd want to know the full scope of the job, and whether the company could have reasonably accommodated the Muslim's objections.

If it's a booze delivery company, not a reasonable accommodation.

If it's a general delivery company, with many drivers, and only some alcohol related deliveries, and the company refused to attempt to accommodate the religious objection, I can see where the EEOC would get involved.

- HR

General delivery = general bakery. Specialty booze delivery company = specialty wedding cake bakery. If the delivery service was Muslim-owned, and they refused to deliver alcohol, that's one thing. But in this case, the men took a job at a company that delivered alcohol, then refused to do their job.

You really, REALLY don't want to start forcing labor by law. It gets very ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really, not if the business is a religious one. There are convents. Must they be forced to admit lesbians? There are christian t-shirt companies that only have christian themed shirts? Must they now be forced to print rainbow gay pride tshirts? There are orthodox jewish schools. Should they be forced to enroll gay students? How about Muslim sisters associations? Should they be forced to admit lesbians? Any organ or business that is founded on religious principles or principles that simply rejects homosexuals can not be forced to change because of what YOU think is fair or just.

Your idea that homosexuality is fine can not trump any group or organization's right to reject it...SO LONG AS that its truly an organization or business founded on such beliefs.

Convents and orthodox Jewish schools are religious institutions, not businesses, and as such their treatment by laws such as these is very, very different. You could do us all a favor by reading the entire thread so you actually have somewhat of a clue.

The Constitution is a document of individual rights, not group rights. Therefore, the right to religious freedom is granted to the individual.

Uh, no. You really don't know what you are talking about.

I suggest you re-read your Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pharmacist refuses to give a woman who had already had a miscarriage her doctor-prescribed meds:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/walmart-pharmacist-refuses-to-fill-prescription-for-miscarriage-patient-citing-conscience-clause/

I was once given a prescription for progesterone. The pharmacist took me aside and asked me if I was massively bleeding, and why I was given the scrip. I explained it to him and he told me that what I was given was not appropriate, both in dosage and in usage, and that taking it would cause more harm than good. Turns out the scrip was incorrect and in the dosages given, dangerous.

Misoprostol has killed women. It's not an unsafe drug.

The article uses the words "if" and "may" a lot, which I find disturbing. Let's not forget what's happened recently with Rolling Stone, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really, not if the business is a religious one. There are convents. Must they be forced to admit lesbians? There are christian t-shirt companies that only have christian themed shirts? Must they now be forced to print rainbow gay pride tshirts? There are orthodox jewish schools. Should they be forced to enroll gay students? How about Muslim sisters associations? Should they be forced to admit lesbians? Any organ or business that is founded on religious principles or principles that simply rejects homosexuals can not be forced to change because of what YOU think is fair or just.

Your idea that homosexuality is fine can not trump any group or organization's right to reject it...SO LONG AS that its truly an organization or business founded on such beliefs.

Convents and orthodox Jewish schools are religious institutions, not businesses, and as such their treatment by laws such as these is very, very different. You could do us all a favor by reading the entire thread so you actually have somewhat of a clue.

The Constitution is a document of individual rights, not group rights. Therefore, the right to religious freedom is granted to the individual.

Uh, no. You really don't know what you are talking about.

You're right, he doesn't. Look here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/how-serious-is-the-supreme-court-serious-about-religious-freedom/380617/

You missed the part about jail/incarceration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pharmacist refuses to give a woman who had already had a miscarriage her doctor-prescribed meds:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/walmart-pharmacist-refuses-to-fill-prescription-for-miscarriage-patient-citing-conscience-clause/

I was once given a prescription for progesterone. The pharmacist took me aside and asked me if I was massively bleeding, and why I was given the scrip. I explained it to him and he told me that what I was given was not appropriate, both in dosage and in usage, and that taking it would cause more harm than good. Turns out the scrip was incorrect and in the dosages given, dangerous.

Misoprostol has killed women. It's not an unsafe drug.

The article uses the words "if" and "may" a lot, which I find disturbing. Let's not forget what's happened recently with Rolling Stone, etc.

I mean tot say Mispoprostol is not a safe drug in a lot of circumstances. Women have died from its use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pharmacist refuses to give a woman who had already had a miscarriage her doctor-prescribed meds:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/walmart-pharmacist-refuses-to-fill-prescription-for-miscarriage-patient-citing-conscience-clause/

I was once given a prescription for progesterone. The pharmacist took me aside and asked me if I was massively bleeding, and why I was given the scrip. I explained it to him and he told me that what I was given was not appropriate, both in dosage and in usage, and that taking it would cause more harm than good. Turns out the scrip was incorrect and in the dosages given, dangerous.

Misoprostol has killed women. It's not an unsafe drug.

The article uses the words "if" and "may" a lot, which I find disturbing. Let's not forget what's happened recently with Rolling Stone, etc.

I mean tot say Mispoprostol is not a safe drug in a lot of circumstances. Women have died from its use.

150 people die each year from accidental Tylenol poisoning and that's of 33,000 hospitalized because of Tylenol.

I'm betting dollars to donuts that safety is not the issue at hand here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First step toward sharia law.

+1000

The conservatives who are in favor of turning away gay couples who want to buy wedding cakes are too short-sighted to realize that they are throwing the door wide open for Sharia law, and using the exact same approach, a Muslim business owner could then turn away Christian women if they aren't wearing a headscarf.

Very, very foolish and shortsighted. Typical conservative myopia. They are causing far more damage than they realize.

Except the shop owners were not turning away the couple simply because they were gay. They were exercising their right not to participate in their WEDDING.

The short-sighted ones are the progressives who can't understand this distinction.

This comment is scary. This person doesn't seem to understand the freedom of religion at all plus doesn't understand what "participation in a wedding" means.

[Anonymous]

13 gay bakeries refuse to bake a pro-traditional marriage cake.

I'm fine with this, just as I am fine with Christian bakers refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

The question is, are you?

http://buzzpo.com/christian-man-denied-service-by-thirteen-gay-bakeries-after-requesting-pro-traditional-marriage-cake/?utm_content=buffer7e8ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13 gay bakeries refuse to bake a pro-traditional marriage cake.

I'm fine with this, just as I am fine with Christian bakers refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

The question is, are you?

http://buzzpo.com/christian-man-denied-service-by-thirteen-gay-bakeries-after-requesting-pro-traditional-marriage-cake/?utm_content=buffer7e8ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican

Do you know what a pro-gay marriage cake is? A cake.

Do you know what a "pro-traditional marriage cake" is? A dare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13 gay bakeries refuse to bake a pro-traditional marriage cake.

I'm fine with this, just as I am fine with Christian bakers refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

The question is, are you?

http://buzzpo.com/christian-man-denied-service-by-thirteen-gay-bakeries-after-requesting-pro-traditional-marriage-cake/?utm_content=buffer7e8ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican

Do you know what a pro-gay marriage cake is? A cake.

Do you know what a "pro-traditional marriage cake" is? A dare.

Law applies to both regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13 gay bakeries refuse to bake a pro-traditional marriage cake.

I'm fine with this, just as I am fine with Christian bakers refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

The question is, are you?

http://buzzpo.com/christian-man-denied-service-by-thirteen-gay-bakeries-after-requesting-pro-traditional-marriage-cake/?utm_content=buffer7e8ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican

Do you know what a pro-gay marriage cake is? A cake.

Do you know what a "pro-traditional marriage cake" is? A dare.

Law applies to both regardless.

A cake is a cake. An inscription is speech.

[Anonymous]

One proposed solution to the conflicted conscience dilemma:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2015/04/17/a-way-out-for-christian-wedding-businesses/?subscriber=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One proposed solution to the conflicted conscience dilemma:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2015/04/17/a-way-out-for-christian-wedding-businesses/?subscriber=1

This guy is a real charmer.