Indiana's Religious Freedom law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Your bible has the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' line, and talks extensively of marriage.

You're aware that in your attempt to protect the rights of your chosen group, you are trampling on the rights of another group, right? Is that OK? Why is your chosen group more important and/or more worthy that another?

You mean the "right" to be a baker? Or a florist?

Should a Halal food establishment be required to cater a Jewish wedding? Can the Jew sue the Muslims if they refuse?

Yes, and yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Your bible has the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' line, and talks extensively of marriage.

You're aware that in your attempt to protect the rights of your chosen group, you are trampling on the rights of another group, right? Is that OK? Why is your chosen group more important and/or more worthy that another?

You mean the "right" to be a baker? Or a florist?

Should a Halal food establishment be required to cater a Jewish wedding? Can the Jew sue the Muslims if they refuse?

Yes, and yes.

PP -- hit post too soon, sorry. If the Jewish couple wants the catering services the Halal establishment provides, no, the Halal establishment should not be permitted to refuse service to the Jewish couple just because they are Jews. If they do, the Jewish couple should be permitted to sue.

[Anonymous]

How is this different than providing service to blacks, jews, muslims or anyone else you don't like??? I think this law is extremely bigoted.

I think marriage needs an overhaul. It shouldn't be a federal thing, just a religious institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And neither does the baker. Again, it's the PARTICIPATION in the event that's what's being covered here. Y'all don't really seem to get that concept.

Neither does the baker...what? Your post doesn't make sense.

Did the baker who was forced to close in Oregon refuse to sell baked goods from her shop to the gay couple, or did she simply refuse to bake a cake for their wedding? Hint: The baker served all sorts of people, including gays. It was the PARTICIPATION in the wedding by baking a cake FOR THAT PURPOSE that violated their religious freedoms.

You want everything fair and equal, but you are trampling on the rights of some people in order to satisfy the rights of your chosen group. That is neither fair nor equal. And you haven't explained why your chosen group is more worthy. Until you do that, any other statements you make will be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Your bible has the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' line, and talks extensively of marriage.

You're aware that in your attempt to protect the rights of your chosen group, you are trampling on the rights of another group, right? Is that OK? Why is your chosen group more important and/or more worthy that another?

You mean the "right" to be a baker? Or a florist?

Should a Halal food establishment be required to cater a Jewish wedding? Can the Jew sue the Muslims if they refuse?

Yes, and yes.

PP -- hit post too soon, sorry. If the Jewish couple wants the catering services the Halal establishment provides, no, the Halal establishment should not be permitted to refuse service to the Jewish couple just because they are Jews. If they do, the Jewish couple should be permitted to sue.

Why are the Jew's rights more important that the Muslim's rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is this different than providing service to blacks, jews, muslims or anyone else you don't like??? I think this law is extremely bigoted.

I think marriage needs an overhaul. It shouldn't be a federal thing, just a religious institution.

Because it's not about not liking someone! That's what is being pushed but it's not correct. It's about the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean the religious individual doesn't like gay people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this different than providing service to blacks, jews, muslims or anyone else you don't like??? I think this law is extremely bigoted.

I think marriage needs an overhaul. It shouldn't be a federal thing, just a religious institution.

Because it's not about not liking someone! That's what is being pushed but it's not correct. It's about the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean the religious individual doesn't like gay people.

But Christians also believe that Jews and Muslims are going to hell. That is their religious belief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Your bible has the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' line, and talks extensively of marriage.

You're aware that in your attempt to protect the rights of your chosen group, you are trampling on the rights of another group, right? Is that OK? Why is your chosen group more important and/or more worthy that another?

You mean the "right" to be a baker? Or a florist?

Should a Halal food establishment be required to cater a Jewish wedding? Can the Jew sue the Muslims if they refuse?

Yes, and yes.

PP -- hit post too soon, sorry. If the Jewish couple wants the catering services the Halal establishment provides, no, the Halal establishment should not be permitted to refuse service to the Jewish couple just because they are Jews. If they do, the Jewish couple should be permitted to sue.

Why are the Jew's rights more important that the Muslim's rights?

The Muslim's rights are not being infringed. No one is forcing them to participate in Jewish weddings. They made that choice by choosing the business they operate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did the baker who was forced to close in Oregon refuse to sell baked goods from her shop to the gay couple, or did she simply refuse to bake a cake for their wedding? Hint: The baker served all sorts of people, including gays. It was the PARTICIPATION in the wedding by baking a cake FOR THAT PURPOSE that violated their religious freedoms.

You want everything fair and equal, but you are trampling on the rights of some people in order to satisfy the rights of your chosen group. That is neither fair nor equal. And you haven't explained why your chosen group is more worthy. Until you do that, any other statements you make will be ignored.

Your premise -- that the Christian baker has a "right" to be a baker that is somehow being trampled -- is flawed. You can keep ducking that point if you want, but until you fix your premise, there's no question to answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this different than providing service to blacks, jews, muslims or anyone else you don't like??? I think this law is extremely bigoted.

I think marriage needs an overhaul. It shouldn't be a federal thing, just a religious institution.

Because it's not about not liking someone! That's what is being pushed but it's not correct. It's about the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean the religious individual doesn't like gay people.

Again, people have argued that their religion prohibits interracial marriages. Should bakers therefore be permitted to refuse to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple?

[Anonymous]

Here's what I don't get. If I am a baker and I don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, I would just say, nope, I can't do that day, so sorry. Here are three other shops that could work for you. Why would I ever tell someone why I didn't want to bake their cake?

What this really boils down to is people being too stupid to keep their opinions to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get. If I am a baker and I don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, I would just say, nope, I can't do that day, so sorry. Here are three other shops that could work for you. Why would I ever tell someone why I didn't want to bake their cake?

What this really boils down to is people being too stupid to keep their opinions to themselves.

I think, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the issue was that the bakers/florists didn't know their cakes/flowers were for a gay wedding until after they'd agreed to supply the cake/flowers.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

really this is just further proof that the fly over portions of our country are mostly inbred shallow thinkers who believe in magic space men and think hate is ok as long as it is towards people not like them. This is nothing new and will be struck down in the courts and become a hick rallying cry just in time to embarrass the next round of republican nominees as they try to placate their hick base causing them to lose precious informed voters in the cities tipping the election back to the Dems again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
How is this different than providing service to blacks, jews, muslims or anyone else you don't like??? I think this law is extremely bigoted.

I think marriage needs an overhaul. It shouldn't be a federal thing, just a religious institution.


Because it's not about not liking someone! That's what is being pushed but it's not correct. It's about the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean the religious individual doesn't like gay people.


Again, people have argued that their religion prohibits interracial marriages. Should bakers therefore be permitted to refuse to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple?

It all depends if the party with holding services or goods actually is in good standing with the religion/church as defined by the government. If someone with holds services based on religious objections, they must show they are a member of the religion and follow all the tenets of that religion. This will of course be determined by the government. So conservatives are in favor of the government determining who belongs and who does not belong to a religion.