Other Resources The Political Joe » Religious freedom in Indiana Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 5
 
 
2015-03-27 9:22 AM

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: Religious freedom in Indiana

I was born in Indiana and still have family there so am particularly saddened by the recent signing of the Freedom of Religion bill. Religious freedom is for people and religions, not businesses.  If people don't want to be compelled by law to offer their business services to all people, then they should be a business that only the "right" kind of people will use. Don't be in the wedding cake business if you don't want to make a cake for two guys. Don't be in the portrait photography business if you don't want to take a family portrait of two women and their children. Don't be in any business that serves people if you don't want to serve all people. I trust this law will be eventually be struck down, but the fact that it passed at all is very disturbing. I do acknowledge that their may need to be some legal protections for businesses that do not want to support illegal acts (hate crimes, civil rights violations, etc.), but there should be no law supporting discriminatory practices.



2015-03-27 9:26 AM
in reply to: mrbbrad

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

I don't get how this is freedom of religion. Isn't in fact discriminating against people who hold different religious beliefs than that of the business owner? The logic doesn't logic.

2015-03-27 9:31 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by dmiller5

 The logic doesn't logic.

It's Indiana. 

2015-03-27 9:40 AM
in reply to: mrbbrad

User image

Master
3127
2000100010025
Sunny Southern Cal
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

I find that if you wear a bike helmet, it lessens the impact of bad legislation. 

2015-03-27 10:35 AM
in reply to: SevenZulu

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by SevenZulu

I find that if you wear a bike helmet, it lessens the impact of bad legislation. 

just ask California!

2015-03-27 11:38 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana
Originally posted by dmiller5

I don't get how this is freedom of religion. Isn't in fact discriminating against people who hold different religious beliefs than that of the business owner? The logic doesn't logic.




I don't get this either. If the law gives a Christian store owner the right not to sell to gay people because their (lifestyle? existence?) is at odds with their religious beliefs, wouldn't that also give them the right, for example, to not sell to muslims or jews or anyone who's not a Christian for the same reason?


2015-03-27 12:03 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Imma quit my job, move to Indiana, open a business, and not sell anything to anyone.

2015-03-27 12:10 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

There are businesses and conferences that are already threatening to leave/not come to Indiana because of this law.

2015-03-27 1:12 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Master
2477
2000100100100100252525
Oceanside, California
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana
Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by dmiller5

I don't get how this is freedom of religion. Isn't in fact discriminating against people who hold different religious beliefs than that of the business owner? The logic doesn't logic.




I don't get this either. If the law gives a Christian store owner the right not to sell to gay people because their (lifestyle? existence?) is at odds with their religious beliefs, wouldn't that also give them the right, for example, to not sell to muslims or jews or anyone who's not a Christian for the same reason?


This resonates with me pretty strongly.

Even if I was to set aside pretty critical secular arguments, this just seems to contradict everything I understand of the Bible (especially the red words), every sermon I have ever heard, and every sunday school lesson I ever had.

I admit when I first read this quote, I was thinking of owners of Christian stores... not owners of stores that happen to be Christian. Still...

By the logic of the bill and people who think this way, they would also have to think the following....

- Mother Theresa should only do missionary work in church parking lots.

- Sinners should not be allowed to buy bibles. (Kind of the Indiana version of the Catholic "you cannot take the eucharist if...") Ok, just kidding, everyone is a sinner, just the type of sinners that we have pre-judged should not be allowed to by bibles. Straight Christians that cheat on their wife just made a mistake, at least they don't destroy the sanctity of marriage like people wanting to access the same secular, governmental benefits with someone of the same gender.

- In fact, that main character in the new testament really messed up, I mean have you read who he hung out with? Broke bread with? Washed the feet of? That "love your neighbor" crap,I mean love them, just after who choose who they are amirite? That jewish, liberal hippie would NEVER be welcomed by these people based on his behavior.



Ok, I also realized that we need a half-sarc font...

Ok, if my words are too devisive, can we all agree on some legislation that we all can agree with... like changing the names of all the months named after Gods. Seems like a we should not be endorsing or acknowledging Janus, Februa, Mars, Maiesta, or Juno.
2015-03-27 2:24 PM
in reply to: crowny2

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

2015-03-27 2:47 PM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

I  agree with that.....which is why I made my post above.   If it's my business, I should be able sell to who I want to, or not.  The flip side is that I can choose not to patronize businesses who's practices/ideals I don't agree with.  To me, if the govt. can regulate who a business has to sell to, then it can regulate who I can buy from.....and to hell with that.

I think it's comical that they tie it to religion.



2015-03-27 3:22 PM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana
Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 




Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays.

If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce?

If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place."
2015-03-27 3:26 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays. If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce? If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place."

I think you're right.....and you, and me, and everyone who doesn't agree with their position should stay the hell out of their cake store. 

2015-03-27 3:30 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays. If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce? If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place."

I think that was LB's point about it being comically tied to religion.

I don't think a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker should be compelled to provide service to gays, Jews, or unwed mothers - no hypocrisy here. 

Personally, I want a cake made with love, not hate ©.  I think I'll get some t-shirts and bumper stickers made with that slogan.

 



Edited by Hook'em 2015-03-27 3:32 PM
2015-03-27 4:57 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays. If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce? If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place."

There's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of these things, but overall I agree completely with your premise.  I've said numerous times before that homosexuality is no more a sin than fornication (sex outside of marriage) so to be Biblicly consistent a Christian cake maker would need to disallow selling cakes to all couples who are sleeping together prior to their wedding (gay or straight).  #oops

As for the OP, you have to be careful with the argument of "somebody not getting in the business of X" because they don't have a social view that you have.  You're essentially wanting to shut down a business owner for the sole reason that they do not share the same social views as you do, which is the exact same thing as a business owner refusing to do business with someone based on their sexual orientation.  They're both discrimination.

You can certainly choose to not shop there, or use their services but to put them out of business isn't exactly what I'd call tolerance.

A business can choose to not sell to ANYONE as long as it doesn't violate their constitutional or civil rights.  I can walk into a store to buy a donut and they can say get out of here white guy, and there's nothing I can do other than not shop there again.  The LGBT community is trying to elevate itself to a protected class through the legislature in may places, but until it does people can choose to not sell to them all they want from a legal standpoint.  Think, no shoes, no shirt, no service.

Now, that being said I think it's completely stupid for a business to not sell to anyone for any reason other than fearing for personal safety type reasons.  If I make cakes I'll sell cakes to anyone who wants to buy them, and I'm a pretty strong Christian.  Same goes for employees; I'll hire gay people, straight people, atheists, you name it as long as they're the best candidates for the position.

2015-03-27 6:14 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays. If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce? If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place."

There's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of these things, but overall I agree completely with your premise.  I've said numerous times before that homosexuality is no more a sin than fornication (sex outside of marriage) so to be Biblicly consistent a Christian cake maker would need to disallow selling cakes to all couples who are sleeping together prior to their wedding (gay or straight).  #oops

As for the OP, you have to be careful with the argument of "somebody not getting in the business of X" because they don't have a social view that you have.  You're essentially wanting to shut down a business owner for the sole reason that they do not share the same social views as you do, which is the exact same thing as a business owner refusing to do business with someone based on their sexual orientation.  They're both discrimination.

You can certainly choose to not shop there, or use their services but to put them out of business isn't exactly what I'd call tolerance.

A business can choose to not sell to ANYONE as long as it doesn't violate their constitutional or civil rights.  I can walk into a store to buy a donut and they can say get out of here white guy, and there's nothing I can do other than not shop there again.  The LGBT community is trying to elevate itself to a protected class through the legislature in may places, but until it does people can choose to not sell to them all they want from a legal standpoint.  Think, no shoes, no shirt, no service.

Now, that being said I think it's completely stupid for a business to not sell to anyone for any reason other than fearing for personal safety type reasons.  If I make cakes I'll sell cakes to anyone who wants to buy them, and I'm a pretty strong Christian.  Same goes for employees; I'll hire gay people, straight people, atheists, you name it as long as they're the best candidates for the position.



Tony, a store owner can no more decide not to serve you because you're white than a white store owner can refuse to serve a black guy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says so.


2015-03-27 9:56 PM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana
Originally posted by Hook'em

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays. If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce? If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place."

I think that was LB's point about it being comically tied to religion.

I don't think a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker should be compelled to provide service to gays, Jews, or unwed mothers - no hypocrisy here. 

Personally, I want a cake made with love, not hate ©.  I think I'll get some t-shirts and bumper stickers made with that slogan.

 




I guess I'm not understanding your point. It's already against the law to refuse service to someone because of their religion, race, etc. You're saying that you disagree with that and that you think a store owner ought to be able to discriminate against whomever he wants? And we should just let the free market sort it out?
2015-03-27 9:59 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

I'll never look at a cake the same again.

2015-03-27 11:42 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Master
3127
2000100010025
Sunny Southern Cal
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by Left Brain

I'll never look at a cake the same again.

Me too.  I'm switching to pie.

2015-03-30 7:48 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays. If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce? If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place."

There's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of these things, but overall I agree completely with your premise.  I've said numerous times before that homosexuality is no more a sin than fornication (sex outside of marriage) so to be Biblicly consistent a Christian cake maker would need to disallow selling cakes to all couples who are sleeping together prior to their wedding (gay or straight).  #oops

As for the OP, you have to be careful with the argument of "somebody not getting in the business of X" because they don't have a social view that you have.  You're essentially wanting to shut down a business owner for the sole reason that they do not share the same social views as you do, which is the exact same thing as a business owner refusing to do business with someone based on their sexual orientation.  They're both discrimination.

You can certainly choose to not shop there, or use their services but to put them out of business isn't exactly what I'd call tolerance.

A business can choose to not sell to ANYONE as long as it doesn't violate their constitutional or civil rights.  I can walk into a store to buy a donut and they can say get out of here white guy, and there's nothing I can do other than not shop there again.  The LGBT community is trying to elevate itself to a protected class through the legislature in may places, but until it does people can choose to not sell to them all they want from a legal standpoint.  Think, no shoes, no shirt, no service.

Now, that being said I think it's completely stupid for a business to not sell to anyone for any reason other than fearing for personal safety type reasons.  If I make cakes I'll sell cakes to anyone who wants to buy them, and I'm a pretty strong Christian.  Same goes for employees; I'll hire gay people, straight people, atheists, you name it as long as they're the best candidates for the position.

Tony, a store owner can no more decide not to serve you because you're white than a white store owner can refuse to serve a black guy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says so.

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that you have to be a protected class in order to be under the protections of the Civil Rights Act.  Meaning if somebody does throw me out based on the color of my skin I have no law to use against them.

I could be wrong, but that's the way I've always understood it.  Kind of like having to be a certain age before I have age based protections in the workplace.

2015-03-30 8:29 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana
There are 19 states that have the laws similar to what Indiana just passed. So Indiana didn't invent the wheel here.

I am curious if there is a case out there where a business owner denied service to a LGBT person and successfully used this law in defense in court?



2015-03-30 9:02 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by Jackemy1 There are 19 states that have the laws similar to what Indiana just passed. So Indiana didn't invent the wheel here.

Oh, the outrage...say it isn't so.  Interestingly, Barack Obama was an Illinois Senator when a similar law was unanimously approved for his state. 

The NCAA, Apple, Ashton Kucther, and the Mayor of Seattle are going to be busy keeping up with all the places to boycott, especially considering the federal law covers the entire country. 

 

2015-03-30 9:06 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays. If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce? If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place."

There's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of these things, but overall I agree completely with your premise.  I've said numerous times before that homosexuality is no more a sin than fornication (sex outside of marriage) so to be Biblicly consistent a Christian cake maker would need to disallow selling cakes to all couples who are sleeping together prior to their wedding (gay or straight).  #oops

As for the OP, you have to be careful with the argument of "somebody not getting in the business of X" because they don't have a social view that you have.  You're essentially wanting to shut down a business owner for the sole reason that they do not share the same social views as you do, which is the exact same thing as a business owner refusing to do business with someone based on their sexual orientation.  They're both discrimination.

You can certainly choose to not shop there, or use their services but to put them out of business isn't exactly what I'd call tolerance.

A business can choose to not sell to ANYONE as long as it doesn't violate their constitutional or civil rights.  I can walk into a store to buy a donut and they can say get out of here white guy, and there's nothing I can do other than not shop there again.  The LGBT community is trying to elevate itself to a protected class through the legislature in may places, but until it does people can choose to not sell to them all they want from a legal standpoint.  Think, no shoes, no shirt, no service.

Now, that being said I think it's completely stupid for a business to not sell to anyone for any reason other than fearing for personal safety type reasons.  If I make cakes I'll sell cakes to anyone who wants to buy them, and I'm a pretty strong Christian.  Same goes for employees; I'll hire gay people, straight people, atheists, you name it as long as they're the best candidates for the position.

Tony, a store owner can no more decide not to serve you because you're white than a white store owner can refuse to serve a black guy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says so.

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that you have to be a protected class in order to be under the protections of the Civil Rights Act.  Meaning if somebody does throw me out based on the color of my skin I have no law to use against them.

I could be wrong, but that's the way I've always understood it.  Kind of like having to be a certain age before I have age based protections in the workplace.



Not exactly. The history of civil rights legislation has been an evolution in the US. The Civil Rights act of 1964 specifically guranteed protections against discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin. The law guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accomodations of any place of public accomodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." The law was certainly enacted to protect minorites from segregation and discrimination, but just because you're a member of the majority race and religion doesn't make it legal to discriminate against you on the basis of your race, religion, etc. As I said, a restaurant owner can no more refuse to serve you because you're white or christian than they can because someone is black or muslim.

The protections against discrimination against age was added in 1967 in a different piece of legislation, and specifically set "older than 40" as the point at which the protections become effective. Since then, other protected classes (veterans, the disabled) have been added through additional federal legislation, and some states have added their own (sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.).

Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2015-03-30 9:07 AM
2015-03-30 11:58 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Hook'em

Actual Bill 

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

 

Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays. If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce? If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place."

There's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of these things, but overall I agree completely with your premise.  I've said numerous times before that homosexuality is no more a sin than fornication (sex outside of marriage) so to be Biblicly consistent a Christian cake maker would need to disallow selling cakes to all couples who are sleeping together prior to their wedding (gay or straight).  #oops

As for the OP, you have to be careful with the argument of "somebody not getting in the business of X" because they don't have a social view that you have.  You're essentially wanting to shut down a business owner for the sole reason that they do not share the same social views as you do, which is the exact same thing as a business owner refusing to do business with someone based on their sexual orientation.  They're both discrimination.

You can certainly choose to not shop there, or use their services but to put them out of business isn't exactly what I'd call tolerance.

A business can choose to not sell to ANYONE as long as it doesn't violate their constitutional or civil rights.  I can walk into a store to buy a donut and they can say get out of here white guy, and there's nothing I can do other than not shop there again.  The LGBT community is trying to elevate itself to a protected class through the legislature in may places, but until it does people can choose to not sell to them all they want from a legal standpoint.  Think, no shoes, no shirt, no service.

Now, that being said I think it's completely stupid for a business to not sell to anyone for any reason other than fearing for personal safety type reasons.  If I make cakes I'll sell cakes to anyone who wants to buy them, and I'm a pretty strong Christian.  Same goes for employees; I'll hire gay people, straight people, atheists, you name it as long as they're the best candidates for the position.

Tony, a store owner can no more decide not to serve you because you're white than a white store owner can refuse to serve a black guy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says so.

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that you have to be a protected class in order to be under the protections of the Civil Rights Act.  Meaning if somebody does throw me out based on the color of my skin I have no law to use against them.

I could be wrong, but that's the way I've always understood it.  Kind of like having to be a certain age before I have age based protections in the workplace.

Not exactly. The history of civil rights legislation has been an evolution in the US. The Civil Rights act of 1964 specifically guranteed protections against discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin. The law guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accomodations of any place of public accomodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." The law was certainly enacted to protect minorites from segregation and discrimination, but just because you're a member of the majority race and religion doesn't make it legal to discriminate against you on the basis of your race, religion, etc. As I said, a restaurant owner can no more refuse to serve you because you're white or christian than they can because someone is black or muslim. The protections against discrimination against age was added in 1967 in a different piece of legislation, and specifically set "older than 40" as the point at which the protections become effective. Since then, other protected classes (veterans, the disabled) have been added through additional federal legislation, and some states have added their own (sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.).

Perhaps it was a silly example on my part, more so that there really aren't any cases that I'm aware of with it happening.  I did see there were a few cases of reverse discrimination brought up and the folks had an interesting challenge trying to invoke the civil rights act, but I think it's so astronomically rare, that it's just not an issue.

Either way, I do agree with your original premise about the hypocrisy.  

2015-03-30 1:50 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana
I been thinking a lot about freedom. not sure if there is any freedom that does not restrict someone else's freedom at least in the broadest of sense.

Is there anything the law does other than trying to discriminate?

My friend post this on her FB page. "Does that religious freedom law in Indiana mean business can refuse to serve anyone wearing a cross? Its now religious freedom to refuse service to someone you are morally opposed to." If you can do it then it would be an interesting side effect of the law. Then again I have Christian friends that welcome it because they are always looking to fight a holy war and always trying to find a way to be a martyr.

.
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Religious freedom in Indiana Rss Feed  
 
 
of 5
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Mississippi passes religious freedom bill Pages: 1 2

Started by msteiner
Views: 2399 Posts: 35

2014-04-22 7:48 AM chirunner134

Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9

Started by powerman
Views: 10961 Posts: 223

2014-07-18 10:59 AM Left Brain

School me on religious arguments please... Pages: 1 2

Started by So Fresh So Clean
Views: 5194 Posts: 47

2014-01-17 3:14 PM tuwood
RELATED ARTICLES
date : September 10, 2004
author : steve
comments : 0
So after about 10,000 emails, dozens of phone calls, and one pre-race pasta dinner, the 1st meeting of the Steve's in a triathlon finally arrived.