Indiana "religious freedom" law

[Texsox]

There is producing a cake and there is producing cake celebrating an event the baker finds objectionable - gay wedding, lynching, killing of a cop, killing of an unarmed black teenager by a cop, etc. Remember there freedoms, if we can call it that, potentially protect everyone.

[cabiness42]

There is producing a cake and there is producing cake celebrating an event the baker finds objectionable - gay wedding, lynching, killing of a cop, killing of an unarmed black teenager by a cop, etc. Remember there freedoms, if we can call it that, potentially protect everyone.

 

I just don't buy that the baker should have the right to not produce a cake for an "objectionable" event. I think people are trying to stretch the act of baking a cake into some kind of endorsement or approval of the event the cake is for, and I think that's an overreach of "religious freedom."

 

[Texsox]

I just don't buy that the baker should have the right to not produce a cake for an "objectionable" event. I think people are trying to stretch the act of baking a cake into some kind of endorsement or approval of the event the cake is for, and I think that's an overreach of "religious freedom."

 

I wouldn't label it religious freedom, I think of it the same way that I do this forum. As an owner Jas can decide what is written on his website by his customers. Replace a cake for the website and it is how I am thinking of it.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I just don't buy that the baker should have the right to not produce a cake for an "objectionable" event. I think people are trying to stretch the act of baking a cake into some kind of endorsement or approval of the event the cake is for, and I think that's an overreach of "religious freedom."

 

 

I wouldn't label it religious freedom, I think of it the same way that I do this forum. As an owner Jas can decide what is written on his website by his customers. Replace a cake for the website and it is how I am thinking of it.

 

That's the key point. If it is a private ownership they can kind of do what they want. Although stupid and fiscally irresponsible, if a Christian baker did not want to make a cake for a Bah Mitzvah or a Muslim baker did not want to make a cake for a baptism, that is their right as that business owner to choose not to do it.

[southsider2k5]

That's the key point. If it is a private ownership they can kind of do what they want. Although stupid and fiscally irresponsible, if a Christian baker did not want to make a cake for a Bah Mitzvah or a Muslim baker did not want to make a cake for a baptism, that is their right as that business owner to choose not to do it.

 

Here is my problem with this whole idea. If we are really to accept that this is based on biblical Christianity somehow, and by someone's warped interpretations of the bible, you as a Christian can't serve anyone who is living a life of sin, I have news for you... Your business is going to suck, because your only potential customer is Jesus Christ himself.

[illinilaw08]

There is producing a cake and there is producing cake celebrating an event the baker finds objectionable - gay wedding, lynching, killing of a cop, killing of an unarmed black teenager by a cop, etc. Remember there freedoms, if we can call it that, potentially protect everyone.

 

Every single one of your examples is a criminal act - with the exception of the gay wedding. I don't think those examples are on point.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here is my problem with this whole idea. If we are really to accept that this is based on biblical Christianity somehow, and by someone's warped interpretations of the bible, you as a Christian can't serve anyone who is living a life of sin, I have news for you... Your business is going to suck, because your only potential customer is Jesus Christ himself.

 

I agree they're picking and choosing the sin, but it's legal to not serve alcoholics, adulterers, thieves, etc. etc. In some states, it's illegal to not serve someone who is gay.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

I agree they're picking and choosing the sin, but it's legal to not serve alcoholics, adulterers, thieves, etc. etc. In some states, it's illegal to not serve someone who is gay.

 

Is the same baker that is refusing gay weddings, making cakes for divorcees second weddings? If yes, then there is 100% clarity in my mind that they are discriminating.

[Jenksismyhero]

Is the same baker that is refusing gay weddings, making cakes for divorcees second weddings? If yes, then there is 100% clarity in my mind that they are discriminating.

 

Let's assume they would/they do refuse to serve divorcees AND gay people. In some states, despite being consistent, they'd still be in violation of the law.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

Let's assume they would/they do refuse to serve divorcees AND gay people. In some states, despite being consistent, they'd still be in violation of the law.

 

If a business were to really decline all (for lack of a better description) sinful business, I could at least respect them, even if I think their interpretation is dead wrong.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Here is my problem with this whole idea. If we are really to accept that this is based on biblical Christianity somehow, and by someone's warped interpretations of the bible, you as a Christian can't serve anyone who is living a life of sin, I have news for you... Your business is going to suck, because your only potential customer is Jesus Christ himself.

 

It's not about the religious aspect (I know it is in this case) but I was more or less using examples of private ownership offering owners a choice.

 

If you were a wedding photographer and you knew the groom abused his wife to be would it be okay to refuse to photograph that wedding?

[southsider2k5]

It's not about the religious aspect (I know it is in this case) but I was more or less using examples of private ownership offering owners a choice.

 

If you were a wedding photographer and you knew the groom abused his wife to be would it be okay to refuse to photograph that wedding?

 

I don't see them as equivalent because abusers don't deserve a non-discriminatory class.

[cabiness42]

I wouldn't label it religious freedom, I think of it the same way that I do this forum. As an owner Jas can decide what is written on his website by his customers. Replace a cake for the website and it is how I am thinking of it.

 

As a business owner, Jas should have the right to place conditions on how the customer's product will look, but not to unilaterally refuse to accept the customer's business. Same with the baker. The baker should have the right to place the condition that (s)he won't put any "gay pride" symbols on the cake, or that the customer will have to pick up the cake so the baker does not have to physically be present at the wedding location or other ways to accommodate religious beliefs, but not to unilaterally refuse to accept the business.

 

EDIT: I also want to add that if you have such strong objections to doing business with gay people, then being in a business that involves weddings (baker, caterer, photographer) is probably not a good plan, because even if it's legal to refuse business, it's a very poor business plan.

Edited March 31, 2015 by HickoryHuskers

[clyons]

I agree they're picking and choosing the sin, but it's legal to not serve alcoholics, adulterers, thieves, etc. etc. In some states, it's illegal to not serve someone who is gay.

 

This is false. Alcoholism is a protected disability. It is only legal to not serve drunks.

[Jenksismyhero]

This is false. Alcoholism is a protected disability. It is only legal to not serve drunks.

 

Under the ADA, with mixed success it seems (how dumb is it that people sue for losing their job while operating cars while drunk during work?) Either way, that doesn't apply to private business owners and i'm not sure it would apply to serve/not serve situations. Does an employer have to provide accommodations for an alcoholic? Potentially yes. Does a university operated beer stand have to serve an alcoholic? I don't think so.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

Every single one of your examples is a criminal act - with the exception of the gay wedding. I don't think those examples are on point.

 

Actually you can legally kill a cop or a cop can kill a kid.

 

Pharmaceutical manufactures are refusing to sell drugs for capital punishment because of the potential backlash when the company name is made public. Is that wrong? By the same process a company that prints Church bulletins and religious tracks refuses to make signs for a KKK rally seems within their right to protect their business.

 

 

And I know they are calling this a religious freedom law, but it seems simpler to me. If someone approaches a builder and asks them to build a house the builder has an option to not bid on that proposal. If you go to a pool company and ask them to build you a pool with certain specifications, they can say no. If you go to a contract manufacturer and ask them to build something, they are not obligated to build it for you. We can go on and on where businesses are allowed to not work on projects. You want to book an event center for your wedding and they say they can't accept your booking for that date. Businesses are allowed to turn down customers all the time.

 

[clyons]

Under the ADA, with mixed success it seems (how dumb is it that people sue for losing their job while operating cars while drunk during work?) Either way, that doesn't apply to private business owners and i'm not sure it would apply to serve/not serve situations. Does an employer have to provide accommodations for an alcoholic? Potentially yes. Does a university operated beer stand have to serve an alcoholic? I don't think so.

 

Respectfully, you are completely wrong about this. The ADA has employment and public accommodation provisions, and alcoholics are protected under both. How in the world does it not apply to "private business owners?"

 

And the people who sue for being drunk at work lose those cases on summary judgment. The law is pretty clear.

 

Some of your posts in this thread are really inaccurate as a matter of law; none more than this one.

[Texsox]

As a business owner, Jas should have the right to place conditions on how the customer's product will look, but not to unilaterally refuse to accept the customer's business.

 

No. Jas is legally allowed to remove any post that is made here. Otherwise this would be filled with spammers, trolls, and the like to the point his business would be closed.

[southsider2k5]

No. Jas is legally allowed to remove any post that is made here. Otherwise this would be filled with spammers, trolls, and the like to the point his business would be closed.

 

But he couldn't remove all gay posters posts, just because they are gay. Well he could now if he were hosting in Indiana.

[Jenksismyhero]

Respectfully, you are completely wrong about this. The ADA has employment and public accommodation provisions, and alcoholics are protected under both. How in the world does it not apply to "private business owners?"

 

And the people who sue for being drunk at work lose those cases on summary judgment. The law is pretty clear.

 

Some of your posts in this thread are really inaccurate as a matter of law; none more than this one.

 

The requirement is 15 or more employees before the ADA kicks in. Bakers and photographs don't normally employ that many people. I should have clarified.

 

But I think there is a difference between accommodation and discrimination on service, i.e., not selling you a beer. I might be wrong on that, I'd have to do some research. Seems to me those are two different questions: you can make the appropriate accommodations for disabled people to be in your business and be in compliance with the ADA. But is not serving someone with a disability like alcoholism a violation of the ADA?

 

edit: I have a hard time believing the law says that a bartender HAS to serve an alcoholic. That's forcing a private individual to, in essence, inflict harm on a person.

 

What else have I said that's wrong?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[clyons]

The requirement is 15 or more employees before the ADA kicks in. Bakers and photographs don't normally employ that many people. I should have clarified.

 

But I think there is a difference between accommodation and discrimination on service, i.e., not selling you a beer. I might be wrong on that, I'd have to do some research. Seems to me those are two different questions: you can make the appropriate accommodations for disabled people to be in your business and be in compliance with the ADA. But is not serving someone with a disability like alcoholism a violation of the ADA?

 

edit: I have a hard time believing the law says that a bartender HAS to serve an alcoholic. That's forcing a private individual to, in essence, inflict harm on a person.

 

What else have I said that's wrong?

 

The 15 or more employee threshold applies to the ADA's employment provisions only; there is no analogous size requirement relative to public accommodations.

 

 

You are making too much of a distinction between a private business and a public accommodation. The former IS the latter, so long as it generally holds itself open to the public. The distinction more in keeping with your point would be a private club.

 

And no, discrimination on service is pretty much legally equivalent to denial of access to a public accommodation. Different semantics, but same general claim.

 

Also, regarding the serving of an alcoholic, there are whole lines of cases that hold that fear of inflicting harm upon a person is not a defense to a discrimination claim, since, among other things, many of those "fears" are rooted in discriminatory stereotypes.

 

And I think you also overstated the burden required to establish protection on religious grounds and placed too much emphasis on conformance to "mainstream" religious tenets. A religious belief doesn't have to be shared or popular to be "sincerely held."

 

 

 

[Texsox]

But he couldn't remove all gay posters posts, just because they are gay. Well he could now if he were hosting in Indiana.

 

If they are posting about gay rights he certainly could.

[southsider2k5]

If they are posting about gay rights he certainly could.

 

Not unless he was removing all posts by everyone on the topic. And even then, it would be a tough sell.

[Texsox]

Not unless he was removing all posts by everyone on the topic. And even then, it would be a tough sell.

 

Not a tough sell at all. We restrict topics here all the time. We restrict certain members from discussing anything in the filibuster. Another formerly significant forum dropped all political talk. Blocking all discussions of gay rights would be right in that mix and not a tough sell at all.

[southsider2k5]

Not a tough sell at all. We restrict topics here all the time. We restrict certain members from discussing anything in the filibuster. Another formerly significant forum dropped all political talk. Blocking all discussions of gay rights would be right in that mix and not a tough sell at all.

 

One huge difference here is this is not a business. There is no product being sold to the general public. You aren't paying for posts here. A more apt question would be could he refuse advertising from gay based businesses.