Indiana "religious freedom" law

[CrimsonWeltall]

At some point you brought that up and I said it doesn't work because what religious practice would be substantially burdened in that situation?

 

They have a religious belief against races interacting. Forcing them to interact is a substantial burden on their beliefs.

 

It's no different.

[Jenksismyhero]

They have a religious belief against races interacting. Forcing them to interact is a substantial burden on their beliefs.

 

It's no different.

 

There are laws in place protecting race discrimination. There are no laws (federally) on sexuality. That's a huge difference. I'm also pretty positive that the original RFRA included language about it not applying to any other federally protected class.

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

There are laws in place protecting race discrimination. There are no laws (federally) on sexuality. That's a huge difference.

 

That difference isn't related to whether or not the act of serving a black person could be a burden on someone's belief.

[Balta1701]

There are laws in place protecting race discrimination. There are no laws (federally) on sexuality. That's a huge difference. I'm also pretty positive that the original RFRA included language about it not applying to any other federally protected class.

So the single, only reason you can cite for why these cases aren't comparable is that race is a protected class.

 

Ergo, you are either choosing, you think race should not be a protected class and you would be ok with businesses discriminating against mixed-race couples or you think that sexuality should be added to federal and state protected classes.

 

Which is it? Your defense to whether it would be ok is "it's a protected class". That's not a moral argument, that's avoiding answering the question based on a legal statement.

 

Is it ok to discriminate against a group if its small enough or disliked enough to not receive protection?

[Balta1701]

At some point you brought that up and I said it doesn't work because what religious practice would be substantially burdened in that situation? On top of the fact that race is a protected class whereas sexuality is not.

 

edit: page 3, btw.

I can give the specific example of "fundamentalist mormonism", where one leader of that sect, in his deeply held beliefs, holds onto the original mormon teaching of dark skin as a curse from god and rails against marriage between the races in terms I'm not going to use right now.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I can give the specific example of "fundamentalist mormonism", where one leader of that sect, in his deeply held beliefs, holds onto the original mormon teaching of dark skin as a curse from god and rails against marriage between the races in terms I'm not going to use right now.

 

You don't even have to get that specific and go into the Curse of Ham. For a long time, many, many people believed the general religious principle that "God created the races to be separate".

[southsider2k5]

So the single, only reason you can cite for why these cases aren't comparable is that race is a protected class.

 

Ergo, you are either choosing, you think race should not be a protected class and you would be ok with businesses discriminating against mixed-race couples or you think that sexuality should be added to federal and state protected classes.

 

Which is it? Your defense to whether it would be ok is "it's a protected class". That's not a moral argument, that's avoiding answering the question based on a legal statement.

 

Is it ok to discriminate against a group if its small enough or disliked enough to not receive protection?

 

The irony is that because Pence misjudged the backlash from this, he is being put into a corner to give more Gay rights in Indiana, then have ever existed before. For his agenda, he would have been better off to have done nothing at all.

[Balta1701]

The irony is that because Pence misjudged the backlash from this, he is being put into a corner to give more Gay rights in Indiana, then have ever existed before. For his agenda, he would have been better off to have done nothing at all.

There's a decent chance that this winds up making sexuality a protected class here in Pennsylvania as well. The Republican-dominated state legislature here is making rumblings about making sure they don't look like y'all.

[Jenksismyhero]

So the single, only reason you can cite for why these cases aren't comparable is that race is a protected class.

 

Ergo, you are either choosing, you think race should not be a protected class and you would be ok with businesses discriminating against mixed-race couples or you think that sexuality should be added to federal and state protected classes.

 

Which is it? Your defense to whether it would be ok is "it's a protected class". That's not a moral argument, that's avoiding answering the question based on a legal statement.

 

Is it ok to discriminate against a group if its small enough or disliked enough to not receive protection?

 

I've said the legal protection as well as not believing that someone will be able to bring a viable claim for that. Yes, factually if you want to remove all context, it would be the same in that someone could claim inter-race relations are against their religious beliefs and so supporting an inter-race wedding would be a substantial burden on that practice (in both cases I don't think the law would apply to any situation outside of a wedding or some other arguable support or promotion of the practice).

 

Also, i've said i'd get rid of all of these protected classes, because there are other characteristics of people that can be used as a basis for discrimination that we're perfectly ok with, but these select few are not. Along with the fact that I think public pressure is a better deterrent of this kind of activity than the law (in our present society in 2015...obviously there was a need for it back in the 60's). Ergo, I'm an equal opportunity hater. Everyone should be able to do it, edit: especially private businesses.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

The guy who authored RFRA in Indiana is also seeing his business get hit.

 

http://www.nuvo.net/FoodDrinkBlog/archives...-out-mister-ice

[CrimsonWeltall]

The guy who authored RFRA in Indiana is also seeing his business get hit.

 

http://www.nuvo.net/FoodDrinkBlog/archives...-out-mister-ice

 

Meanwhile, Memories Pizza has received $225,000 in donations in less than 24 hours.

 

http://www.gofundme.com/Memoriespizza

[EvilMonkey]

People are really really loose with their money. Wow!

 

I guess these people believe in handouts.

I am pretty sure someone else started it for them, not their idea.

[greg775]

It's not though. That's the intended consequence in a limited, specific circumstance, but the point of the law is to provide protection to Christians that don't want to work gay weddings or in some way support gay weddings. As some people have already come out and said, they'll serve gay people, they won't serve at a gay function. There is a distinction there, whether you agree with it or not.

 

I'm just happy the s*** has hit the fan because lawmakers can't write laws in simple English. Nobody can understand the fricking law.

However, I'm also getting pissed off at the vocal left in this issue forcing a pizzeria to close its doors. People need to fricking chill out. The governor supposedly is dumbing down the law, putting it in simple English which should be a lesson to all lawmakers.

I have no sympathy for politicos who write mumbo jumbo laws, but I also feel for the pizzeria owners. They shouldn't be harassed and denied a living over THEIR beliefs. Live and let live the Beatles once said.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/indiana-pizzeria...5307450604.html

[pettie4sox]

I am pretty sure someone else started it for them, not their idea.

 

Oh I know but it's a fairly known Republican concept to let the market sort them out and leave handouts out of it. It's just ironic that in this case they are rallying to save a pizza place that single handedly caused its own destruction.

Edited April 2, 2015 by pettie4sox

[EvilMonkey]

Oh I know but it's a fairly known Republican concept to let the market sort them out and leave handouts out of it. It's just ironic that in this case they are rallying to save a pizza place that single handedly caused its own destruction.

It's actually a Conservative concept, not necessarily a Republican one. Also a Conservative concept is private giving and charity, not force help thru taxation.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm just happy the s*** has hit the fan because lawmakers can't write laws in simple English. Nobody can understand the fricking law.

However, I'm also getting pissed off at the vocal left in this issue forcing a pizzeria to close its doors. People need to fricking chill out. The governor supposedly is dumbing down the law, putting it in simple English which should be a lesson to all lawmakers.

I have no sympathy for politicos who write mumbo jumbo laws, but I also feel for the pizzeria owners. They shouldn't be harassed and denied a living over THEIR beliefs. Live and let live the Beatles once said.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/indiana-pizzeria...5307450604.html

 

I don't know that I feel all that sorry for the pizza makers here. They could have been opposed to marriage equality all they want. They still made the choice to publicly state ON TV that gay people would be denied service at their establishment because religion. They deserve all the negative reviews and outrage that they get. If that shuts them down, its just desserts frankly. You can say what you want, and you can believe what you want without government interference. That doesn't mean there are no consequences.

 

They don't deserve threats. They don't deserve being attacked physically. That's different. There were some jerks who did that to these fine bigoted pizza makers, and they are terrible people too.

[pettie4sox]

It's actually a Conservative concept, not necessarily a Republican one. Also a Conservative concept is private giving and charity, not force help thru taxation.

 

Thanks for the correction. That being said, raising money for these people does absolutely nothing. They will either have to do their business elsewhere (different state) and/or change their identity completely.

[Y2HH]

I don't know that I feel all that sorry for the pizza makers here. They could have been opposed to marriage equality all they want. They still made the choice to publicly state ON TV that gay people would be denied service at their establishment because religion. They deserve all the negative reviews and outrage that they get. If that shuts them down, its just desserts frankly. You can say what you want, and you can believe what you want without government interference. That doesn't mean there are no consequences.

 

They don't deserve threats. They don't deserve being attacked physically. That's different. There were some jerks who did that to these fine bigoted pizza makers, and they are terrible people too.

 

You didn't read the article.

 

They never said they would deny service at their establishment, they said they'd refuse to cater their services to parties/weddings.

 

I'll play devils advocate here, but that's the same as refusing to cater to a Westburo Baptist Church event, or a Scientology event. It's NOT, however, the same as refusing to serve Tom Cruise a slice of pizza if he were to show up at your establishment.

[Kyyle23]

You didn't read the article.

 

They never said they would deny service at their establishment, they said they'd refuse to cater their services to parties/weddings.

 

I'll play devils advocate here, but that's the same as refusing to cater to a Westburo Baptist Church event, or a Scientology event. It's NOT, however, the same as refusing to serve Tom Cruise a slice of pizza if he were to show up at your establishment.

 

I dont really like these comparisons, as well as KKK, Black Panthers, or any other group that is a hate group hiding behind a religion. People who are gay arent pushing an agenda of hate. In fact, refusing to cater a wedding is going against the idea of love. I understand people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, and they use the bible as the reason for it. I loathe that people (including the owner of Memories) say that it is a decision. It simply isnt, this is who they are. Westboro baptist, KKK, those people make a decision to hate. I can understand how someone wouldnt want feel comfortable catering an event designed to promote hatred.

[Y2HH]

I dont really like these comparisons, as well as KKK, Black Panthers, or any other group that is a hate group hiding behind a religion. People who are gay arent pushing an agenda of hate. In fact, refusing to cater a wedding is going against the idea of love. I understand people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, and they use the bible as the reason for it. I loathe that people (including the owner of Memories) say that it is a decision. It simply isnt, this is who they are. Westboro baptist, KKK, those people make a decision to hate. I can understand how someone wouldnt want feel comfortable catering an event designed to promote hatred.

 

The point is you'd refuse service to them because you don't agree with them.

 

That's your opinion that Scientology pushes hate, I'd guess Scientologists would disagree.

 

It can be anything...maybe you had a really terrible experience with your local Plumbers Union and they want you to cater their annual ball...doesn't matter. The point is/was, they aren't refusing to serve gay people in their restaurant, they're refusing to cater to EXTERNAL parties they happen to disagree with.

[Kyyle23]

The point is you'd refuse service to them because you don't agree with them.

 

That's your opinion that Scientology pushes hate, I'd guess Scientologists would disagree.

 

It can be anything...maybe you had a really terrible experience with your local Plumbers Union and they want you to cater their annual ball...doesn't matter. The point is/was, they aren't refusing to serve gay people in their restaurant, they're refusing to cater to EXTERNAL parties they happen to disagree with.

 

Actually I left that out because I dont really put them on the same level as the other ones I mentioned. I mean, at this point we are looking at a Pizza place that is Baptist refusing to cater a Catholic wedding because they dont agree with them. Thats just ridiculous. When you have a catering order ticket, do you have a check box that says "Gay, Straight, Westboro, Catholic, etc" and if someone checks a certain box than you are refused? Do you have something on your site that says "We dont serve (fill in blank)"?

 

 

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

It can be anything...maybe you had a really terrible experience with your local Plumbers Union and they want you to cater their annual ball...doesn't matter. The point is/was, they aren't refusing to serve gay people in their restaurant, they're refusing to cater to EXTERNAL parties they happen to disagree with.

 

To clarify: your distinction is whether or not the business person has to travel to a location other than their store?

[cabiness42]

I dont really like these comparisons, as well as KKK, Black Panthers, or any other group that is a hate group hiding behind a religion. People who are gay arent pushing an agenda of hate. In fact, refusing to cater a wedding is going against the idea of love. I understand people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, and they use the bible as the reason for it. I loathe that people (including the owner of Memories) say that it is a decision. It simply isnt, this is who they are. Westboro baptist, KKK, those people make a decision to hate. I can understand how someone wouldnt want feel comfortable catering an event designed to promote hatred.

 

I see where refusing to serve Westboro Baptist or the KKK is more socially acceptable than refusing to cater a gay wedding, but there really isn't any distinction legally. "Hate" groups have a first amendment right to free speech, so I don't see legal grounds to refuse to serve them but not to refuse to cater the gay wedding.

 

 

 

[Y2HH]

To clarify: your distinction is whether or not the business person has to travel to a location other than their store?

 

Yes.

 

To clarify: You may not be able to choose who uses the public roads, sidewalks and transportation systems to get to your establishment and eat there, but you sure as hell should be able to refuse to provide a service where YOU have to do the traveling, setup, etc., to anyone you want for any reason you want, whether those reasons are "socially" acceptable or not.

 

I'm NOT saying this is a choice I'd make, or even agree with. As stated, I was playing devils advocate.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Y2HH

[CrimsonWeltall]

Yes.

 

So if a gay couple agreed to pick up their cake at the bakery, rather than have it delivered to the venue, you would oppose the business refusing them service?