Disclaimer: My post (this post) is after my bedtime and drink limit, but I THINK I would agree with me, even if not out loud. That being said: I was
thinking about starting a thread on this topic named something like, "Devil's Advocate pertaining to the Indiana law in the recent news," but this
might be a better soapbox...
I have many CLOSE friends and relatives who are gay, and I love them dearly, but I disagree with their stance on this topic... I don't care, really,
what they do, for the most part, but on "certain" social media sites, they have been posting their views on the subject, which fall in line with, "you
can't refuse service to me." I want to respond, and because of what has been stated in my disclaimer, I almost have, but I am pretty
anti-confrontational. This leaves me feeling like their opinion might be heard, but mine might not be, so:
My view is of that: Individuals, at least on a local level, should be able to do what they want. Refuse service, or what-not, religion related, or
not. I, myself, am not "religious," (but I do consider myself at LEAST spiritual) I understand people not wanting to be discriminated against...
Heck, that's one of my biggest pet peeves, when I think something's not fair, at least to "my favor," but as long as it's an individually controlled
thing, (not government/corporation) it should be allowed... (in most cases, I GUESS, 'cause there're always exceptions to rules)
Take for instance the case with the couple and the cake makers who want to refuse service... Let's say they HAVE to make a cake for a gay wedding
(btw, imo, between two humans, as far as legally, I think SHOULDN'T be denied, especially if it has certain benefits) Can the people being wed be
able to ban the cake makers from the wedding, even if they want to denounce the wedding, thus "ruining" the wedding? Isn't having to make the cake
for the wedding "ruining" the cake makers' business, in their eyes? I might be able to expand on this though, but I think I'll wait for a response,
to respond to, if that makes sense...
I, personally, don't think that freedom to do what you want, means that others should have to do what you want them to do...
An argument AGAINST the religious freedom act: There are many things which are restricted (which many times I disagree with, but that's kinda another
topic) like when someone has a patent on something, or a copyright... If something is THE ONLY avenue, for an end, then the means cannot be
restricted... For example: A cake maker is the only person with the "rights" to make cakes... THEN they should have to make cakes for who(m)ever,
but if anybody can make a cake, then why would you MAKE said person make a cake, if they don't feel they should (have to)?
Goodnight to ALL... I don't normally get responses, so I'm not gonna check for any too often, but I do check... I will respond back,
because I like conversation, but normally, on ATS, I'm just a consumer, not a contributer.
edit on 4/3/2015 by japhrimu because: last two