It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NLBS #44: Taking a Look at Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration BS

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: jaffo
So...if a KKK member went to a Jewish bakery and demanded that the baker make him a cake in the shape of an Auschwitz oven for his next rally, evidently in America the baker would just have to make it for him or he would be in the wrong.


This question gets asked and answered over and over.

1. The baker wouldn't be forced to make a PRODUCT that he doesn't already make for other customers. Does he make Auschwitz oven cakes for others?

2. The KKK is not a protected group, because they don't have a HISTORY of being discriminated against.

3. Discrimination (legal) is based on the PERSON, not the PRODUCT. A baker cannot be forced to put two grooms on a wedding cake if he doesn't already do that for others. He can't be forced to decorate the cake with ANYTHING that he doesn't already do for other customers. If he doesn't want to make a cake that he deems offensive, he doesn't have to. But if, as in the Colorado baker's case, he is asked by two gay guys to make a wedding cake for them JUST LIKE other cake's he's made, then he is legally required to do it, even though he doesn't approve of gay marriage.

Straight wedding cake:


Gay wedding cake:


Got that? A baker cannot be forced to make a PRODUCT he doesn't already make. But he can be forced to serve a PERSON the exact same cake.


especially since Clinton passed a federal version of this law which is still on the books and since TWENTY States already have a similar law in effect.


The federal law is VERY different from the RFRAs in the states. It's been discussed many times, so I'm not going to go through it all.


FORCING a private business to do ANYTHING is ridiculous. As the consumer, people should speak with their dollars instead of demanding with their tears.


If said private business does not like that- they are free to go elsewhere, right? That's the same argument you're making.
If said private business wants to enjoy any benefits provided to them by the local, state, and federal governments for owning and operating a business, then they need to abide by the rules as well.


Right. And according to "the rules" they just have no right to refuse to serve anyone, ever for any reason? Really? So we don't want the government telling us what to do around here...except when it comes to who I choose to do or not do business with. Whatever. Because, logic.




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

But you're being hypocritical. How can you claim in one breath that stores need to serve everyone because it's discrimination otherwise, but in another breath say that you wouldn't wed someone from the KKK? So it's okay to discriminate against groups of people you don't like, but not against groups of people you do like?

This type of thing will only continue to inflate and get worse unless someone comes up with a sensible clear-cut law that everyone can at least tolerate. I think allowing small businesses (sole proprietors) to pick and choose their customers, and requiring all corporations to serve everyone, would be a clear-cut law that would at least be tolerable for everyone.

If the little old christian lady running a local bake shop won't bake your wedding cake, that's okay. You can go to a big-name bakery and get it there. If the mom and pop grocery near main street doesn't want to serve you, you can drive up to Wal-Mart and take your business there. This is capitalism 101 - you support your preferred businesses with your money.


Exactly. No one has trouble with saying they would refuse service to people like the KKK who do things THEY don't like. But change the playing field so that it is someone YOU support and all of the sudden the other person is just way completely wrong for daring to have a different standard than you. I support same sex marriage all day long. Not my business to tell someone else who they can or cannot marry. I also support the freedom of other people not to agree with me and not to support two men or two women getting married. Because it's a free Country and you don't have to like anythign that you personally don't like. And calling people names won't change my option or the reality of the situation. Names are just lables that take the thought out of the equation.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: LiberLegit
a reply to: theNLBS

Condescending, snarky, and cringe-worthy. This is the worst NLBS video of them all, and I've barely liked the few that I've watched but this is just the final nail in the coffin. This wasn't "digging" toward any truth remotely, it's basically a religion-bashing mud-pit which I can find on any atheist circle-jerk board on the internet. Leave religion out of it for a second: if I own a business I can refuse service to whoever I want. If I don't want your money, I don't have to take it - I don't care if you're the biggest fairy gay man in the world if I don't want to serve you I won't.

I'm seriously never clicking these topics ever again, and the pandering picture of Gervais reveals this NLBS bull# stems from militant aggressive atheism. I don't care about religion, or your opinion on faggots getting married - just give me the facts and call it a day.

Also it bothers me that this idiot somehow gets top of the board for topics, effectively pushing down whatever the most popular topic is on ATS right now. Whatever. Go ahead everyone, bow down and show how "open minded" you all are by bashing others for their religious beliefs, I won't be here to watch.


Agreed! This is the first of these videos I bothered watching, and now I wish I could go back and un-watch it. If this is an example of what to expect from these always-top-of-the-page-can't-avoid-it videos, I'll pass. The only thing that came across was that it's apparently acceptable to label as bigots anyone with religious beliefs.

If there were actual facts included, that would have been something. Opinions and anti-Christian bias aren't facts. Real facts would include that people scream "discrimination" when it's a Christian refusing to participate in a homosexual "wedding", but excuse it when Christians are the targets of discrimination. Apple was mentioned. How very interesting! Apple claims to be "open to everyone", yet Apple censors Christians, and removed a Christian app from their store. So, why are the comments of Apple so relevant, when they are acting as anti-Christian bigots? Gee, is bigotry acceptable if it's against Christians, but unacceptable against anyone else? That seems, well, bigoted. How about the bigotry from the head of Wyoming Equality, who stated that the government should shut down churches that oppose homosexuality? How about the glaring double standard when it comes to cakes? A baker in Colorado is condemned for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, and told that's illegal, but another baker refuses to bake a cake for a Christian, that calls homosexuality a sin, and is told that is her "right of conscience"?? Where is the outrage over that double standard? Why are none of these facts mentioned in this video?? This was supposed to be the FACTS about this type of case. The facts about a law that would protect Constitutional religious freedom.

The site motto doesn't seem to be in evidence on this one.

As for my personal opinion, refuse service to whomever you want. That should be a right of any business owner. Also, NO ONE should have to participate in a wedding with which they do not agree. That means no forced cakes, or photos, or whatever. If certain groups are all for "tolerance", then certain groups can be tolerant of those that disagree, and stop trying to force their views down the throats of others. We all know it's never really been about "tolerance" at all, though. Tolerance means you find another church, or another baker, or another florist, or another B&B.

Now, let the bashing begin! Christians, such as myself, are free game under the lovely "tolerant" mindset so prevalent.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wondering where the disconnect is............ [/sarc]

A cake made for the general public was ordered by the gay couple.

A special cake NOT made for the general public was ordered by the Christian.

One of these things is not the same. Can you see what it is or do we need to hold your hand and spell it out yet another time?


edit on 8-4-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar



I would deny KKK for the same reason.


Agreed. Without a doubt.


I would argue that many LGBT groups are bordering on hate groups themselves right now. Threatening, harassing, causing businesses to lose money, AND all over nothing more than a disagreement of morals and ideals. I wonder what MLK or Ghandi would have to say about some of their tactics, and hypocrisy.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
You guys should really title this "Next Level Slave Propaganda". So let me get this straight, we are outraged at the religious right in Indiana for not wanting to make gay cakes, but we are just fine with our demonic god king Hussein Obozo funding ISIS(al Qaeda) who then throw gays off of roof tops?




www.liveleak.com...





www.dailymail.co.uk...


Mindless progressive authoritarian hypocrisy at its finest. Great job on the slave propaganda though, sheeple love this stuff. Maybe if you stayed consistent on an issue instead of mindlessly chugging authoritarian party kool aid I could take this stuff with a little seriousness.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wondering where the disconnect is............ [/sarc]

A cake made for the general public was ordered by the gay couple.

A special cake NOT made for the general public was ordered by the Christian.

One of these things is not the same. Can you see what it is or do we need to hold your hand and spell it out yet another time?



One person was told they were not allowed to refuse to bake a cake that was against their beliefs, and another person was told that they were allowed to refuse to bake a cake that was against their beliefs. Same situation, with only the group to which the bakers belonged changed. You can play little Sesame Street games if you wish, but no logical person could deny that this is a clear double standard.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What part of "the same as what they sell to the general public" and "NOT the same as what they sell to the general public" do you not understand?

Or are you being willfully ignorant?

I vote the later.....

If I lived in Indiana I'd be testing this by denying service to divorced Christians on religious grounds. See if they like it.

Or Christians wearing 2 different fabrics.

Or Christian women menstruating.

Or Christian parents who let their kids talk back.

Or Christian ladies with green eyes.

Etc. Etc. AD NASEUM.......

I know I'll be called a hypocrite now. But let me explain how doing the exact same thing to make a point is not hypocritical. It's making a statement.

Because obviously I would have the right to serve whom I choose correct?
edit on 10-4-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Ohhh does the bible say something about women with green eyes?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: WilsonWilson

Does the bible say ANYTHING about not serving the sinners at all?



Hint.....look to whom I was responding to.

But it would be just as valid an argument.


edit on 10-4-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What part of "the same as what they sell to the general public" and "NOT the same as what they sell to the general public" do you not understand?

Or are you being willfully ignorant?

I vote the later.....


One, that's a personal slur. Two, what part of one was told they could refuse to bake a cake and one was told they could not did you not get??? A CAKE. Not something else. Custom cakes are part of any decent bakery. I vote that you refuse to admit the clear and undeniable bias.


originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
If I lived in Indiana I'd be testing this by denying service to divorced Christians on religious grounds. See if they like it.

Or Christians wearing 2 different fabrics.

Or Christian women menstruating.

Or Christian parents who let their kids talk back.

Or Christian ladies with green eyes.

Etc. Etc. AD NASEUM.......


So you admit to anti-Christian bigotry? Are you willing to demand that a baker who is homosexual bakes cakes proclaiming Biblical truths about homosexuality? I didn't think so. Your bias is showing.


originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
I know I'll be called a hypocrite now. But let me explain how doing the exact same thing to make a point is not hypocritical. It's making a statement.

Because obviously I would have the right to serve whom I choose correct?


You are claiming that you would deny service, yet claiming it's wrong for a Christian to do so. That is hypocritical. You are also ignoring all of the relevant details. Typical. Intolerant.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
One, that's a personal slur.


Go ahead and try to dock me for it. You are a mod correct?

Oh wait....you can't because it's not......


Two, what part of one was told they could refuse to bake a cake and one was told they could not did you not get??? A CAKE. Not something else.


No one was told they can refuse to bake a cake. Get your "facts" correct please.

Or show us the verdict to back up your nonsense.


edit on 11-4-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
One, that's a personal slur.


Go ahead and try to dock me for it. You are a mod correct?

Oh wait....you can't because it's not......


Two, what part of one was told they could refuse to bake a cake and one was told they could not did you not get??? A CAKE. Not something else.


No one was told they can refuse to bake a cake. Get your "facts" correct please.

Or show us the verdict to back up your nonsense.



Ah, so according to you, the TOS only applies if you are responding to a mod? Learn some manners, or this will be the last time I bother responding to your posts. Clear enough? I don't waste time on people that use personal slurs in place of logical debate.

As for the information - read and learn. link

Unless and until you can discuss the actual facts, don't expect a response from me.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I said the actual verdict.

Not political outcast.

Try again. Or do you want to claim a personal attack so you don't have to respond?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I said the actual verdict.

Not political outcast.

Try again. Or do you want to claim a personal attack so you don't have to respond?


The verdict was that the woman was allowed to refuse to bake the cake, because it went against her beliefs, when Christian bakers have been denied that right. Ar you denying the result, or simply pretending that there is no bias when a blind man could see it?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'll help you since you are obviously blind then.....

1. The "gay" cake the gay couple ordered was the exact same as a "straight" cake that the maker bakes.

2. The Christian ordered something that the cake maker does not do (BTW...she didn't refuse to bake the cake.....another indication you haven't read the actual verdicts).

Hence why one was considered discrimination and the other one wasn't.

Again....please read the actual verdicts (and not an opinion piece about the verdicts) and you could see. Unless you want to be willfully ignorant (not a personal attack....just something you have been demonstrating).




edit on 14-4-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'll help you since you are obviously blind then.....

1. The "gay" cake the gay couple ordered was the exact same as a "straight" cake that the maker bakes.


The issue is that it was for a homosexual wedding, which is against the religion of the baker. Baking a wedding cake is participation in the wedding. If you were not blind, you could see this.


originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
2. The Christian ordered something that the cake maker does not do (BTW...she didn't refuse to bake the cake.....another indication you haven't read the actual verdicts).


She would, in my opinion, have the same right to refuse, if the cake was against her own personal beliefs. It's that she was allowed to refuse, and the Christian bakers (there have been several) were not, that is the issue. Both have that right.


originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Hence why one was considered discrimination and the other one wasn't.


One wasn't considered discrimination because one was against a Christian, and not a group considered special by many lawmakers. Let's be honest here, shall we?


originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Again....please read the actual verdicts (and not an opinion piece about the verdicts) and you could see. Unless you want to be willfully ignorant (not a personal attack....just something you have been demonstrating).


Post a link. I haven't seen one yet.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Baking a wedding cake is participation in the wedding. If you were not blind, you could see this.


Please explain how baking a cake is participating. Are they participating in adultery when they bake a cake for divorced people's remarriage?

Jesus is VERY explicit when it comes to divorce and adultery.



Post a link. I haven't seen one yet.


Try looking in other places than ultra Christian or ultra conservative sites and you might learn something.



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Baking a wedding cake is participation in the wedding. If you were not blind, you could see this.


Please explain how baking a cake is participating. Are they participating in adultery when they bake a cake for divorced people's remarriage?

Jesus is VERY explicit when it comes to divorce and adultery.


Read what I stated about divorce. Divorce is allowed if there is infidelity in the marriage. If there isn't, it is a different matter. A baker could, as far as I am concerned, refuse such a cake, if they had an issue with that. How a person interprets what they believe is their decision. That's the point. Religious beliefs are protected. That doesn't mean one group can claim the beliefs are only protected IF the people practice according to how the group claims they should. In other words, it isn't what you think, or I think, about what the Bible says, that will determine the baker's beliefs. The baker decides what he believes on his own, and should have the right to do so, and also to avoid actions that he believes compromise his faith. Some bakers won't care, and some will. As for the cake itself, I consider a wedding cake to be a big part of a wedding. I made the cake myself for my daughter's wedding, because it meant a lot to both of us. I wouldn't want to do that for a wedding I believed was wrong, though, for whatever reason.


originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Post a link. I haven't seen one yet.


Try looking in other places than ultra Christian or ultra conservative sites and you might learn something.


I look all over online, when reading about various issues. Your bias is showing, though. Do you not have a link?



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Baking a wedding cake is participation in the wedding. If you were not blind, you could see this.


Please explain how baking a cake is participating. Are they participating in adultery when they bake a cake for divorced people's remarriage?

Jesus is VERY explicit when it comes to divorce and adultery.


Read what I stated about divorce. Divorce is allowed if there is infidelity in the marriage. If there isn't, it is a different matter. A baker could, as far as I am concerned, refuse such a cake, if they had an issue with that. How a person interprets what they believe is their decision. That's the point. Religious beliefs are protected. That doesn't mean one group can claim the beliefs are only protected IF the people practice according to how the group claims they should. In other words, it isn't what you think, or I think, about what the Bible says, that will determine the baker's beliefs. The baker decides what he believes on his own, and should have the right to do so, and also to avoid actions that he believes compromise his faith. Some bakers won't care, and some will. As for the cake itself, I consider a wedding cake to be a big part of a wedding. I made the cake myself for my daughter's wedding, because it meant a lot to both of us. I wouldn't want to do that for a wedding I believed was wrong, though, for whatever reason.


So anyone anywhere should be able to discriminate based on their own thoughts, beliefs or paranoid delusions?

Careful what you wish for.




I look all over online, when reading about various issues. Your bias is showing, though. Do you not have a link?


No. I'm not spoon feeding you a link. If you have searched everywhere like you claim you would know what happened, the court proceedings, and the final outcome.

You made the claims. Time to back them up with the hard evidence. I'm not being biased when I ask for non religious or non conservative sites to be used to back up your claim. You are by not supplying them.
edit on 21-4-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join