This Whole Indiana law thing...I'm Irritated.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

The law is about denying lawsuits against people who discriminate based on religious beliefs. That is the way i understand it.


V

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: tothetenthpower

It's generally, pretty clearly obvious who is gay and who isn't. Men especially. I don't mean to stereotype, I'm actually a gay man who doesn't come off that way in public, but a ton most certainly are.

I can only speak for myself. I don't know if my 'gaydar' is faulty, but some people when I found out they were gay really surprised me. I don't automatically decide that a guy is gay if he is effeminate, because I have met too many of those people that were straight.

Not really.... Look at chic fila, they come out as against gay marriage and have there busiest day.... I agree in the long run. Some one you piss off will avoid your business longer then some one who agrees with you....but we have always been horrible about doing things for the long run...

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Forgive me if I have this wrong(I'm a Brit, you see),
but don't you guys in the USA have the whole "seperation of church from state"thing in your constitution?

Seems like your leaders ain't really being too bothered about that these days.

a reply to: Entreri06

I can't agree with you. In your own business you should have the freedom of expression to serve who you would like to.

This seems to be the critical line,


"Mr Pence said he "was proud to sign" the bill, but that he believes "it would be appropriate to make it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone"

That's what happened in the UK, a gay couple were turned away from a B&B because the homosexuality was against the owners, (in this case) Christian beliefs. The owners were prosecuted for discrimination or denial of service. I must check that bit out properly though, it's all a bit grey.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Here's the given reason.....presumably, for the judgement,

"Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said:
Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation."


I consider that sounds very singular, a bit desperate even, what happens if you are AC/DC? how many 'same orientations' can you have?

a reply to: smurfy

You're right about the UK discrimination case. They were found guilty and fined. They are now out of buisness and had to sell up.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse

don't you guys in the USA have the whole "seperation of church from state"thing in your constitution?

Funny thing is, QE also heads Church of England.

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

…don't you guys in the USA have the whole "separation of church from state" thing in your constitution?

Not anymorrrre…

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Forgive me if I have this wrong(I'm a Brit, you see),
but don't you guys in the USA have the whole "seperation of church from state"thing in your constitution?

Seems like your leaders ain't really being too bothered about that these days.

Yea but conservatives think that means were a Christian nation who won't pick sides amongst the Christian denominations. Ridiculous considering half the founding fathers weren't Christians.. But hey who said conservatives are logical lol

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Before this law was enacted, was an atheist business allowed to discriminate against Christians? As in, not serve them because they believe in Jesus?

No… atheists cannot discriminate against christians because of the new law. The reason, because they're atheists.

The law only allows for legal protections for persons and business who discriminate because of a religious belief system. It does not even consider a lack of belief.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.

www.indystar.com...

a reply to: ATF1886

So your cool with businesses turning away women or black people?

In a way this may force the GOP to finally acknowledge their inherent bigotry, misogany and racism. That a good thing!!!

This Indiana bill that passed has certainly blown up in the conservatives face now that hardass questions are being
asked of not just Hoosiers but every Republican.

Even FOX is in full damage control....www.foxnews.com...

These questions will certainly detract from their antigovt message; when infact they want to increase government by passing discriminatory laws against LBGT citizens; with preferential treatment being given to right wing Christian business that feel they can discriminate on religious grounds.

Nobody is fooled by the "Freedom of Religion" talking point. Even Republicans are trying to distance themselves from this BS
Bill; Even with the minor changes in the bill....the damage has been done to the Republicans.

With the Republicans splintered between thinking moderates, ultra right Christian factions and the T party; It doesn't look too good for the GOP.

Ironic that by trying to solidify the conservative base; they may have alienated the moderates, who are in the vast majority....

If the business owner see's fit then yes its his business they have the right to last time i checked my company refused service to a wife beater should that person have a right to our services???a reply to: FalafelBallz

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Before this law was enacted, was an atheist business allowed to discriminate against Christians? As in, not serve them because they believe in Jesus?

No.

If yes, can they do so now?

If no, can they do so now?

Yes.

Because if either of those is no, then this whole thing is literally a giant circle jerk for religious folks.

Yes.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Actually, look up a couple posts.

The law does not apply to people with no beliefs.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Actually, look up a couple posts.

The law does not apply to people with no beliefs.

And there's the rub! As if only religious people can have "closely held beliefs". Pffft!

SMH

a reply to: tothetenthpower

To say that if you pay less tax than you could *possibly* pay means that you're government subsidised is a dangerous stretch not to mention setting a dangerous precedent. When I take a tax deduction for interest paid on my home, am I subjected to the same regulation if I run a business out of my house? You should pitch that idea up on the hill. I'm sure they'd love it.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
The law does not apply to people with no beliefs.

My position is that an atheist could consider his opinions to be a "system of religious belief". A belief that the religious entity "God" doesn't exist could be part of a system of religious belief. There are atheist churches. I think it's nutjobs, but they do exist. It would have to go to court, of course, to test that theory.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Rather then going to court to try and prove atheism as a religious belief system, I'd rather go to court to prove the RFRA unconstitutional by complaining that it's creating a special class with special rights among believers and discriminating against the non-religious, depriving them of the right of acting from their own "closely held beliefs", when their own morality is challenged by a law.

a reply to: Entreri06

I agree 100%.
We tried discriminatory laws in the USA already, I thought it was behind us.