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

a reply to: Rocker2013

Yeah exactly.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

So basically, if you want to be so judgmental towards gay people because of a verse like this, then you have to be just as judgmental against hardcore patriots, people who have sex outside of marriage, anyone above middle class, anyone who bags others out, sales people and anyone who occasionally enjoys one to many beers.

I'd hate to be a hardcore christian doing business. Seems like extremely slim pickings of who you actually can serve, without compromising your apparent religious beliefs. But as I originally suspected, this 'religious freedom act' law had nothing to do with personal religious beliefs. lol, they just hate gay people and wanted the legal means to discriminate against them.

Hobby lobby got off and got relief from having to provide some types of birth control coverage to their employees based on their religious beliefs although I do believe at the time they were using suppliers in china that were being used by the chinese gov't to enforce their one child policy. It seems to me that their concern wasn't so much based on a moral conflict as it was on being able to hinder those under them since when it came to suppliers their concern seemed to be more aimed at where they could get the best price!

So I have to wonder, are all these bakeries refusing to be supplied by companies that are offering gay friendly products? Doesn't doing your business with these companies also aide in the participation of gay weddings?

The most obnoxious action falling in this category was the minister who decided at the last moment that he wouldn't officiate a funeral and gave the grieving family less than a 24 hour notice. So well my suggestion would be if we allow businesses be driven by their morals within the area of commerce (the holy roman church did and well seemed not to have any problem trading with the pagan eastern countries for thier spices and fine silks but well would often ban trade with different countries and regions based on disagreements with the kings and nobles) that we at least require that we have requirements posted on their shops and in their advertisements so we pagans can avoid wasting our time visiting their shops! And well we shouldn't have to be a member of a church or any religious group to have moral convictions and all our moral convictions should have the same rights! Meaning that if I feel that a mob of christians invading my restuarant every sunday after church loudly proclaiming their faith and making the other customers feel uncomfortable I should be able to post a notice on my door banning them on sundays!

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

since when is a business the kingdom of god?? it just says that sin won't get you to that place. Maybe I am wrong but Christ never refused a sinner of any type to approach him and neither should we. It is the light inside the christian that is supposed to illuminate and reveal God to the sinner and then it is God who will reveal the path to the kingdom of god to the sinner. All this crap is doing is making the sinner want nothing to do with the christian god since all the christian is revealing is condemnation and judgement!

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Exactly my thoughts as to why this is such a non-story in the first place: Who honestly is tacky enough to turn a wedding into a pizza party?

Seriously.

originally posted by: greydaze
a reply to: STTesc
Here's some advice.Think for yourself..Don't be a slave to other people's words.

Who isn't thinking for themselves? Because I agree with someone's statement I can't think for myself now? I say one thing someone else said and now I'm brainwashed?

a reply to: STTesc
Don't want to derail this thread.This will be the last post on this back n forth.But yeah you are a brainwashed talking point robot..You're programmed.

a reply to: theNLBSYet another great NLBS. Sometimes I think you should go after the BS harder, but it's your show. And you are cute, on top of that.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Exactly my thoughts as to why this is such a non-story in the first place: Who honestly is tacky enough to turn a wedding into a pizza party?

Seriously.

It's the principle of the entire story, while no self-respecting LGBT couple would have pizza at a wedding, it adequately shows how this law would be abused by Christians while Pence claims repeatedly that it wouldn't be, and that this is not how he intended it.

Pence has gone on and on about how this law is not discriminatory, and how Indiana is a tolerant and open society respectful of all, but the moment this establishment opened their ignorant mouths all of that was instantly blown out of the water.

Clearly, this law is being seen as an opportunity for the Christian bigots to abuse others, this one little story shows how everything Pence said about this bill was complete bs.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Why did this insidious theocratic law because a lesbian-gay-bisexula-transexual issue?

Intent. That's OBVIOUS. Marriage equality is sweeping this country (as most of us knew it would) and the Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on the states' rights to deny it. That raises the hackles of religious people from sea to shining sea. This is one way to "fight back", by religious owners of businesses denying the public accommodations that that the rest of us enjoy, and therefore making their righteous judgment of homosexuals and their bigotry justified and enforced by the state wherein they practice.

You're right. The law is much further reaching than that, but your examples weren't even considered when composing the law, we can be certain. The attendees of Indiana's RFRA's signing were people who have a history of opinions and legal attempts against the LGBT community. The intent of this law was to allow companies to deny gay people rights - and to be supported by the government in doing so.

This issue isn't about forcing a specific business to make a cake for gay people. It's more about business owners USING their businesses to show public disapproval of a group of people by trying to shame them with righteous judgment as unworthy of the same rights as the rest of us.

A business owner has a certain "standing" in a community. They are in contract with the state, and therefore have to follow state laws in doing business with the public. It's part of living in civilized society. If they USE their state-sponsored standing to show conspicuous piety, it gives their religious opinion a certain "weight" that it shouldn't have in a secular nation.

Also, everyone pays the taxes that pay for a business's police and fire services, road systems, utility lines, and sewers. That's why it's a "public accommodation". We ALL should have equal access to it and the products and services they offer.

Good NLBS. I would like to see a follow up on the amendment that was passed. www.indystar.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You are exactly right. The reason these laws are being proposed NOW, is because the religious right can see the writing on the wall. They know that the Supreme Court will most likely rule against banning gay marriage in ALL states. This type of religious freedom law is their last gasp effort at fighting it.

It's the hypocrisy that bothers me more than anything else about this law. It's obviously fuelled by the Christian Right. You know, the ones who claim to be Christ-like. The guy who accepted and loved everyone no matter what. I mean, they're basically creating a law that gives them the right to do the opposite of what their religion teaches and then use said religion as the excuse to do it. Its so twisted, but yet very typical. The current state of this religion is complete hypocricy.

I understand that certain liberties need to be protected and the free market should do its thing because people will choose to not do business with hypocritical biggots, but it's just really frustrating to see this resurfacing in 2015. We should be light years beyond this BS, but religion has a knack for slowing progress.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Ah, the principle. I can't have X, therefore you must...

There are many things in life I would l like to have but cannot for various reasons. A pool hall with a lunch counter styled diner where can get a burger, shoot some pool, drink some coffee, smoke cigarettes, socialize, talk with others about various topics. Can't have that because it is illegal in Ohio. The smoking of cigarettes. Now there were plenty of bars, bowling alleys, pool halls, etc that were non-smoking because that is what the owner wanted. But that wasn't good enough. So a law was passed that was a big old FU to the owner with an "I don't care if it forces you out of business. You have to accommodate the non-smokers."

Prejudice is part of the human condition. Doesn't make it right no matter what excuse is made. But legislating morality never ever works. It mrake resentment which fosters hate which creates more prejudice. But to argue a worthless point on principle doesn't help the cause. I wouldn't use a wedding to announce a bid for election to office, but I wouldn't say it is slight to free speech or the political process.

The whole argument is where do personal rights end in relation to the general public. Problem is that it is a two way street and not everyone sees where the limit is when there is a groupthink present. It isn't an easy answer and there has to be give and take on both sides. Too bad the question was never asked as to if they would sell a pizza to gay man that ordered take out. Something tells me that they would have as that is a single purchase as opposed to our gay wedding was catered by Memories Pizza. One is more involved than the other.

Maybe I missed the principle entirely. But it sure sounds like a case of bowing to demand when other suitable options were available. And for the record, gay marriage is legal in Indiana (by US District Court ruling last year) however in Ohio it is not (different district judge).

a reply to: Ahabstar

You know... as strong a proponent of "gay rights" as I am, I actually waffle back and forth on this issue. Truth is, I hate the idea of a business owner being legally forced to serve someone that they don't want to serve. But it's also not fair for a person to walk into a public accommodation and be told, "sorry, you're a sinner and therefore, you're not welcome here", when EVERYONE who enters the business is a sinner. Really what's the difference in that and refusing service to a black family?

Should the law force businesses to serve black people? Or Christians? Or women?

If we DON'T legally force businesses to serve the ENTIRE public, what do we have? A bunch of PUBLIC businesses whose owner's PERSONAL RELIGIOUS beliefs have the backing and support of the state government, and they're free to discriminate however they see fit. Can you explain to me how that's not a direct and solid relationship between church and state?

a reply to: Ahabstar

Prejudice is part of the human condition because things like religion and other types of dogma condition people to be that way.

When is religion gonna start being called out for what it is, a divisive mechanism that is really hate disguised as love and redemption. Im tired of religion always getting a free pass. I always hear, "oh religion does all these good things through charity. It doesn't hurt anyone. Just let them believe what they want."

Ok well, people have the right to believe what they want, but it's time to start calling it out for what it is. Divisive and full of hate. And that stuff has much more of an impact outside of just some believer's home.

a reply to: Reflection

And with religious business owners claim that making a cake for a gay couple means "participating" in their marriage, when is "religious freedom" going to get to the point that the Christian's gay neighbor's behavior is offensive and causes them to "participate" in a neighborhood that they don't approve of? How far do we go to protect "religious freedom"? How much power should religious freedom have when it involves affecting other people's lives?

I thought "freedom to exercise" one's religion meant the freedom to attend church, pray, hold beliefs, raise children in the church, sing hymns, do peyote and handle snakes, if that's a practice one wants to indulge in. But when a Christian's religious freedom imposes on someone else's everyday activity or behavior (like stopping to get gas or order flowers for a wedding) I think it's gone too far.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." That goes both ways.

My stance on this is that sole proprietorships should be able to pick and choose their customers, and refuse service for any reason. Corporations should be required by law to serve anyone. Give small business owners a break - they already have hard enough a time keeping their business afloat.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Ahabstar

You know... as strong a proponent of "gay rights" as I am, I actually waffle back and forth on this issue. Truth is, I hate the idea of a business owner being legally forced to serve someone that they don't want to serve. But it's also not fair for a person to walk into a public accommodation and be told, "sorry, you're a sinner and therefore, you're not welcome here", when EVERYONE who enters the business is a sinner. Really what's the difference in that and refusing service to a black family?

Should the law force businesses to serve black people? Or Christians? Or women?

If we DON'T legally force businesses to serve the ENTIRE public, what do we have? A bunch of PUBLIC businesses whose owner's PERSONAL RELIGIOUS beliefs have the backing and support of the state government, and they're free to discriminate however they see fit. Can you explain to me how that's not a direct and solid relationship between church and state?

To be fair, a storefront owned by a sole proprietor is not a "public accommodation" it is a private property.

a reply to: peskyhumans

To be fair, a storefront owned by a sole proprietor is not a "public accomodation" it is a private property.

Not according the Americans with Disabilities Act of !990.

Public Accommodations

Q. What are public accommodations?
A. A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.

Q. Will the ADA have any effect on the eligibility criteria used by public accommodations to determine who may receive services?
A. Yes. If a criterion screens out or tends to screen out individuals with disabilities, it may only be used if necessary for the provision of the services. For instance, it would be a violation for a retail store to have a rule excluding all deaf persons from entering the premises, or for a movie theater to exclude all individuals with cerebral palsy. More subtle forms of discrimination are also prohibited. For example, requiring presentation of a driver's license as the sole acceptable means of identification for purposes of paying by check could constitute discrimination against individuals with vision impairments. This would be true if such individuals are ineligible to receive licenses and the use of an alternative means of identification is feasible.
www.eeoc.gov...

a reply to: windword

That description is really vague. Define the difference between a sole proprietor running a storefront and a private club? If the sole proprietor decided to call his storefront a club, and only people who had a membership card (which keep in mind could be given out for free) could buy from his store, would that not make it a club? Would he even need a membership card at all? What is the legal definition of a club? This is absurd.

IMO it would just be simpler to let sole proprietors decide who they chose to do business with, and require corporations to serve everyone. It's simpler and much more clear-cut.

a reply to: peskyhumans

That description is really vague.

Not vague, really broad.

If the sole proprietor decided to call his storefront a club, and only people who had a membership card (which keep in mind could be given out for free) could buy from his store, would that not make it a club? Would he even need a membership card at all?

Sure, any proprietor could turn their business into a "club". But it WOULD require a "membership", and need to have a "constitution and by-laws, etc."

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

A photographer or florist that didn't want to do gay weddings could require their customers join a club that is only offered to members of his church's denomination, through their church, for example.