Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Indiana Time Machine


Sybaris

Recommended Posts

33

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point this will come back to bite these bigots. Someone will establish a church that supports abortion and set up a clinic, saying that abortion is part of the church doctrine, and, based on the Religious Freedom act, can't be stopped.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gives legal standing against being bullied by lawsuit.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I'd question the understanding of anyone foaming at the mouth about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pisses me off to realize that I'll be lumped with bigots and hillbillies for having my opinion on this.  Oh well, I'll give a bigger shit when someone else is paying for the drinks.

 

I'd rather that the newly minted bill did not have any religious affiliation.    i like it, and I'd like it even more.

 

It's interpreted here and elsewhere as infringements on the rights of gays and circus clowns.  Really?

 

I'm seeing it as relief from being forced to serve or sell to someone that I don't WANT to serve or sell to.  Has nothing in it at all that prevents anyone from "bumping uglies," or swapping spit.  Go do it, have at it.

 

It says that I don't have to provide my limo service to you, and watch you in my rear-view mirror, if I don't want to.  It says that if you sue me for not giving your ass an "attaboy" pat, I have a fighting chance in court.  THAT'S IT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pisses me off to realize that I'll be lumped with bigots and hillbillies for having my opinion on this.  Oh well, I'll give a bigger shit when someone else is paying for the drinks.

 

I'd rather that the newly minted bill did not have any religious affiliation.    i like it, and I'd like it even more.

 

It's interpreted here and elsewhere as infringements on the rights of gays and circus clowns.  Really?

 

I'm seeing it as relief from being forced to serve or sell to someone that I don't WANT to serve or sell to.  Has nothing in it at all that prevents anyone from "bumping uglies," or swapping spit.  Go do it, have at it.

 

It says that I don't have to provide my limo service to you, and watch you in my rear-view mirror, if I don't want to.  It says that if you sue me for not giving your ass an "attaboy" pat, I have a fighting chance in court.  THAT'S IT. 

 

 

I think you misunderstand the argument.  This exactly "that's it" is what has everybody upset.  We

 

find it incredibly disturbing that Indiana will give you the right to refuse service and protect you from

 

lawsuits.  Until a court strikes the new law down Indiana is living in 1963.  Most upsetting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not what I'm seeing.  There is no "right" to discriminate, or to break the law.  It recognizes your religious conviction as the basis of your actions should you find yourself in a lawsuit.  It doesn't give you an "out."  It doesn't give you any legal advantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not what I'm seeing.  There is no "right" to discriminate, or to break the law.  It recognizes your religious conviction as the basis of your actions should you find yourself in a lawsuit.  It doesn't give you an "out."  It doesn't give you any legal advantage. 

 

 

Why do religious convictions need to be recognized as the basis for actions?  When a terrorist builds a bomb I don't care what he believed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, may I also point out that there are about 20 states with similar laws, including Illinois.  His Royal Highness Obama voted FOR it, while a state legislator.  Oh, dear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have the right to refuse service to those you don't want to serve then where did their rights go?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument, while appearing to be logical, is not.

 

Your "right" to play your music loudly, ends at my eardrums. 

 

I would not be denying someone the rights to be gay.  I would be asserting my rights to remain within my comfort zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument, while appearing to be logical, is not.

 

Your "right" to play your music loudly, ends at my eardrums. 

 

I would not be denying someone the rights to be gay.  I would be asserting my rights to remain within my comfort zone.

 

 

Nobody is saying the law denies another's "right to be gay".  You misunderstand why people are upset with this law.

 

This is 1963 all over again.

 

Every restaurant and grocery store can put up a sign that says "No Coloreds".

 

And when every shop in town refuses to serve the same minority where do those people go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, respectfully, I don't see it.  There's no denial of rights.  There's simply protection of my right of refusal. 

 

Now, we're huffin' this medicine ball back and forth, and I'm out of shape.  No, I'm just downright lazy.  It's a matter of time until we see the actual results, correct?  I'll be the first in line to protest the "whites only" sign.  But, I don't think it's going down that path.  I don't think you do, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this is a backlash because of the cake baking people that didn't want to make a cake for a gay couple (even though that was in a different state, I think). 

 

I admit, I don't know much about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, respectfully, I don't see it.  There's no denial of rights.  There's simply protection of my right of refusal. 

 

Now, we're huffin' this medicine ball back and forth, and I'm out of shape.  No, I'm just downright lazy.  It's a matter of time until we see the actual results, correct?  I'll be the first in line to protest the "whites only" sign.  But, I don't think it's going down that path.  I don't think you do, either.

 

Your right to refuse is denial of other people's rights.

 

As for the path it's going down I think all the big business is going to leave Indiana and the state will regret it's mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a long conversation about this on facebook with a christian friend, and while we appeared to be on different sides(I wasn't sure about her side, she seemed to be pretty neutral about it, and was asking about the new bill to learn about both sides and see what all sorts of people thought about it), it leaves a bad taste, though I can't exactly place why. US is kinda doing a two steps forward, three steps back thing here it looks like. I will also admit it is kind of confusing to me.

 

And I live in WA state and there's no RFRA thingy here, so it doesn't yet directly affect me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MM, not to be smart-ass, but "big business" is notoriously conservative.  The larger portion of my reaction is that I, as a business owner (and employer) in the state of Indiana, welcome ANY legislation favoring the removal of laws and government from my life.  Big business ain't leavin Indiana on this piece of legislation, by a long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again, respectfully, I don't see it.  There's no denial of rights.  There's simply protection of my right of refusal. 

 

Now, we're huffin' this medicine ball back and forth, and I'm out of shape.  No, I'm just downright lazy.  It's a matter of time until we see the actual results, correct?  I'll be the first in line to protest the "whites only" sign.  But, I don't think it's going down that path.  I don't think you do, either.

 

Your right to refuse is denial of other people's rights.

 

As for the path it's going down I think all the big business is going to leave Indiana and the state will regret it's mistake.

 

 

A person that owns a private business should be allowed to refuse service, IMHO. To say otherwise is to deny the business owner of his/her rights. 

 

It's a sticky situation to be sure, but I don't see this new law taking precedent over other laws against discrimination that are already in place. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the NCAA is small business.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

 

Perhaps Salesforce is small business too.

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/25/business-leaders-address-letter-to-pence-urging-him-to-veto-religious-freedom-bill/70466808/

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/_4_billion_s_p_500_corporation_to_indiana_we_re_out_of_here

 

Gen Con too

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/25/us-usa-indiana-convention-idUSKBN0ML07420150325

 

 

 

 

If a business owner has the right to discriminate against people then people are not protected from discrimination.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Business owners lost some rights back when slavery ended.  You can't own people.  You also shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people.  If somebody hates gay people so much that they do not want to serve them or hire them then don't go into business.  You should not be allowed to profit off of our society unless you are willing to abide by fair rules.

 

 

 

Update:

And now Angie's List has canceled a $40 million and 1,000 job expansion.  Hey $40 million here and $40 million there soon adds up to some real money.

 

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/angie_s_list_cancels_40_million_1000_jobs_indiana_expansion_over_anti_gay_religious_freedom_law

 

 

 

Update:

The comedian Nick Offerman and the rock band Wilco have both canceled shows in Indiana.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nick-offerman-cancels-indiana-show

 

A labor union has pulled it's conference out of Indianapolis over the new law.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/30/womens-group-becomes-first-pull-conference-indy/70677836/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not what I'm seeing.  There is no "right" to discriminate, or to break the law.  It recognizes your religious conviction as the basis of your actions should you find yourself in a lawsuit.  It doesn't give you an "out."  It doesn't give you any legal advantage.

According to this source, one Indiana restaurant owner says he's already been lying to get gays/lesbians away from his restaurant, and now he can bar them openly:

 

http://www.outsports.com/2015/3/27/8303925/christian-indiana-business-gay-refuse-service

 

Ric, I don't understand you when you say that there is no right to discriminate or break the law. Isn't this new law making it now legal to discriminate, if one invokes religious scruple? So discrimination isn't breaking the law anymore under those conditions.

 

Maybe it will leave it up to courts to decide when state or local govt is exercising a compelling interest strong enough to override the religion escape clause that now will make it easier for businesses to discriminate.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really bothers me about the enactment of these types of laws, is the larger concept on which they are based. They are a reaction to those on the Christian right believing that their religion is "under attack" from, in this case, the LGBT community/lobby. The reality is, IMHO, that our society is thoroughly permeated with a distinct Christian flavor, and hence our political leadership naturally carry their religious beliefs over into how they govern. Let's face it, the chances of being elected to public office in the US without having some form of religious belief in general, and Christian belief in particular, are almost nil. In fact, some states have laws expressly forbidding an atheist from even running for public office.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Jesus himself, assuming that he existed, never utters a word about homosexuality, either for or against, though he did address divorce, adultery and hypocrisy. The passages in the NT that do address the issue are attributed to Saul of Tarsus, among others. The same can be said of biblical stances regarding slavery, which, as we all know were used to justify that institution in this country.

 

So again, IMHO, there is no attack, but the religious right are being called out on their hypocrisy, and that is what's hurting them so much. Throw the first stone, dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but my law abiding kind hearted, daughter who has not negatively impacted anyone in any direct way just because she internally naturally is gay (in her case, from birth) has a reasonable right to expect as a natural born American Citizen to be able to walk into any business in this country and be able to purchase any good or service offered by any public business that they offered and she has a reasonable right and expectation that she will be treated no differently that any other customer. 

 

Period.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I think I'm going from middle of the road on this to being against it.

 

My concerns and any approval I would have of this law would fall on the side of the business owner having the right to the free exercise of his religion, and Congress shall make no law prohibiting it.

 

On the other hand, and this is the way I'm leaning now, this law does override the laws against discrimination by giving the religious person a loophole: 

 

Cake baker A: I won't serve you because you are wearing mixed fabrics, and in my religion that's a no no.

Customer: Well, there's nothing I can do about that then.

 

Cake baker B: I won't serve you just because I don't like your shirt and pants. You are too unfashionable to be served here.

Customer: Lawsuit! 

 

I wonder why a law would be enacted to restore religious freedom in a state that in the classical sense hasn't lost it in the first place.

Maybe the law would be more clear if instead of being called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it was called the Religious Preferential Treatment Act.

 

On the other hand, here is another scenario...

 

A Jerry Fallwell type walks into a cake shop to order a cake. The bakery is run by two gay people. The customer orders a cake and asks to have two figurines on top.  He asks that the figurines are shown crumpled to the ground with stones embedded in their foreheads. Underneath, he wants the inscription to read; "Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord.  KEEP HIS LAWS!".

Do the bakery owners have to comply by law and make that cake if it goes against their core beliefs?

 

Is there a law already in place that would protect them from having to make such a cake, and if so, why can't the religious person also point to that same law if he doesn't want to make a cake that goes against what he believes?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.