Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Indiana Bill Allowing Rejection Of Gay Customers


Recommended Posts

Posted

If the exercises of their consciences puts them on the other side of the law, then yes.

If their consciences tell them that "same sex wedding" is a disingenuous euphemism for "homosexual orgy," then you think the law should compel them to participate anyway.

Remarkably, one vestige of real religious freedom still remains in American law: namely, the right to "conscientiously object" to military service in time of war. If the law cannot compel someone to serve their country in a time of national emergency, on what theory can it compel someone to wade neck-deep in a moral sewer?

Why would it be so wrong for there to be a right to conscientiously object to being involved in a "same sex wedding?"

Regards,

Pahoran

Posted

If their consciences tell them that "same sex wedding" is a disingenuous euphemism for "homosexual orgy," then you think the law should compel them to participate anyway.

Remarkably, one vestige of real religious freedom still remains in American law: namely, the right to "conscientiously object" to military service in time of war. If the law cannot compel someone to serve their country in a time of national emergency, on what theory can it compel someone to wade neck-deep in a moral sewer?

Why would it be so wrong for there to be a right to conscientiously object to being involved in a "same sex wedding?"

Regards,

Pahoran

Do you feel it is acceptable for a restaurant owner to conscientiously object to serving black people? Or at least conscientiously object to seating them in the same area as they other guests?

Posted (edited)

Do you feel it is acceptable for a restaurant owner to conscientiously object to serving black people? Or at least conscientiously object to seating them in the same area as they other guests?

That is a red herring that does not address any actual situations before us.

I am now about to copy and paste (with a few minor amendments) something I wrote just one page back.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't have a plausible parallel to the right being sought. (Or if, as some holds, it already exists, then the right being protected.)

I search (via Google) the annals of thought-crime in vain for any instances of anyone refusing to serve someone "gay" because "we don't serve your types here."

How many instances can you find of a baker refusing to bake a birthday cake for a "gay" customer?

How many instances can you find of a florist refusing to sell Mothers' Day flowers to a "gay" customer?

How many instances can you find of a photographer refusing to photograph a "gay" customer's Bar Mitzvah?

Because I can't find any.

The freedom bakers, florists, photographers etc. wish they had is the freedom not to be forced to participate in -- or worse, attend -- a particular event.

For most of them, the suggestion that they would be coerced into attending that type of event wasn't even on the horizon when they opened their doors. It wasn't what they signed up to.

But now, if they refuse to participate, they do so at the risk of losing their entire livelihood.

It is maliciously callous to cavalierly dismiss their principled concerns with a flippant remark like, "If they don't want to do that, they shouldn't have gone into business in the first place."

Maliciously callous -- and yet not at all surprising.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited by Pahoran
Posted (edited)

I search (via Google) the annals of thought-crime in vain for any instances of anyone refusing to serve someone "gay" because "we don't serve your types here."

 

 

I found this pretty quickly.  I'm sure there are others.  I gives you what you say you've found none of.  It's an anonymous radio call but I can imagine the same thoughts exists with others, even though that number may be small.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/28/3640221/indiana-business-owner-admits-discriminating-lgbt-people/

An Indiana business owner went on a local radio station and said that he had discriminated against gay or lesbian couples even before Gov. Mike Pence ® signed a law on Thursday protecting business owners who decide to discriminate for “religious liberty” reasons. He then defended the practice and suggested he would do it again.

 

The business owner, who would not give his name or the name of his business, said he had told some LGBT “people” that equipment was broken in his restaurant and he couldn’t serve them even though it wasn’t and other people were already eating at the tables. “So, yes, I have discriminated,” he told RadioNOW 100.9 hosts. The hosts were surprised the owner said he was okay with discriminating.

 

“Well, I feel okay with it because it’s my place of business, I pay the rent, I’ve built it with all my money and my doing. It’s my place; I can do whatever I want with it,” he said. “They can have their lifestyle and do their own thing in their own place or with people that want to be with them.”

 

Edited by Brian 2.0
Posted

I found this pretty quickly.  I'm sure there are others.  I gives you what you say you've found none of.  It's an anonymous radio call but I can imagine the same thoughts exists with others, even though that number may be small.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/28/3640221/indiana-business-owner-admits-discriminating-lgbt-people/

If indeed this story is authentic -- I find myself suspicious of propaganda sources that call themselves "progressive," that being a term of art from the former Soviet intelligence organs -- then please note that the fact that he thought he needed to lie to his customers shows that, contra the spin provided by your propaganda source, he really didn't believe that the law supported him.

I will also say that I can see no principle-based reason for him to do what he claims to have done (if indeed the alleged caller wasn't simply a "gay" agent provocateur, which is at least as likely as the proposition that he was really who he claimed to be) and that I don't see why his actions should be protected as freedom of religion.

Regards,

Pahoran

Posted

Don't bother Brian. You will only get more strawmen, no true scottsman, and red herrings in return.

 

 

Speaking of discrimination, the banner of religion, and the most precious and innocent.

 

A Dr. in Michigan refused to treat Bay Windsor Contreras, a 4 month old, because the babies parents are lesbian.

Posted (edited)

I am pretty sure we are going to see a massive retreat from this whole defense of religious liberty argument aimed at protecting discrimination against gays, as soon as some of the fringe Christian and non-Christian sects start invoking it to protect polygamy, nude rituals, cannabis use, discrimination against Mormons, etc. etc.   The proponents aren't really interested in defending anyone's liberty except their own specific religious beliefs.  Its kind of like the myth that the Puritans came to America seeking religious liberty -- no they came to find a place where they could exclude everyone else's religious liberty.  Not exactly sure how they are going to deal with the religionists who are still romping around with mark of Cain concepts in their brains.

Edited by Stone holm
Posted

Stone holm, 

 

My guess is that Utah does not have a religious liberty law due to polygamy.

 

However, I suppose the Federal RFRA could presently be claimed as a defense to permit polygamy, because the Utah Constitution states that the Federal Government must dictate Utah whether it can permit polygamy.

 

I would then suggest that the Browns (Sister wives or any other polygamist) have a decent argument to presently sue Utah & The Federal Government. The likely result would be that Art. 3 of the Utah Constitution violates the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

What is also interesting is that the most recent proposed religious liberty law, in its opening paragraphs, stated one could not discriminate based against religion. The same law, however, was (deliberately void) of any prohibition against discrimination against LGBT.   Just speculating, but I think, Indianas unamended law could have been overturned under Romer v. Evans - as the Court could easily find that the genesis of the particulars of Indianas law was animus towards LGBT.

Posted

Tonie,   the Utah RFRA statute would be trumped by the Utah State Constitution on polygamy -- but it is the only State that I know of that has such a provision.  The Supreme Court held that the Federal RFRA statute was unconstitutional insofar as it pertained to the States.  So with regards to polygamy, these State RFRA imitations are likely to blow up on that issue outside of Utah.  In fact, they are already in the process of exploding in Indiana where Wiccans and the Cannabis Church are already making waves on polygamy, nudism, and marijuana use.

Posted

The freedom bakers, florists, photographers etc. wish they had is the freedom not to be forced to participate in -- or worse, attend -- a particular event.

Regards,

Pahoran

Should a gay print shop owner be forced to print materials for the Westboro Baptist church that says "God hates fags"?

 

If I am reading everyone's comments in favor of using force, the answer is "yes".

 

When some one comes in to a business and they want a public business to attend a private event that they don't agree with, that is grounds enough to be able to refuse service. As it is the event that they don't agree with and not the person.

 

All of the people in favor of force, are misrepresenting the argument and making it about being gay or black or some other thing.

 

That is the argument and it is a sound one.

Posted

If indeed this story is authentic -- I find myself suspicious of propaganda sources that call themselves "progressive," that being a term of art from the former Soviet intelligence organs -- then please note that the fact that he thought he needed to lie to his customers shows that, contra the spin provided by your propaganda source, he really didn't believe that the law supported him.

I will also say that I can see no principle-based reason for him to do what he claims to have done (if indeed the alleged caller wasn't simply a "gay" agent provocateur, which is at least as likely as the proposition that he was really who he claimed to be) and that I don't see why his actions should be protected as freedom of religion.

Regards,

Pahoran

IWO, do you believe everything you read on the internets?

 

I guess when it goes along with preconceived notions?

Posted

Should a gay print shop owner be forced to print materials for the Westboro Baptist church that says "God hates fags"?

 

If I am reading everyone's comments in favor of using force, the answer is "yes".

 

When some one comes in to a business and they want a public business to attend a private event that they don't agree with, that is grounds enough to be able to refuse service. As it is the event that they don't agree with and not the person.

 

All of the people in favor of force, are misrepresenting the argument and making it about being gay or black or some other thing.

 

That is the argument and it is a sound one.

 

Nope. The law doesn't require that. The law requires that if you as a printer sell "God Hates Fags" literature, you can't legally refuse to sell it to "Fags".

 

Nope. The law is that if you operate in the public sphere you don't get to decide who that public is based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin ,sex, and increasingly on sexual orientation.

 

If you don't want the force of law to be used on you don't violate the law. Otherwise it is every man, woman, child for themselves. The biggest and strongest always win.

 

The US is based on the will of the people, not the will of one person who happens to be bigger and stronger than you.

Posted (edited)

Hmm:

Thanks,

-Smac

This is big.

Thanks for drawing our attention to it.

I would take the results of that poll with a grain of salt. Mainstream polling says most Americans are in favor of gay marriage.

Actually, the poll asked about SSM as well, and it found that 53% agreed with the following statement: "I believe marriage should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman."

Further, 61% agreed with the following statement: "States and citizens should remain free to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the Supreme Court shouldn’t force all 50 states to redefine marriage."

Thanks,

-Smac

As Gray pointed out, it’s always worth considering the source that conducts these types of polls, and it's wise to be wary of polling conducted and funded by any special interest group.

Specifically, in Smac’s post, the poll was funded by the Family Research Council. Not surprisingly, their poll results supported their agenda.

In contrast, Reuters (a mainstream polling organization) conducted a new poll, and the results are exactly the opposite of FRC’s poll:

Most Americans side with gays in religious freedom disputes: Reuters/Ipsos poll

http://news.yahoo.com/most-americans-side-gays-religious-freedom-disputes-reuters-050235522.html

By Steve Holland 4 hours ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of Americans believe businesses should not be allowed to refuse services based on their religious beliefs in the wake of controversies in Indiana and Arkansas over gay rights and religious freedom, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Thursday.

The poll, conducted April 6 to 8, also found that 52 percent of Americans support allowing same-sex couples to marry, far more than the 32 percent who oppose it.

The survey results suggest a split over the issue between Americans and some of the politicians who represent them.

Indiana's Republican governor, Mike Pence, triggered a firestorm in his state this month by signing a law that would allow businesses to refuse services to certain groups or people based on their religious beliefs.

Gay rights activists saw the law as discriminatory and the resulting backlash forced Indiana's state legislature to make changes to the law.

Days later, Arkansas's Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson, forced his state legislature to change a similar law in order to avoid having it blow up into a controversy in his state.

The poll found solid opposition to allowing businesses to refuse services or refuse to hire people or groups based on religious beliefs.

Fifty-four percent said it was wrong for businesses to refuse services, while 28 percent said they should have that right. And 55 percent said businesses should not have the right to refuse to hire certain people or groups based on the employer's religious beliefs, while 27 percent said businesses should have the right.

The Reuters-Ipsos poll found divisions among Americans on where same-sex marriage laws should be made.

The largest grouping, 34 percent, believes same-sex marriage laws should be made by the U.S. Supreme Court declaring a nationwide constitutional right.

Another 22 percent said same-sex marriage laws should be made at the state level by voter referendum. Eleven percent said laws should be made by state legislators and 8 percent would leave it up to Congress. The poll found 24 percent did not know how best to handle it.

The poll said 55 percent want to see all states - even those that do not permit same-sex marriages - recognize such unions from states where same-sex marriage is legal.

For the survey, 892 people aged 18 years old and over were interviewed online. The Reuters/Ipsos online poll was measured using a credibility interval. It has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

To explore more of the poll: http://bit.ly/1aKHlSN

This is big, Scott. ;)

Edited by Daniel2
Posted

This is such a stupid argument. If a business doesn't want to sell a cake to me then so be it. They obviously don't need my business. That's fine. There are other places I can go.

However, don't tell me a business doesn't make a gay wedding cake. There's no such thing. There are only cakes. Splitting hairs about this shows a lack of maturity.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...