Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 174
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    I will assume everyone knows what is being referred to but if not, here's the story

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...s-freedom-bill

    It is assumed that this law is set to address the kind of issue that arose when a bakery that is owned by Christians refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding. And according to the law, if such a situation were to arise in Indiana, the owners of a bakery would be allowed to discriminate in such a fashion.

    So this law seems to make illegal behavior legal if the behavior done out of religious belief. So if a bakery refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding out of religious beliefs, that's fine. But if the exact same thing is done out of anti-gay attitude that is not borne of religious conviction, the offenders aren't protected by the law.

    So basically this law seems to give religious belief an advantage over non-religious beliefs and should not stand on that basis.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Interesting argument Mican. I'm more torn on this law than I should be. I do think there should be some leeway for people to choose to be assholes if they want to be. I do to a degree trust the markets to backlash when folks do that (and we are seeing a lot of that happening right now). I actually think that when the overall culture doesn't tolerate a type of discrimination you need not be as guarded against it, and even to a degree have to try and tolerate it under the law. On the other hand when society is very fond of a given kind of discrimination that is when you need legal protections.

    I think its wrong to not sell a cake to someone who is gay, but I don't think its so wrong I absolutely want to legislate that. The legislation suits me fine on the surface, but the subtext of telling people they must behave a given way less so. (I feel the same way about anti smoking laws and the like, suits me well, but strikes me as over-reach)

    What I am happy to do is participate in anti-Indiana sentiment and pressure through tourism etc to persuade them this law is a poor choice.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #3
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,570
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    From everything I'm reading (and I'm by no means a legal expert), the problem isn't so much the law itself, but rather, what certain people think the law allows them to do. It can almost be likened to people thinking the 2nd Amendment allows them to own a nuke or something - it's just dumb thinking.

    Check this out:

    "There is fear among Indiana’s LGBT community that RFRA will allow business owners the right to deny services to gay people.

    [Robin Fretwell] Wilson says that could already happen.

    “The biggest difference with Indiana is people don’t have to serve gay folks now because the law doesn’t speak to a duty to do so, except for a municipality,” Wilson said. “In Illinois, we did it right. We say that is just an unacceptable basis for denying services to folks. And then, we still have a RFRA but RFRA in Illinois hasn’t been used to take back sexual orientation protections from gays. They live together side by side.”

    Wilson says RFRA is used primarily to protect minority religions from government overreach.

    For example, if a state proposed banning the Amish from accessing a local road with a horse and buggy with steel wheels, the Amish citizen could use RFRA to fight back.

    From Wilson’s perspective, if a business owner tries to use Indiana’s RFRA to deny services to a gay person, because it may go against the business owner’s religion, the claim is likely to lose in court.

    “I believe that anybody who wants to use a RFRA as a reason not to serve (gay) people will lose. (They) will absolutely lose. They are not going to prevail. We haven’t seen people prevail on those grounds nowhere in the country,” Wilson said. “To say that all of a sudden, that a RFRA will become this back-pocket veto of a discrimination statute I think is just wrong.”

    Wilson says what’s causing some to believe Indiana’s RFRA could be used to discriminate is that some religious people in Indiana think it can be used in that fashion.

    “You get these religious leaders who say we have to have RFRA to keep gay rights in check,” Wilson said. “Folks on the other side are going to say ‘what the heck, that’s a license to discriminate.’ I think both sides just fundamentally misunderstand what these statutes are designed to do.”

    http://www.wbez.org/legal-expert-say...dom-law-111783

    If you want my completely unqualified opinion, I think the governor is trying to play it smart for his next campaign. I think he's pandering to the openly bigoted religious demographic, and to the demographic that's not openly bigoted, but are accessories to bigotry via their silent, pious consent.

    I bet his campaign advisers are predicting a huge surge in votes from the religious demographic in response to Obama-phobia. I also think he knows damn good and well that it doesn't actually allow for legal discrimination, but - as you could see in his interview with George Stephanopoulos - he won't openly admit that because of the risk.

    Consider:

    He made all the right noises in his interview. "Hoosiers aren't bigots" "This isn't about discrimination" "We want to protect the liberties of ALL Hoosiers" "There's lots of misinformation out there"

    If he'd have committed one way or another on the question George Stephanopoulos was asking "Does this allow a store owner to discriminate against gays?", he'd have shot himself in the foot no matter what. "Yes" means progressives will run away in droves and supporting businesses will boycott his state, and "No" means that he loses the conservative vote by not openly supporting the ONE THING that group hopes the bill can be used for (but are wrong about).

    So, he signs the bill, secures the bigot surge in the next campaign, does damage control in the meantime, and (hopefully for him) once the news gets out that the law actually cannot be used to discriminate, he has plausible deniability where the assumed right to discriminate is concerned - "I never said it could be used to discriminate; in fact discrimination of ANY kind is wrong, because I kiss babies and I love Jesus and God and guns and apple pie, blah blah blah blah-imagoddamnedslimypolitician-BLAH."

    Just my two cents.

  4. Thanks Sigfried thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  5. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think its wrong to not sell a cake to someone who is gay, but I don't think its so wrong I absolutely want to legislate that.
    I understand.

    But assuming we decide that denying such service should not be allowed, it does not make sense to give Christians be given an exemption to the law.

    And assuming we decide that denying such service should be up to the business owner, there's no need to specifically grant Christians that right.

    So whichever route you go (should be allowed or should not be allowed) I don't see a valid rationale for making it a "religious liberty" issue.

  6. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    The law should not compel associations between peoples. Laws that acknowledge and protect the right to associate are good, and those that restrict it are bad.

    Basically, you do have every right to be bigoted, and our laws SHOULD protect that right.

    The baker being forced to provide (not simply a cake, but a gay themed cake of which they had no product to offer) services that they did not offer to anyone was wrong and needs to be corrected.
    I don't know that this law is the correct path.

    While our society has achieved some positive strides through the denial of the above inherent right, we are now to a point where it is over reaching and unacceptably negatively effecting religious freedom and liberty.

    The great irony is that those who call people who refuse to associate "bigots", are just as intolerant as they refuse to leave such people be. The fear that some how some services will be completely denied to a discriminated group of people is completely baseless in a free market society.
    To serve man.

  7. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  8. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Mican, a few questions:

    If someone wants a cake with the words "We hate niggers and queers!" on it, should a bakery owner be able to refuse the order based on his personal beliefs or sexual orientation, or should he be required to write those words on a cake and sell it?

    Should a Jewish deli owner in New York be required to serve someone dressed as a Nazi officer?

    If I walk into an Islamic information center and ask to buy 100 Korans, announcing that I intend to burn them, should they be required to sell to me?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  9. Thanks Squatch347, MindTrap028, Sigfried thanked for this post
  10. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If someone wants a cake with the words "We hate Ns and Qs!" on it, should a bakery owner be able to refuse the order based on his personal beliefs or sexual orientation, or should he be required to write those words on a cake and sell it?
    No. And that is not discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Should a Jewish deli owner in New York be required to serve someone dressed as a Nazi officer?
    No. And that is not discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If I walk into an Islamic information center and ask to buy 100 Korans, announcing that I intend to burn them, should they be required to sell to me?
    No. And that is not discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

    ---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The law should not compel associations between peoples. Laws that acknowledge and protect the right to associate are good, and those that restrict it are bad.
    An individual's right, yes. But businesses are not people.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Basically, you do have every right to be bigoted, and our laws SHOULD protect that right.
    An individual's right, yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The baker being forced to provide (not simply a cake, but a gay themed cake of which they had no product to offer) services that they did not offer to anyone was wrong and needs to be corrected.
    But by that token, can a restaurant refuse to serve black people? Can a grocery store refuse to sell food to black people?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The great irony is that those who call people who refuse to associate "bigots", are just as intolerant as they refuse to leave such people be.
    It's not ironic to be bigoted against bigots. And the critics of such bigots are generally only opposing bigotry to the extent that it actually effects the target of their bigotry.

    It's the difference between disapproving of gay marriage but keeping it to yourself and actively trying to stop gays from getting married. The former is really nobody's business (and is generally treated as such) and the other is fair game for criticism and counter-action.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The fear that some how some services will be completely denied to a discriminated group of people is completely baseless in a free market society.
    Since we generally don't allow people to refuse service to minorities you don't actually know what the outcome would be if we did away with all laws against refusing service to minorities.

    Perhaps if we did away with such laws, certain bigots will gather in a region and uniformly agree that only white heterosexuals shall be catered to by businesses.

    And IF such an event were to occur, are you saying that we should allow it? That we should allow certain where minorities, no matter how much money they earn, cannot purchase the essentials of survival?

    --------------------------------------

    But regardless, even if I were to agree with your argument that businesses have a right to discriminate as much as they care to, there is no need for it to be under the guise of religious liberty. If you have the right to do it no matter what, then there is no need to appeal to religious liberty to allow it.

  11. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. And that is not discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.
    Is sexual orientation a federally protected class the same as race and religion? No, it isn't.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

    It isn't even a protected class in Indiana, from what I can tell.

    So your op really boils down to your unsupported opinion that sexual orientation should be a protected class.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Is sexual orientation a federally protected class the same as race and religion? No, it isn't.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

    It isn't even a protected class in Indiana, from what I can tell.

    So your op really boils down to your unsupported opinion that sexual orientation should be a protected class.
    If that's what you think, I suggest you read the OP more carefully.


    But as far as whether any group should be a protected class, it's ALWAYS opinion. Just because race is a protected class does not mean that it SHOULD be a protected class. So any argument about whether any class should or should not be protected is ALWAYS going to be based on opinion. So if you want to dismiss any argument that is based on opinion you should not be engaged in any debate about whether any class SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be protected by law.

    ---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    If you want my completely unqualified opinion, I think the governor is trying to play it smart for his next campaign. I think he's pandering to the openly bigoted religious demographic, and to the demographic that's not openly bigoted, but are accessories to bigotry via their silent, pious consent.

    I bet his campaign advisers are predicting a huge surge in votes from the religious demographic in response to Obama-phobia. I also think he knows damn good and well that it doesn't actually allow for legal discrimination, but - as you could see in his interview with George Stephanopoulos - he won't openly admit that because of the risk.

    Consider:

    He made all the right noises in his interview. "Hoosiers aren't bigots" "This isn't about discrimination" "We want to protect the liberties of ALL Hoosiers" "There's lots of misinformation out there"

    If he'd have committed one way or another on the question George Stephanopoulos was asking "Does this allow a store owner to discriminate against gays?", he'd have shot himself in the foot no matter what. "Yes" means progressives will run away in droves and supporting businesses will boycott his state, and "No" means that he loses the conservative vote by not openly supporting the ONE THING that group hopes the bill can be used for (but are wrong about).

    So, he signs the bill, secures the bigot surge in the next campaign, does damage control in the meantime, and (hopefully for him) once the news gets out that the law actually cannot be used to discriminate, he has plausible deniability where the assumed right to discriminate is concerned - "I never said it could be used to discriminate; in fact discrimination of ANY kind is wrong, because I kiss babies and I love Jesus and God and guns and apple pie, blah blah blah blah-imagoddamnedslimypolitician-BLAH."

    Just my two cents.
    If that's the case (and it sounds plausible) I think it's backfiring. Instead of getting the best of both worlds, he's getting the worst of both worlds.

    First he gets all of the blowback as if the bill really is bigoted with criticism from progressives and the boycots costing the state money. And then when the bill really doesn't protect the religious rights' freedom to discriminate against gays, they will be upset as well.

  13. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If that's what you think, I suggest you read the OP more carefully.
    I read it carefully several times. It has huge unsupported statements and false assumptions about the law.

    "So this law seems to make illegal behavior legal if the behavior done out of religious belief... But if the exact same thing is done out of anti-gay attitude that is not borne of religious conviction, the offenders aren't protected by the law."

    What is the supposed illegal behavior that is being made legal by religious belief? If you claim that discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal, what is the specific law you think is being violated? (Keep in mind that the bakery ruling was in Colorado and does not apply to Indiana.)

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But as far as whether any group should be a protected class, it's ALWAYS opinion. Just because race is a protected class does not mean that it SHOULD be a protected class. So any argument about whether any class should or should not be protected is ALWAYS going to be based on opinion. So if you want to dismiss any argument that is based on opinion you should not be engaged in any debate about whether any class SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be protected by law.
    Mican, your op is about laws. I'm arguing according to what the laws really are. In contrast, your argument is based on your belief in laws protecting sexual orientation that do NOT exist, either federally or in Indiana.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  14. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I will assume everyone knows what is being referred to but if not, here's the story

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...s-freedom-bill

    It is assumed that this law is set to address the kind of issue that arose when a bakery that is owned by Christians refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding. And according to the law, if such a situation were to arise in Indiana, the owners of a bakery would be allowed to discriminate in such a fashion.

    So this law seems to make illegal behavior legal if the behavior done out of religious belief. So if a bakery refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding out of religious beliefs, that's fine. But if the exact same thing is done out of anti-gay attitude that is not borne of religious conviction, the offenders aren't protected by the law.

    So basically this law seems to give religious belief an advantage over non-religious beliefs and should not stand on that basis.
    Private businesses can refuse business for any reason whatsoever. The problem isn't that the gay couple were denied, its that they sued about it. No shirt or shoes? No service. Its not like its discrimination to against shoeless, poor people (who are the most likely to be shoeless mind you). Gentlemen's clubs don't have to allow women in, same for lady's clubs. Don't like low class ding bats, you are not required to provide them a service. Atheists must be terribly upset that Chic fillet won't let them work on Sundays! Democrats are pretty pissed off that they cannot attend the Republican conventions! Don't like polygamists? Don't have to cater the multiple weddings. Vets don't have to service the animals being abused by beastilaity abusers. NAMBLA just has to suck it up that people don't like them. Illegal aliens really aren't welcome in Roswell. And on and on and on.

    So tell me, why is it right to force someone to violate their religious beliefs? If they don't want your money ... isn't that a choice? So we have to respect the homosexual lifestyle? But homosexuals don;t have to respect dissenting religious opinions?

    The law might NOT make sense in monopolistic agencies, like utilities, etc. But wedding cakes? What better way to say, "I love you," then to sue someone rather than just go somewhere else to get a wedding cake? Over time, if the decision is wrong, the business will lose out. You cannot force someone to accept, or change, their religious beliefs. All the business has to do is make up another reason to 'refuse' your service, like, you have black hair or no hair - a foul odor on the owner can detect, affiliation with an anti-religious hate group, etc. and you are kind of screwed. Now you have to prove its because you are gay.

    The fact that someone will tell you to your face, "My religious views on sexuality prevent me from supporting your choice (and pedophilia, and polygamy, and beastilaity, and swinging, and promiscuity, etc.)," is hardly grounds to sue. Unless you think that everyone has to accept ONE view on sexuality?

    Where the line is drawn between discrimination and legitiment dissent?
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  15. Likes Squatch347, MindTrap028 liked this post
  16. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I understand.

    But assuming we decide that denying such service should not be allowed, it does not make sense to give Christians be given an exemption to the law.
    I'd say no. We don't let religious people perform human sacrifice because it's a crime to harm other people that way and violates their rights. In this sense we are saying every class of citizen has the right to public commerce and accommodation and you are not allowed to infringe on that. You can always practice your religion with regards to yourself but when you are practicing it upon other people there is a problem under the law.

    So whichever route you go (should be allowed or should not be allowed) I don't see a valid rationale for making it a "religious liberty" issue.
    True, though for me in a sense it goes beyond religion and is more a question of whether being served by business is a right of sorts. It generally isn't recognized that way constitutionally and its only due to these specific discrimination laws that we have that protection. So it comes down to if there is a need for such laws and what harms they may have to ones general sense of social liberty.

    ---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Mican, a few questions:
    If someone wants a cake with the words "We hate niggers and queers!" on it, should a bakery owner be able to refuse the order based on his personal beliefs or sexual orientation, or should he be required to write those words on a cake and sell it?
    These are good questions and I've put them to others to see what they answer.

    What I see (though most can't articulate it so well) is that the difference people see is in the case of refusing a gay couple, you have a business owner going out of their way to cast disapproval on someone who means no harm to anyone else. They want to get married which is considered a nice thing and this cake shop owner who doesn't like them doing this nice thing takes an ever so small stab at them by withholding their services.

    In the cases like the ones you provided, some jerk off wanders into a business and takes an action no once considered very nice, and most consider pretty hostile and aggressive. Refusing them is simply refusing to participate in something hateful and mean and so no one takes much exception to it.

    In the end this really boils down to a sense of what is socially kind and just and what is considered hostile and rude. We want people to be good to one another.

    That is of course not at all a legal argument but it underlies peoples motivations. Religion in this case is acting as an excuse to be rude to people. Now like I said, I feel personally we have to allow people to be rude to at least some degree to maintain a free society so I'm a little torn on how I feel about it as law even though I feel strongly that people who refuse gays service are jerks.

    I also think suing people because they won't make you a cake is pretty jerky as well.
    Last edited by Sigfried; March 29th, 2015 at 04:00 PM.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  17. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  18. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I read it carefully several times. It has huge unsupported statements and false assumptions about the law.
    But what it does not have is my "unsupported opinion that sexual orientation should be a protected class."

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    "So this law seems to make illegal behavior legal if the behavior done out of religious belief... But if the exact same thing is done out of anti-gay attitude that is not borne of religious conviction, the offenders aren't protected by the law."

    What is the supposed illegal behavior that is being made legal by religious belief?
    First off, I do not claim to have a perfect handle on the laws here. I used the word "assume" and "seems to" in the OP. But my overall argument is not based on the law being a particular thing.

    My point is IF the discrimination is illegal, it should not be allowed for the sake of religious liberty.

  19. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What I see (though most can't articulate it so well) is that the difference people see is in the case of refusing a gay couple, you have a business owner going out of their way to cast disapproval on someone who means no harm to anyone else.
    No, you have a business owner who doesn't want to give a stamp of approval on something he is morally against. Someone who simply says no, because of his own beliefs, isn't going out of his way at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    They want to get married which is considered a nice thing...
    To you, it is nice. To the business owner, not. So this argument fails as your personal opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    In the end this really boils down to a sense of what is socially kind and just and what is considered hostile and rude.
    No, the op is a misguided interpretation of law. And your argument is a personal opinion on the validity of homosexual marriage and whether a business owner should act in accordance with your personal beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Religion in this case is acting as an excuse to be rude to people.
    Biased opinion from your own personal perspective. Those with the religious views in question don't agree with you.

    ---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My point is IF the discrimination is illegal, it should not be allowed for the sake of religious liberty.
    Why not? If you're really not arguing that sexual orientation should be a protected class, then why shouldn't a constitutional right to Freedom of Religion prevail when there are no other protected rights involved on the other side?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    So tell me, why is it right to force someone to violate their religious beliefs?
    Since one is not forced to open a shop in the first place they are not forced to engage in any business practice that would violate their religious beliefs.

    And to make a clearer example of the principle, what about religious belief regarding segregation of the races? Should such a person be able to deny mixed-race couples entry to his restaurant because serving them would violate his religious beliefs?



    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    So we have to respect the homosexual lifestyle? But homosexuals don;t have to respect dissenting religious opinions?
    You don't have to respect someone's lifestyle in order to cater to them.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    The law might NOT make sense in monopolistic agencies, like utilities, etc. But wedding cakes? What better way to say, "I love you," then to sue someone rather than just go somewhere else to get a wedding cake?
    What if every baker in town had the same policy? And what if every restaurant and supermarket had the same policy? If the business community of an area had an agreed-upon policy of not serving minorities, they could keep all "undesirables" out of the area by making sure they could never obtain food.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Over time, if the decision is wrong, the business will lose out.
    That's not necessarily the case. It takes THE PEOPLE deciding to not patronize those businesses for them to lose out and there's never a guarantee that people will do the right thing, especially in certain concentrations.

    Again, why can't a group of right-wing Christians settle in large numbers in a certain state and agree that no gays shall be served food?


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    You cannot force someone to accept, or change, their religious beliefs. All the business has to do is make up another reason to 'refuse' your service, like, you have black hair or no hair - a foul odor on the owner can detect, affiliation with an anti-religious hate group, etc. and you are kind of screwed. Now you have to prove its because you are gay.
    After refusing enough gays with lame excuses, it can be shown that they are discriminating against gays.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    The fact that someone will tell you to your face, "My religious views on sexuality prevent me from supporting your choice (and pedophilia, and polygamy, and beastilaity, and swinging, and promiscuity, etc.)," is hardly grounds to sue. Unless you think that everyone has to accept ONE view on sexuality?
    The issue is not the owner agreeing with one's sexual activity. The issue is the owner refusing to sell based on discrimination based on sexual orientation (and beastiality, etc. are not sexual orientations).

    ---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Why not? If you're really not arguing that sexual orientation should be a protected class, then why shouldn't a constitutional right to Freedom of Religion prevail when there are no other protected rights involved on the other side?
    I didn't say religious freedom shouldn't prevail. I'm saying that the right to discriminate, in that situation, is not based on the right to religious freedom but just the general freedom to do what one wants barring a reason to ban such actions.

    One can discriminate based on a secular dislike of gays so the principle of religious freedom does not play into his right to discriminate.




    ---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    True, though for me in a sense it goes beyond religion and is more a question of whether being served by business is a right of sorts. It generally isn't recognized that way constitutionally and its only due to these specific discrimination laws that we have that protection. So it comes down to if there is a need for such laws and what harms they may have to ones general sense of social liberty.
    I forward the example of a restaurant not being allowed to refuse service based on race.

    I think there is a general right to be served by a licensed business. The business can refuse service in certain situations but it doesn't seem to be something that it can do whenever it wants for any reason it wants.

  21. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If sexual orientation is not a protected class then one can discriminate against it for ANY reason and therefore there is no need to invoke any particular reason, like religious freedom, in order to legally discriminate.
    And here we finally get to the real background strategy of the law, and others like it. The law is designed to protect business owners in the future, should local governments or the U.S. Congress ever pass laws giving sexual orientation a protected class status. It also protects employers from being forced to offer health insurance that covers abortions, among other things.

    The law can be read here: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/...ument-92bab197
    Last edited by evensaul; March 29th, 2015 at 02:50 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  22. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    And here we finally get to the real background strategy of the law, and others like it. The law is designed to protect business owners in the future, should local governments or the U.S. Congress ever pass laws giving sexual orientation a protected class status.
    I don't think that's accurate.

    I'm pretty sure once sexual orientation is added to federal protection those laws will trump these state laws.

    And Dio's post makes a pretty good case for ALL sides misunderstanding what the law does and it doesn't effect gay rights at all.

  23. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm pretty sure once sexual orientation is added to federal protection those laws will trump these state laws.
    I never claimed the strategy would prevail against a new federal law. I agree it would probably fail if a new Federal law is passed granting protected class status to sexual orientation. But state laws would supersede any local laws.

    Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress could have passed and signed such provisions in 2009-2010 and didn't even bother trying. Don't expect it to happen any time soon.

    Also, the Indiana law is almost a carbon copy of federal law passed by a Democratically controlled Congress and signed by Bill Clinton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...estoration_Act

    So current federal law supports the Indiana law.
    Last edited by evensaul; March 29th, 2015 at 03:22 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  24. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since one is not forced to open a shop in the first place they are not forced to engage in any business practice that would violate their religious beliefs.
    So there needs to be an ideological test to open a business to provide for your family? Aren't we now in the absolute reverse of the position you advocate?

    And to make a clearer example of the principle, what about religious belief regarding segregation of the races? Should such a person be able to deny mixed-race couples entry to his restaurant because serving them would violate his religious beliefs?
    Do you think boots in this day an age deny services openly because people are black? They just have a harder time getting jobs, getting loans, getting and education, housing, etc. ... but that's illegal.

    What is also NOT clear is that human sexuality is just inborn and inate - like skin color. Should business be REQUIRED to provide services to NAMBLA? If its in the ideological requirement to open a business?





    You don't have to respect someone's lifestyle in order to cater to them.
    You don;t have to cater to anyone you don't want to.




    What if every baker in town had the same policy? And what if every restaurant and supermarket had the same policy? If the business community of an area had an agreed-upon policy of not serving minorities, they could keep all "undesirables" out of the area by making sure they could never obtain food.
    Do they? What if aliens invaded and killed all gay people? Hypothetical appeals to extreme are not good argumentation.

    At worst? you'd have to bake your own cake.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4846812.html

    As you can see, the homosexual community does not have any qualms whatsoever about using ITS economic power to force its agenda.

    Again, you cannot, indeed should not, force someone to comply with a view of sexuality.




    That's not necessarily the case. It takes THE PEOPLE deciding to not patronize those businesses for them to lose out and there's never a guarantee that people will do the right thing, especially in certain concentrations.

    Again, why can't a group of right-wing Christians settle in large numbers in a certain state and agree that no gays shall be served food?
    Then don't patronize them. Seems simple.

    Its precisely this reason that LARGE NUMBERS OF LIKE MINDED PEOPLE segregate themselves - so they can practice their beliefs. Maybe the Evangelical movement should 'occupy San Fransisco'?

    Again, I see no reason someone should be forced to accept a lifestyle they disagree with. Should be REQUIRED to provide a service against their will.




    After refusing enough gays with lame excuses, it can be shown that they are discriminating against gays.
    If only disagreement were discrimination. I disagree with swingers ... I am such a cad. Better sue me now.




    The issue is not the owner agreeing with one's sexual activity. The issue is the owner refusing to sell based on discrimination based on sexual orientation (and beastiality, etc. are not sexual orientations).[COLOR="Silver"]
    Tell me, why are some forms of sexuality subject to denial of service and others not? Its ALL beyond choice right? Genetic?


    One can discriminate based on a secular dislike of gays so the principle of religious freedom does not play into his right to discriminate.
    That is because its not religion. Jews don;t take Easter off ... is that discrimination? Or a recognition of different religious beliefs? So if you have no religious objection to any sexual choice ... guess what you don;t then have an exemption too? Religious choices.

    Its not like the Bible is unclear on this:

    Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
    Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
    1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
    Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

    The problem here is that you are fine with other deviant forms of sexuality ... but homosexuality? We should be FORCED To tolerate that? Again, its not that I am without sympathy for homosexuals, but suing everyone who disagrees with you are attempting to force someone to accept you is ... counter productive.

    I forward the example of a restaurant not being allowed to refuse service based on race.
    And yet restraints find ways to do this ... and, gasp, the KKK has their own enclaves where no black s are allowed! Only now, we recognize them as bigots and reject them accordingly. Perhaps we should be suing them instead?

    I think there is a general right to be served by a licensed business. The business can refuse service in certain situations but it doesn't seem to be something that it can do whenever it wants for any reason it wants.
    A business is not required to take your money in exchange for service - period.

    The government, for example, cannot FORCE a company to take a contract. If a contractor feels, say the war in Afghanistan is immoral, the government cannot sue them to MAKE them produce widgets. It simply award the contract to other contractors.

    Its about the wiser path.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  25. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I forward the example of a restaurant not being allowed to refuse service based on race.

    I think there is a general right to be served by a licensed business. The business can refuse service in certain situations but it doesn't seem to be something that it can do whenever it wants for any reason it wants.
    As much as I hate racism, were it not for specific laws we have about racial discrimination, not serving people based on race would be legal. If we hadn't had slavery and a situation where blacks were second class citizens and so forth, we might not need that kind of legislation. Were it just a few scattered shop owners, there would be no real practical limitation for people, they would just go somewhere not racist. The real need for the law was that so much of society was segregated this way we needed action to make people have effective equal rights.

    Its a question of scale. If its widespread there is a compelling need for legislation, if its isolated then there isn't so much need as consumer choice can simply bypass the stalwarts of discrimination.

    ---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    No, you have a business owner who doesn't want to give a stamp of approval on something he is morally against. Someone who simply says no, because of his own beliefs, isn't going out of his way at all.
    I don't go into a shop to seek approval for the use of whatever I'm buying. It doesn't work like that. It is not a moral question for the shop keeper. I just want to give you money and you give me a cake or whatever it is. I might agree that some services would fall under that category. Actually performing a wedding as an officiant has some personal investment. Giving you flowers is not an endorsement of anything, its just goods for sale.

    The person who says no is stepping over normal bounds of privacy and making judgement where no judgement need or should be made.

    To you, it is nice. To the business owner, not. So this argument fails as your personal opinion.
    They may not feel its nice but in fact it is. It is two people loving one another and anyone who thinks that is not nice is quite frankly an idiot for thinking so. More and more sane people are coming to realize this.

    No, the op is a misguided interpretation of law. And your argument is a personal opinion on the validity of homosexual marriage and whether a business owner should act in accordance with your personal beliefs.
    That's correct. It is how a subjective moralist operates. I am free to judge the moral compass of other people as terrible and to persuade others of this and then set standards as a community entailing the social norms of polite behavior. Once bigotry towards gay people was normal but finally folks are coming around and realizing it is in fact destructive and hard hearted.

    Biased opinion from your own personal perspective. Those with the religious views in question don't agree with you.
    I don't much care what they think. Being rude because of your dogma is still being rude. I'll never be fond of the kinds of double standards that religions bring to society.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts on "Positive Liberty"
    By Castle in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 26th, 2006, 04:59 PM
  2. "Religious belief, itself, is an adaptation"
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: March 24th, 2006, 07:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •