"Religious Freedom" Laws

  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 01, 2015 1:33 PM GMT
    After all the hand-wringing over the so-called "Religious Freedom" laws, or "Anti-Gay" laws depending on your point of view, passed in Indiana, I decided to read it. Having done so I still have no idea what it says. The legalese is so thick there's no way someone without a law degree can explain it. I guess this is a case of "we'll have to pass it to see what effect it has."

    That said, this is my take on the whole situation. First of all, anyone in a business that is open to the public who refuses to serve any customer simply because of who or what that customer is doesn't have a good head for business. Secondly, anyone who uses religion as the basis for that refusal to serve is a coward who probably doesn't know much about their own religion. If serving sinners is also a sin, then the streets of Heaven would be vacant. Of course neither of these is a good reason to legally compel people in business to serve anyone, and having been in both retail and hospitality for many years I can say that businesses can and should reserve the right to refuse service, but not for any reason. That should IMO be limited to those customers who are being disruptive to the business and other customers. We once asked a family to leave the restaurant in which I worked. Was this discriminating against families or children? No. Only families who have no control over their children making for an unpleasant experience for our other guests. If a business can show me that serving gays would be disruptive, and I think they would have a very hard time doing so, then I would support their right.

    Houses of worship are a different matter. They absolutely should not be compelled to provide service to anyone against their religion. What satisfaction would a couple derive from their wedding if those at the venue are conducting it under duress? Anyone who insists on having their wedding where they aren't wanted are simply feeding their own need for attention if you ask me. I say the same for those who try to use the judiciary to force a bakery to bake a wedding cake against their own beliefs. In regards to this last example, is this something that really happens anyway? The way I keep hearing it all through this debate, you'd think gay couples were descending on homophobic bakeries across the nation.

    Further, and I have no way of knowing if laws in Indiana and elsewhere have such an exemption, but there are some businesses who absolutely should not have any basis, religious or otherwise, to refuse service to anyone other than perhaps ability to pay. Any business that is a public utility, for example, or serves the public at large, such as pharmacies and other health care facilities, banks, lenders, and other financial institutions, public transportation companies, real estate brokers and agencies, insurance companies, etc., must serve everyone equally or lose their business license.

    What say you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2015 2:22 PM GMT
    Haven't read yet in full but will. This seems the questionable law in question:

    https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568
    ...Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding...


    So if I read that summary right, it is not direct permission to discriminate but it is covert permission and given human nature maybe even encouragement to discriminate by removing the remedy of protections from discrimination. Therefore it is hideous.

    You're more than welcomed to argue this on religious grounds and I think there's plenty of that which could be skillfully debated in either direction but to me that's all distraction of minor minds.

    There comes a time when you tell religion to go fuck itself. Religion can get the fuck off our backs. We're tired of being fucked by them. Why don't they try fucking themselves for a change. That's our righteous agenda.

    I have zero issues with a club of bigots not allowing entry of the objects of their derision. They can go fuck themselves in their sanctuary. To them however, I think they ought to be charged for public services which are currently provided for free via their property tax status, that they ought to pay for municipal services of police, fire, ambulance, etc., even if not paying their fair share of public schooling.

    A bigot's business is normally not tax exempt. They participate in the overall system and ought to abide by the overall rules. This exempts that, while claiming that our equal marriage is a matter of special rights. This is bullshit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2015 3:29 PM GMT
    The SCOTUS started all this with the Hobby Lobby decision and it’s the court that is steering us into some potentially dark waters here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    Agreed, but even when the governor of Indiana is confronted with the statement he balks as Stephanopolus simple question.. that is a yes or no simple question of discrimination against gays or lesbians, and he would not even admit it...amazingicon_rolleyes.gif at line 11:10

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 1:42 AM GMT
    The Gov. Pence said it was similar to the bill that Clinton signed in 1993 and the one that Obama voted in Illinois. But critics commented that was somewhat misleading, and the White House has said that it was not the same. The bill has an expansion of "religious protection" than the one that Bill Clinton signed. Of course I don't really understand it.
    But it gives protection to not just a person, but to a corporation, partnerships, etc. Maybe that was the "expansion".
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 02, 2015 1:44 AM GMT
    Ronar2 saidThe Gov. Pence said it was similar to the bill that Clinton signed in 1993 and the one that Obama voted in Illinois. But critics commented that was somewhat misleading, and the White House has said that it was not the same. The bill has an expansion of "religious protection" than the one that Bill Clinton signed. Of course I don't really understand it.
    But it gives protection to not just a person, but to a corporation, partnerships, etc. Maybe that was the "expansion".


    This is true. The law has language that defines the word "person" as including those fictitious entities. This is part of the fallout from "Citizen's United", I guess.

    Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 02, 2015 1:48 AM GMT
    what the fuck is "religious protection/freedom" anyway?
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Apr 02, 2015 2:15 AM GMT
    Just as religious freedom does not include a right to kill, or commit acts of pedophilia, enslave, or torture, so also it does not include the right to discriminate. Religious freedom only includes the right to worship what ever gods you please and nothing more.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 02, 2015 4:29 AM GMT
    tj85016 saidwhat the fuck is "religious protection/freedom" anyway?


    It's the integration of church and state.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 02, 2015 4:31 AM GMT
    AMoonHawk saidJust as religious freedom does not include a right to kill, or commit acts of pedophilia, enslave, or torture, so also it does not include the right to discriminate. Religious freedom only includes the right to worship what ever gods you please and nothing more.


    It also doesn't include the right to apply your beliefs on others capriciously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 4:57 AM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    AMoonHawk saidJust as religious freedom does not include a right to kill, or commit acts of pedophilia, enslave, or torture, so also it does not include the right to discriminate. Religious freedom only includes the right to worship what ever gods you please and nothing more.

    It also doesn't didn't include the right to apply your beliefs on others capriciously.

    Fixed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 2:19 PM GMT
    Can't wait to see when this same law gets used on the very people who support it. Bet they will be screaming discrimination.

    If it's a Muslin based business denying a so called Christian person, the guns will come out.icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 2:52 PM GMT
    There's already some Indiana businesses that have announced they won't be serving gays & lesbians, a pizzeria among them. That owner's logic is that she chose to be a heterosexual, and gays chose to be homosexual. And so therefore it's the fault of gays if they decided to defy God's law, and as a Christian she doesn't have to serve us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 2:57 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidThere's already some Indiana businesses that have announced they won't be serving gays & lesbians, a pizzeria among them. That owner's logic is that she chose to be a heterosexual, and gays chose to be homosexual. And so therefore it's the fault of gays if they decided to defy God's law, and as a Christian she doesn't have to serve us.


    And now the pizza place is temporarily closed. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/237686-indiana-pizzeria-closes-after-threats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 3:07 PM GMT
    soulman1969 saidCan't wait to see when this same law gets used on the very people who support it. Bet they will be screaming discrimination.

    If it's a Muslin based business denying a so called Christian person, the guns will come out.icon_lol.gif


    Exactly. These laws can work both ways. It's a very slippery slope and that's why politics should not be involved. If I owned a business, I would want the right to refuse service to a customer who is being disruptive, but I wouldn't need a law for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 3:27 PM GMT
    PhoenixNYC said
    Art_Deco saidThere's already some Indiana businesses that have announced they won't be serving gays & lesbians, a pizzeria among them. That owner's logic is that she chose to be a heterosexual, and gays chose to be homosexual. And so therefore it's the fault of gays if they decided to defy God's law, and as a Christian she doesn't have to serve us.


    And now the pizza place is temporarily closed. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/237686-indiana-pizzeria-closes-after-threats.

    Right now, people are donating to that pizza place through GoFundMe website and they have raised more than $120k in 17 hours. and still counting...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 3:33 PM GMT


    Watch, and note the appalling double standard the second florist openly admitted to at the end.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 6:24 PM GMT
    These things are written so broadly (after all, they can't outright say that it's targeted at gays) that it seems to give any religious person the right to disobey any law. All they have to do is say the magic words "GAWD TOLD ME TO DO IT," or alternatively, "GAWD told me NOT to do it."

    It's basically a get-out-of-jail free card for reasons of insanity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 8:54 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidThere's already some Indiana businesses that have announced they won't be serving gays & lesbians, a pizzeria among them. That owner's logic is that she chose to be a heterosexual, and gays chose to be homosexual. And so therefore it's the fault of gays if they decided to defy God's law, and as a Christian she doesn't have to serve us.


    Essentially the law gives them the right to argue on the basis of religious beliefs.

    Here's how it's gone in court so far:

    Defendant: I refuse to serve them because they are homosexuals, and homosexuality conflicts with my religious beliefs.

    Judge: I find against the defendant because the state has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and that overrides your religious convictions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 9:07 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn said
    Art_Deco saidThere's already some Indiana businesses that have announced they won't be serving gays & lesbians, a pizzeria among them. That owner's logic is that she chose to be a heterosexual, and gays chose to be homosexual. And so therefore it's the fault of gays if they decided to defy God's law, and as a Christian she doesn't have to serve us.


    Essentially the law gives them the right to argue on the basis of religious beliefs.

    Here's how it's gone in court so far:

    Defendant: I refuse to serve them because they are homosexuals, and homosexuality conflicts with my religious beliefs.

    Judge: I find against the defendant because the state has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and that overrides your religious convictions.


    That only works in States that have a state law against discriminating against sexual orientation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2015 9:57 PM GMT
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/30/businesses-serving-same-sex-couples/
  • LJay

    Posts: 11612

    Apr 03, 2015 3:39 AM GMT
    Odd, isn't it, that we already have a tradition of religious freedom and the establishment clause in the Constitution designed to keep the government out of the religious sphere, but that these religious freedom laws seem to be asking the government to become engaged in the direct endorsement of specific sectarian beliefs, even as interpreted by lay people, who may or may not have any particular learned acquaintance with theology or law. Franky, I think the religious freedom laws are unconstitutional.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 03, 2015 3:59 AM GMT
    NYT: Legal experts saw the initial bills in Indiana and Arkansas as going further than most other such laws in several important ways, including granting protections to corporations, rather than just individuals and family businesses, and allowing people to claim the law’s protection in lawsuits between private citizens.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/us/indiana-arkansas-religious-freedom-bill.html
  • honestsweat

    Posts: 183

    Apr 03, 2015 10:08 AM GMT
    Religious freedom legislation is an easy way for legislators to focus on the hypothetical and avoid working on the issues that matter.

    They are the classic example of distracting an electorate from matters of importance.

    Ethics? Nah.
    Education? Nah.
    Infrastructure repairs? Never.
    Health care? Danger!
    Access to a stable food supply? Harrumph.
    Providing those in need with access to tools so they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps & rebuild their lives? How silly.
    Fiscal responsibility by a state's leaders? I'd rather talk about the Bible, they say.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 03, 2015 3:05 PM GMT


    All of those laws fly directly in the face of...

    11096658_10153244555269255_6458818501382