jasper76 wrote: @PJ: Don't have answers to all to all of your questions, but if the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act are amended to include sexual orientation, then at least homosexuals would have the same baseline protections available to the rest of us.
After that, the courts can figure out the details of whether a baker is taking part in a Religious ceremony by virtue of baking a cake, and other similar questions.
I don't have the answers either. I do think it's telling that most of the hypothetical situations I've heard/seen of LGBT descrimination under RFRA laws involve gay weddings not just refusing to do any business with LGBT people. If the key sticking point with descrimination is going to involve weddings then being in a protected class isn't going to solve anything because religion will still be involved and RFRA laws could come into play.
Gay wedding participation is a relatively niche issue. Widespread descrimination against LGBT people in Indiana should be fairly plain to see if it's happening and can be solved with various forms of legislation that wouldn't have an impact on the gay wedding conflicts.
jasper76 wrote: No one is forcing anyone to go into a business that provides public accomadations.
Same old tyrannical argument: if you want a business, you do not qualify for religious freedom. And again -- that kind of thinking is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights.
jasper76 wrote: People that make that choice already cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin, even though doing so may hypothetically violate their religious beliefs. I'd just like to see sexual orientation added to the list.
You keep bringing up this issue of adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the CRA. The only sense in which that is relevant here is, that and state non-discrimination laws are exactly what make RFRAs necessary.
Prestor Jon wrote: Widespread descrimination against LGBT people in Indiana should be fairly plain to see if it's happening and can be solved with various forms of legislation that wouldn't have an impact on the gay wedding conflicts.
Excellent point, echoing Dreadclaw69's point yesterday that it is difficult to see how, for example, selling food to a gay person imposes on anyone's religious liberty. Being coerced by the government into participating in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is quite another matter.
There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.
The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.
jasper76 wrote: No one is forcing anyone to go into a business that provides public accomadations.
Same old tyrannical argument: if you want a business, you do not qualify for religious freedom. And again -- that kind of thinking is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights
ZSo I take it from this that you think that the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act are tyrannical? By entering a business that provides public accomodations, you are subject to the first, and by being a landlord, you are subject to the second.
Prestor Jon wrote: Widespread descrimination against LGBT people in Indiana should be fairly plain to see if it's happening and can be solved with various forms of legislation that wouldn't have an impact on the gay wedding conflicts.
Not only should it be plain to see, but given the fact that before SB101 was passed homosexuality was not a protected class, there should be an abundance of evidence of this discrimination.
Manchu wrote: You keep bringing up this issue of adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the CRA. The only sense in which that is relevant here is, that and state non-discrimination laws are exactly what make RFRAs necessary.
If sexual orientation is added to the Civil Rights Act, then businesses that provide public accomodations would be forbidden to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, the very kind of discrimination that the Indiana bill potentially allows. When it comes to businesses providing public accomodations, discrimination based on race, religion, race, and nation of original, it is already illegal federally, and to my knowledge no amount of relgious objection makes it illegal.
Manchu: Do you believe that sexual orientation should be a protected category? If so or if not, why?
jasper76 wrote: So I take it from this that you think that the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act are tyrannical?
Ah, the first straw man of the day.
Keep in mind that the requirements of laws are not absolute. They are limited by rights. Similarly, rights are not absolute. They are limited by the commonweal.
jasper76 wrote: So I take it from this that you think that the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act are tyrannical?
Ah, the first straw man of the day.
Keep in mind that the requirements of laws are not absolute. They are limited by rights. Similarly, rights are not absolute. They are limited by the commonweal.
So you really think a business can get away with turning down people on the basis of race, so long as they can find a religious reason to do so?
Manhcu: Do you believe sexual orientation should be a protected category under ther Civil Rights Act If so or if not, why?
jasper76 wrote: If sexual orientation is added to the Civil Rights Act, then businesses that provide public accomodations would be forbidden to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, the very kind of discrimination that the Indiana bill potentially allows.
You have it backwards -- the point of RFRAs is to protect people (and in Indiana, privately held businesses) from laws that impose on their religious liberty ... yes, including the CRA and state non-discrimination laws.
jasper76 wrote: Manchu: Do you believe that sexual orientation should be a protected category? If so or if not, why?
jasper76 wrote: Manhcu: Do you believe sexual orientation should be a protected category under ther Civil Rights Act If so or if not, why?
I know this is what you really want to discuss but it is off-topic, except as clarified above ... and honestly I have nothing to say about it.
jasper76 wrote: So you really think a business can get away with turning down people on the basis of race, so long as they can find a religious reason to do so?
No. They must also show that the religious belief is sincerely held, that the CRA significantly burdens their religious liberty, and that the CRA is not the least intrusive manner in which the government can pursue its compelling interest in discouraging racial discrimination.
I respect your decision not to answer my question, but it's far from off topic. Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: No. They must also show the religious belief is sincerely held, the CRA significantly burdens their religious liberty, and that CRA is not the least intrusive manner in which the government can pursue its compelling interest in discouraging racial discrimination.
And how does one prove their religious belief is "sincerely held"? Lie detector test? Is there some kind of chemical test kit? Ability to charm a judge?
jasper76 wrote: I respect your decision not to answer my question, but it's far from off topic. Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.
I'm reminded of the whole arizona "what does an illegal immigrant look like?" situation. What does a gay person look like?
Also, when it comes to the example of wedding photography, it's as easy as just claiming that date is already booked.
It's difficult to prove discrimination in a lot of instances. Look at hiring. The other problem is when people develop a chip on their shoulder, it's difficult sometimes to distinguish what they're projecting and what's actually real discrimination. It's like on seinfeld where uncle leo starts claiming everyone is an anti-semite for the slightest of reasons. Jerry does a bit on it.
jasper76 wrote: Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.
As explained above, you are mistaken.
jasper76 wrote: And how does one prove their religious belief is "sincerely held"? Lie detector test? Is there some kind of chemical test kit? Ability to charm a judge?
Judging by the case law, it seems like there is effectively a presumption of sincerity that can be rebutted by evidence that the belief is a sham.
skyth wrote: There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.
The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.
The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community is forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?
jasper76 wrote: Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.
As explained above, you are mistaken.
jasper76 wrote: And how does one prove their religious belief is "sincerely held"? Lie detector test? Is there some kind of chemical test kit? Ability to charm a judge?
Judging by the case law, it seems like there is effectively a presumption of sincerity that can be rebutted by evidence that the belief is a sham.
You'll have to point out to me what specific explanation you are talking about, because I have yet to see one that has convinced me that sexual orientation in the Civil Rihts Act would not help shield homosexuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Do you even feel that homosexuals should be protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation. If you don't, then there's realluy no point in arguing anymore , because that would be a fundamental disagreement as pertains to our current conversation.
The CRA disallows discrimination based on certain categories. The RFRA requires courts to apply a strict scrutiny test in determining whether a law (including the CRA) violates the First Amendment. If in a certain case, a court finds that applying the CRA would violate the First Amendment, the First Amendment trumps.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Do you even feel that homosexuals should be protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I don't think a person should be treated poorly because they are homosexual. But I am not sure how that sentiment best translates into a law.
skyth wrote: There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.
Forcing someone else to participate in your activity is the person doing the forcing, not the person who doesn't want to be involved. You're forcing your beliefs on another person when you force them to work for you. Why do you like slavery so much?
skyth wrote: There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.
The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.
The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community if forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?
Because they are not forcing their beliefs on the business owner. They are not requiring the business owner to marry someone of the same sex. THAT would be forcing their beliefs on the business owner. Having the business owner do the same thing that they always do is not an impositon of beliefs.
This is like saying that an atheist tax preparer that refuses to put donations to a church as a charitable donation on the tax return is in the right.
A couple contacting someone in the wedding industry, the sexual orientation will be made quite obvious. Not the same in food/retail because unless two women/men stroll in holding hands or refer to one another with some sort of romantic affectation "what do you want to order honey?" ect it's difficult to know an individuals sexual orientation simply by looking at them. Hence referencing the arizona law that was absurd at face value because you'd either be stopping everyone who looks hispanic and illegal immigrants don't walk around with a sign on them saying they're illegal immigrants. I would assume bisexual, gay or lesbian individuals don't often make a habit of communicating their sexual preference on their shirts.
Interestingly, at least one federal agency, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission has stated that Title VII applies to the LGBT community under the "Sex" provision and has filed suit without any amendment to the CRA.
In 2012, the EEOC held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Commission has also found that discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals based on sex-stereotypes, such as the belief that men should only date women or that women should only marry men, is discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII.
Reference:
EEOC v. Lakeland Eye Clinic, P.A.
EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc.
It's not a large jump to go from application of this interpretation for employment and apply it to other areas.
Manchu wrote: The CRA disallows discrimination based on certain categories. The RFRA requires courts to apply a strict scrutiny test in determining whether a law (including the CRA) violates the First Amendment. If in a certain case, a court finds that applying the CRA would violate the First Amendment, the First Amendment trumps.
I don't disagree. Are there any existing examples of the CRA bring deemed unconstitutional? I don't know the answer to this precisely, but since it's a current law all businesses that provide public avcomodations are subject to, that suggests that it has never been shown to violate the First Amendment.
skyth wrote: There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.
The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.
The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community if forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?
Because they are not forcing their beliefs on the business owner. They are not requiring the business owner to marry someone of the same sex. THAT would be forcing their beliefs on the business owner. Having the business owner do the same thing that they always do is not an impositon of beliefs.
Then, by that same logic, nether would the business owner be imposing their beliefs on the homosexual couple. The business owner is not preventing them from being married, nor is the business owner stating that they shouldn't be married. The business owner is simply refusing to participate in or assist with a ritual that the business owners' religion prevents them from participating in or assisting with.
Manchu wrote: The CRA disallows discrimination based on certain categories. The RFRA requires courts to apply a strict scrutiny test in determining whether a law (including the CRA) violates the First Amendment. If in a certain case, a court finds that applying the CRA would violate the First Amendment, the First Amendment trumps.
I don't disagree.
Sure you do or at least you did:
jasper76 wrote: Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.
... which is mistaken, as I have repeatedly explained.
jasper76 wrote: Are there any existing examples of the CRA bring deemed unconstitutional? I don't know the answer to this precisely, but since it's a current law all businesses that provide public avcomodations are subject to, that suggests that it has never been shown to violate the First Amendment.
This is incoherent. The CRA would not be entirely struck down because a given application was deemed unconstitutional. Also, your constant refrain of "public accommodation" side steps the distinction in question, namely:
Manchu wrote: [...] Dreadclaw69's point yesterday that it is difficult to see how, for example, selling food to a gay person imposes on anyone's religious liberty. Being coerced by the government into participating in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is quite another matter.
On that note:
Crablezworth wrote: it's difficult to know an individuals sexual orientation simply by looking at them
Agreed BUT I think what people are worried about is that allowing businesses to discriminate against homosexuals will foster a larger climate of prejudice where gay people (once again) have to keep under the radar. I don't always hold my wife's hand in public. But, come to think of it, I do like the fact that no one would throw me out of their business for doing so. It is totally understandable that gay people feel the same way. OTOH, I don't think the Indiana RFRA as it currently stands would allow business owners to throw people out or refuse service simply because a prospective patron is evidently homosexual (much less suspected of being homosexual).
Frazzled wrote: Forcing someone else to participate in your activity is the person doing the forcing
This point is apparently obscure ... although I cannot explain why.
Manchu wrote: The CRA disallows discrimination based on certain categories. The RFRA requires courts to apply a strict scrutiny test in determining whether a law (including the CRA) violates the First Amendment. If in a certain case, a court finds that applying the CRA would violate the First Amendment, the First Amendment trumps.
I don't disagree.
Sure you do or at least you did:
jasper76 wrote: Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.
... which is mistaken, as I have repeatedly explained.
jasper76 wrote: Are there any existing examples of the CRA bring deemed unconstitutional? I don't know the answer to this precisely, but since it's a current law all businesses that provide public avcomodations are subject to, that suggests that it has never been shown to violate the First Amendment.
This is incoherent. The CRA would not be entirely struck down because a given application was deemed unconstitutional. Also, your constant refrain of "public accommodation" side steps the distinction in question, namely:
Manchu wrote: [...] Dreadclaw69's point yesterday that it is difficult to see how, for example, selling food to a gay person imposes on anyone's religious liberty. Being coerced by the government into participating in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is quite another matter.
I use the phrase "public accomdations", because that is he language of the CRA.
Selling food to a gay person may pose no imposition to your religion, but if you made up a religion that did say so, it would. Providing housing to a homosexual couple could easily be construed as a violation of someone's religion, because by providing housing, you'd be complicit in the cohabitation.
And as the thousands of existing and extinct forms of religion suggest, religion is basically whatever you want it to be, the Bible and other religious texts can be interpreted however you want it to be, etc.
This is simply a bad faith argument (no pun intended).
jasper76 wrote: Providing housing to a homosexual couple could easily be construed as a violation of someone's religion, because by providing housing, you'd be complicit in the cohabitation.
The FFHA does not preclude land lords from discriminating on the basis of marital status. In some states, land lords may refuse to rent to unmarried couples (and married couples). Can a land lord refuse to rent to a married gay couple if they do not refuse to rent to a married straight couple? Arguably, no (assuming non-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation) -- because the state rather than any church decides who is married. Legally, people are either married or they are not married. Whether an individual or religious institution considers the marriage valid is immaterial.
Your argument is not simply that someone invents a religion but that someone invents a religion specifically to discriminate against others.
Back in real life, we are not talking about a religion that was invented by any of the people who hold it, much less invented by them to circumvent existing or prospective laws.
skyth wrote: There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.
The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.
The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community if forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?
Because they are not forcing their beliefs on the business owner. They are not requiring the business owner to marry someone of the same sex. THAT would be forcing their beliefs on the business owner. Having the business owner do the same thing that they always do is not an impositon of beliefs.
Then, by that same logic, nether would the business owner be imposing their beliefs on the homosexual couple. The business owner is not preventing them from being married, nor is the business owner stating that they shouldn't be married. The business owner is simply refusing to participate in or assist with a ritual that the business owners' religion prevents them from participating in or assisting with.
Nope. By acting not as a public accomodation, they are trying to keep someone else from not following the tenets of their religion. There is an ecpectation that a business not discriminate as far as customers are concerned.
This doesn't mean they have to serve people who want something out of the usual. If you only provide something a certain way (as in, you only provide sandwhiches with ham in them, a customer has no right to expect a turkey samdwhich). As a business, you have a right as to what to sell, but not who to sell to. I would put an ecception for rude customers or customers who wamt to harm someone. However, these can't be based on who the person is. A homosexual holding their partner's hand is not rude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Your argument is not simply that someone invents a religion but that someone invents a religion specifically to discriminate against others.
Back in real life, we are not talking about a religion that was invented by any of the people who hold it, much less invented by them to circumvent existing or prospective laws.
It's pretyy common for someone's god to hate every type of person that they do.
OK, I see your point of contention. I guess I don't see any fundamental difference between a religion that was made up last week and one that was made up last millennium.
In any case, it's clear that there are religions (no matter when they were developed) that do have an apparent interest in discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Theor spokespeople have been all over the news lately, so I know they already exist. Hopefully, time will show that they are in the (vocal) minority.
Do you have a right to force people to participate in your rituals that impose on their religious values?
NO
Do you have a right not to be forced to participate in other people's rituals that impose on your religious values?
YES
jasper76 wrote: I guess I don't see any fundamental difference between a religion that was made up last week and one that was made up last millennium.
Fine but that is not the distinction in question.
jasper76 wrote: In any case, it's clear that there are religions (no matter when they were developed) that do have an apparent interest in discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
This is also incoherent. You're talking about a religion (having interests) as if it is a person or institution. Do you mean church? In fact, the subject is the right of the human person to religious liberty. Yes of course humans have an interest in their religious liberty.
There is a HUGE difference between participating in a ritual and providing a customary service. By baking a wedding cake, you are not participating in a ritual.
skyth wrote: There is a HUGE difference between participating in a ritual and providing a customary service. By baking a wedding cake, you are not participating in a ritual.
skyth wrote: By baking a wedding cake, you are not participating in a ritual.
A court may find that to be true -- in which case, there is no imposition upon religious liberty and the discrimination would be illegal. The Indiana RFRA would not change that (presuming Indiana eventually passes non-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation).
skyth wrote: There is a HUGE difference between participating in a ritual and providing a customary service. By baking a wedding cake, you are not participating in a ritual.
Unless you are acting as a religious officiant, the argumement that MY religion says that YOU are not allowed to do something is never a valid reason for a busoness to deny service.
Machu I'd argue that they are just pulling a stunt. To prove otherwise they are going to have to show proof someone, anyone has ever ordered pizzas for a gay wedding, or any wedding.
Somehow, Christians can sympathize when people revile, persecute, and say all manner of evil against you falsely. Go figure.
skyth wrote: Unless you are acting as a religious officiant, the argumement that MY religion says that YOU are not allowed to do something is never a valid reason for a busoness to deny service.
Good thing the actual argument is MY religion prevents ME from doing something.
Frazzled wrote: Machu I'd argue that they are just pulling a stunt. To prove otherwise they are going to have to show proof someone, anyone has ever ordered pizzas for a gay wedding, or any wedding.
I call BS. A reporter asked these folks if they would refuse to cater a gay wedding. They answered that they would. In response, they received massive amounts of threats, insults, and other harassment.
Ahtman wrote: The pizza place wasn't even asked to do anything as far as I know, they just proffered it up without provocation, which seems a bit like trolling.
1. Make baseless statement known to anger a small segment of internet.
2. Get GoFundMe money from other small segment of idiots on internet
3. Profit?
skyth wrote: There is a HUGE difference between participating in a ritual and providing a customary service. By baking a wedding cake, you are not participating in a ritual.
Likewise not providing a cake has absolutely no impact on the ability of the couple in question to get married. No one is harmed or prevented from doing what they want when a baker/florist/photographer/caterer refuses to provide services for a wedding. The wedding can still take place it is not prohibited or inhibited in any meaningful or burdensome way. My wedding cake was made by the bakery section in Walmart, it was tasty, the wedding wasn't adversely affected because no bakery was involved.
Somehow, Christians can sympathize when people revile, persecute, and say all manner of evil against you falsely. Go figure.
skyth wrote: Unless you are acting as a religious officiant, the argumement that MY religion says that YOU are not allowed to do something is never a valid reason for a busoness to deny service.
Good thing the actual argument is MY religion prevents ME from doing something.
No it wasn't. That would be a valid argument if the argumemt was that my religion doesn't allow me to bake cakes. As soon as my ability to bake cakes depends on you following my religion, the argument fails.
As far as I can tell, they believe homosexual acts are sinful and therefore reasonably refuse to participate in a public celebration of homosexual relationships. I don't think that makes them bigots. But I do think we have a culture of kneejerk invective-hurling.
Somehow, Christians can sympathize when people revile, persecute, and say all manner of evil against you falsely. Go figure.
skyth wrote: Unless you are acting as a religious officiant, the argumement that MY religion says that YOU are not allowed to do something is never a valid reason for a busoness to deny service.
Good thing the actual argument is MY religion prevents ME from doing something.
No it wasn't. That would be a valid argument if the argumemt was that my religion doesn't allow me to bake cakes. As soon as my ability to bake cakes depends on you following my religion, the argument fails.
You keep pushing a perception that religion is like a hobby, skill, or day-event and it's not.
Manchu wrote: Good thing the actual argument is MY religion prevents ME from doing something.
No it wasn't. That would be a valid argument if the argumemt was that my religion doesn't allow me to bake cakes. As soon as my ability to bake cakes depends on you following my religion, the argument fails.
The hypothetical argument is, my religion does not allow me to participate in homosexual marriages. As Stonebeard and Prestor Jon already explained to you, this is not the same as forcing someone else not to get married.
Then you are free not to be in the business of making cakes. As soon as you open a business you are expectef to serve the public regardless if they follow your religion.
As far as I can tell, they believe homosexual acts are sinful and therefore reasonably refuse to participate in a public celebration of homosexual relationships. I don't think that makes them bigots. But I do think have a culture of kneejerk invective-hurling.
Yet don't they also serve people who do other sinful things? Why focus on this one sin and ignore any other?
Also it kept trying to spell sinful and sinflu, which is a virus that attacks the soul.
skyth wrote: And again...baking a cake is not participating in a wedding.
And again:
Manchu wrote: A court may find that to be true -- in which case, there is no imposition upon religious liberty and the discrimination would be illegal. The Indiana RFRA would not change that (presuming Indiana eventually passes non-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation).
Frazzled wrote: Machu I'd argue that they are just pulling a stunt. To prove otherwise they are going to have to show proof someone, anyone has ever ordered pizzas for a gay wedding, or any wedding.
I call BS. A reporter asked these folks if they would refuse to cater a gay wedding. They answered that they would. In response, they received massive amounts of threats, insults, and other harassment.
Why was the reporter there in the first place? I will admit I could be wrong.
As far as I can tell, they believe homosexual acts are sinful and therefore reasonably refuse to participate in a public celebration of homosexual relationships. I don't think that makes them bigots. But I do think we have a culture of kneejerk invective-hurling.
Actually it does make them bigots. Same as if they believed mixed race marriages are wrong.
Somehow, Christians can sympathize when people revile, persecute, and say all manner of evil against you falsely. Go figure.
skyth wrote: Unless you are acting as a religious officiant, the argumement that MY religion says that YOU are not allowed to do something is never a valid reason for a busoness to deny service.
Good thing the actual argument is MY religion prevents ME from doing something.
No it wasn't. That would be a valid argument if the argumemt was that my religion doesn't allow me to bake cakes. As soon as my ability to bake cakes depends on you following my religion, the argument fails.
Determining the scope and content of peoples' religious beliefs isn't the point of RFRA laws. RFRA laws exist to provide a framework for the court system to determine if the state has a compelling interest to inhibit or prohibit the practice of peoples' religious beliefs.
Your opinion of whether or not baking a cake for a gay wedding meets the threshold for participating in a religious ceremony is irrelevent. The RFRA law exists to allow the courts to determine if the state has a compelling reason to force a bakery to bake a cake for a gay wedding against the objection of the baker.
Have any homosexual couples gotten married in Indiana? Did they have cake? Are there any instances of homosexual couples not being able to find service providers for their weddings in Indiana?
The pizza place is just another example of people misconstruing the way RFRA laws work. There is no reason for a pizzaria to preemptively announce that they aren't going to cater homosexual weddings because SB101 doesn't get invoked even if a homosexual couple asked the pizzaria to cater their wedding because there is no state or federal law that would force the pizzaria to cater to a homosexual wedding.
Is every restaurant in Indiana required by law to provide catering services to a homosexual wedding if such service is requested? No? Then it's not now and never has been, and issue to be resolved by a RFRA law.
As far as I can tell, they believe homosexual acts are sinful and therefore reasonably refuse to participate in a public celebration of homosexual relationships. I don't think that makes them bigots.
You'll probably find that the fact they openly stated that they think people choose to be gay apparently in the same way that they choose to heterosexual -- used to be a form that arrived in the mail when you hit 12 or 13 but can now do it online -- generally makes them out to be donkey caves, and absolutely massive ones at that too.
But YMMV.
But I do think we have a culture of kneejerk invective-hurling.
It's lucky the gay community has always received such positive praise and support from those who disagree with them.
Ahtman wrote: Yet don't they also serve people who do other sinful things? Why focus on this one sin and ignore any other?
Which other sin that you have in mind involves a public ritual of celebration and approval by the gathered community?
I suppose divorced people getting married. Divorce is often not kindly looked upon, and in some religions is taboo as well. There are a few others but they are generally as archaic and come more from the Old Testament or other religions, or were just created post-Jesus. Of course 'sin' isn't exactly a scientific term so there tends to be lots of thoughts about what it means, unless it is the sinflu virus of course.
As far as I can tell, they believe homosexual acts are sinful and therefore reasonably refuse to participate in a public celebration of homosexual relationships. I don't think that makes them bigots. But I do think we have a culture of kneejerk invective-hurling.
Actually it does make them bigots. Same as if they believed mixed race marriages are wrong.
Interesting view. by this standard, anyone who refuses to condone the activities of others is a bigot.
Tell me, do you condone child brides or are you a bigot?
Prestor Jon wrote: Is every restaurant in Indiana required by law to provide catering services to a homosexual wedding if such service is requested? No? Then it's not now and never has been, and issue to be resolved by a RFRA law.
In fairness, I think the clear point of the Indiana RFRA is to expand the federal one by including privately-held businesses in anticipation of federal and state non-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation.
Frazzled wrote: Why was the reporter there in the first place?
To create a product called scandal which is marketed by fanning the flames of outrage.
Everybody needs content, man. The 24 hour news cycle must be fed, websites must get traffic, televised programming must get viewers.
If you would up those production values for the weiner dog olympics I'm sure you'd get offers from networks looking for content (the opening torch lighting ceremonies are little lacking by current standards).
Frazzled wrote: by this standard, anyone who refuses to condone the activities of others is a bigot
Correction -- anyone who disagrees with skyth (and therefore, one feels safe to assume, whatever values currently enjoy the best market optics) is a bigot.
As far as I can tell, they believe homosexual acts are sinful and therefore reasonably refuse to participate in a public celebration of homosexual relationships. I don't think that makes them bigots. But I do think we have a culture of kneejerk invective-hurling.
Fine, that may be the argument they are falling back on, but look at the situation these people created.
They were not approached by a homosexual couple to cater their wedding (wedding pizza...haha Indiana) and instead decided to drum up some publicity by stating that they would never participate in a gay wedding. Okay. Great, but no one asked them in the first place to do any such thing. They wanted to get the word out about their business, likely in the hope of attracting other bigots to their restaurant in solidarity, and instead they kicked a hornets nest of public opinion. They are bigots who wanted attention. They got attention. The country knows they are bigots and donkey-caves, and other bigots and donkey-caves are giving them money.
Frazzled wrote: Machu I'd argue that they are just pulling a stunt. To prove otherwise they are going to have to show proof someone, anyone has ever ordered pizzas for a gay wedding, or any wedding.
I call BS. A reporter asked these folks if they would refuse to cater a gay wedding. They answered that they would. In response, they received massive amounts of threats, insults, and other harassment.
Why was the reporter there in the first place? I will admit I could be wrong.
Trawling for a story... and they GOT ONE!
Anyone have pizza at their wedding?
I'm getting married in the fall... and, I'm sorely tempted dude... tempted.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The country knows they are bigots and donkey-caves, and other bigots and donkey-caves are giving them money.
And again:
Manchu wrote: As far as I can tell, they believe homosexual acts are sinful and therefore reasonably refuse to participate in a public celebration of homosexual relationships. I don't think that makes them bigots. But I do think we have a culture of kneejerk invective-hurling..
Frazzled wrote: Machu I'd argue that they are just pulling a stunt. To prove otherwise they are going to have to show proof someone, anyone has ever ordered pizzas for a gay wedding, or any wedding.
I call BS. A reporter asked these folks if they would refuse to cater a gay wedding. They answered that they would. In response, they received massive amounts of threats, insults, and other harassment.
Why was the reporter there in the first place? I will admit I could be wrong.
Trawling for a story... and they GOT ONE!
Did the reporter misrepresent this family by altering the context or words that they spoke? Did this family choose to voice their opinions to a news reporter? But yeah, blame this on the media.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The country knows they are bigots and donkey-caves, and other bigots and donkey-caves are giving them money.
And again:
Manchu wrote: As far as I can tell, they believe homosexual acts are sinful and therefore reasonably refuse to participate in a public celebration of homosexual relationships. I don't think that makes them bigots. But I do think we have a culture of kneejerk invective-hurling..
Ooo! I can do this too.
And again:
DarkTraveler777 wrote: They were not approached by a homosexual couple to cater their wedding (wedding pizza...haha Indiana) and instead decided to drum up some publicity by stating that they would never participate in a gay wedding. Okay. Great, but no one asked them in the first place to do any such thing. They wanted to get the word out about their business, likely in the hope of attracting other bigots to their restaurant in solidarity, and instead they kicked a hornets nest of public opinion. They are bigots who wanted attention. They got attention.
I left off the rest because you conveniently quoted it above.
There are actual reasons beyond gods that we don't let adults marry and do it with kids.
The child bride question was an extreme example after Frazz asked another community member to clarify whether "anyone who refuses to condone the activities of others is a bigot. ". There was no attempt to equivocate homosexuality and child brides.
Prestor Jon wrote: Is every restaurant in Indiana required by law to provide catering services to a homosexual wedding if such service is requested? No? Then it's not now and never has been, and issue to be resolved by a RFRA law.
In fairness, I think the clear point of the Indiana RFRA is to expand the federal one by including privately-held businesses in anticipation of federal and state non-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation.
I can see that reasoning and motivation for passing RFRA laws but I still don't see how they would come in to play unless anti descrimination legislation actively forces private business to participate in gay weddings. I can understand a level of apprehension about LGBT non descrimination laws from a certain segment of the population but I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive. If business are serving LGBT people when those people enter the premises of the business and ask for the same service normally provided to any other customer on the premises then why would there be a groundswell of support for anti descrimination legislation that specifically targets LGBT people? Are LGBT people routinely denied standard service by private business in Indiana? If they don't currently face such descrimination why is a law needed to remedy descrimination that isn't happening?
Again, the issue seems to be narrowly focused on weddings. Not that restaurants won't seat LGBT people that want to eat there but that there's a fear of restaurants all over Indiana not being willing to cater homosexual weddings. That strikes me as a really narrow and rare hypothetical to make such a ruckus over.
In the interviews I've seen/heard about RFRA laws given by politicians recently they all make a point to relate the RFRA laws to the Hobby Lobby case which makes me think that poking holes in the ACA is another driving force behind RFRA laws.
Manchu wrote: Which other sin that you have in mind involves a public ritual of celebration and approval by the gathered community?
I suppose divorced people getting married.
That's a good example. Discrimination against divorced people dramatically fell during the late 20th Century ... and yet not as a result of non-discrimination laws. In fact, divorce was already theologically acceptable to numerically dominant Protestants. That leaves the Catholic minority, whose adherence to doctrine was badly shaken at the same time by the teaching that it is immoral for married people to use contraceptives. So -- why might a Catholic in 2015 not object to catering the second marriage of another Catholic? Pretty simply ... because it does not impose upon their own conscience. Protecting individual conscience is the essence of religious liberty. While it may not trouble one Catholic, it could trouble another. That's why the test does not require showing that one's religious belief is "accurate" to the some doctrine. The state is not allowed to get involved with such determinations. But can, for example, a Catholic attorney refuse to take divorce cases? Yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The Internet Hate Machine has been surpassed by the Internet Outrage Machine.
Prestor Jon wrote: I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive.
The gay rights lobby is no longer about an urgent need to prevent actual discrimination (contrast this to the Civil Rights Movement). Thanks to the radical change in public opinion about the morality (or rather amorality) of homosexuality, the gay rights movement has become infested with strident triumphalism. It's not enough that most people are okay with homosexuality; now they need to make sure anyone who isn't is publicly reviled and humiliated.
Prestor Jon wrote: I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive.
The gay rights lobby is no longer about an urgent need to prevent actual discrimination (contrast this to the Civil Rights Movement). Thanks to the radical change in public opinion about the morality (or rather amorality) of homosexuality, the gay rights movement has become infested with strident triumphalism. It's not enough that most people are okay with homosexuality; now they need to make sure anyone who isn't is publicly reviled and humiliated.
It's like they've won the war... and now going back to look for wounded survivors to execute.
Nope. Different animal. There's this thing called informed consent. That is what makes that wrong. There is quite a difference between homosexuals and pedophiles.
Prestor Jon wrote: In the interviews I've seen/heard about RFRA laws given by politicians recently they all make a point to relate the RFRA laws to the Hobby Lobby case which makes me think that poking holes in the ACA is another driving force behind RFRA laws.
Yeah, Republicans won a major victory with HobbyLobby and are trying to shore up their position looking forward. As far as I can tell, however, there is nothing a RFRA could do about the ACA that HobbyLobby doesn't accomplish. But there is always the chance the Supreme Court will read HobbyLobby narrowly or even eventually reverse (in like 25 years maybe) so you need reinforcement. But let me say, I don't think HobbyLobby is solely a matter of partisan resistance to the ACA. There is a genuine question of religious liberty there, same with RFRAs.
Prestor Jon wrote: I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive.
The gay rights lobby is no longer about an urgent need to prevent actual discrimination (contrast this to the Civil Rights Movement). Thanks to the radical change in public opinion about the morality (or rather amorality) of homosexuality, the gay rights movement has become infested with strident triumphalism. It's not enough that most people are okay with homosexuality; now they need to make sure anyone who isn't is publicly reviled and humiliated.
It's like they've won the war... and now going back to look for wounded survivors to execute.
What war are they meant to have won? Gay marriage? Not in many statea. And there are still no union-wide protections against employment discrimination, housing discrimination, or, as this episode has put into such clear relief, discrimination from private businesses on the basis of sexual orientation.
I do however agree that the tone of the argument is in many places uncivil.
Prestor Jon wrote: In the interviews I've seen/heard about RFRA laws given by politicians recently they all make a point to relate the RFRA laws to the Hobby Lobby case which makes me think that poking holes in the ACA is another driving force behind RFRA laws.
Yeah, Republicans won a major victory with HobbyLobby and are trying to shore up their position looking forward. As far as I can tell, however, there is nothing a RFRA could do about the ACA that HobbyLobby doesn't accomplish. But there is always the chance the Supreme Court will read HobbyLobby narrowly or even eventually reverse (in like 25 years maybe) so you need reinforcement. But let me say, I don't think HobbyLobby is solely a matter of partisan resistance to the ACA. There is a genuine question of religious liberty there, same with RFRAs.
Prestor Jon wrote: I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive.
The gay rights lobby is no longer about an urgent need to prevent actual discrimination (contrast this to the Civil Rights Movement). Thanks to the radical change in public opinion about the morality (or rather amorality) of homosexuality, the gay rights movement has become infested with strident triumphalism. It's not enough that most people are okay with homosexuality; now they need to make sure anyone who isn't is publicly reviled and humiliated.
It's like they've won the war... and now going back to look for wounded survivors to execute.
They haven't won the war yet. Gay marriage still isn't legal in all states and sexual orientation is not a protected class.
And much like racists, anti-homosexual bigots need to be revilled and shamed.
There are actual reasons beyond gods that we don't let adults marry and do it with kids.
The child bride question was an extreme example after Frazz asked another community member to clarify whether "anyone who refuses to condone the activities of others is a bigot. ". There was no attempt to equivocate homosexuality and child brides.
Exactly. Other substitutes would be -a polygamous marriage, or marriage of someone (or both who are divorced). I actually do know of people who won't provide services or attend weddings of people who were previously divorced. They're not hostile, they just believe in one marriage only.
Prestor Jon wrote: I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive.
The gay rights lobby is no longer about an urgent need to prevent actual discrimination (contrast this to the Civil Rights Movement). Thanks to the radical change in public opinion about the morality (or rather amorality) of homosexuality, the gay rights movement has become infested with strident triumphalism. It's not enough that most people are okay with homosexuality; now they need to make sure anyone who isn't is publicly reviled and humiliated.
It's like they've won the war... and now going back to look for wounded survivors to execute.
Or in reaction to real laws being proposed or passed that actively demonize them. In my state, a proposed law to support Gay Conversion Therapy or the forced brainwashing of a professed gay person to think that they are not gay...and others.
House Bill 1597 would make it legal for businesses to flat-out refuse service to LGBT people: No business entity shall be required to provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges related to any lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person, group or association.
House Bill 1598 would make it legal for parents to put their kids through gay-conversion therapy without the state getting in the way: The people of this state have the right to seek and obtain counseling or conversion therapy from a mental health provider in order to control or end any unwanted sexual attraction, and no state agency shall infringe upon that right. Parents may obtain such counseling or therapy for their children under eighteen (18) years of age without interference by the state.
And House Bill 1599 would make it illegal for the state to use any taxpayer money to support same-sex unions (or give out marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples): No taxpayer funds or governmental salaries shall be paid for any activity that includes the licensing or support of same-sex marriage. No employee of this state and no employee of any local governmental entity shall officially recognize, grant or enforce a same-sex marriage license and continue to receive a salary, pension or other employee benefit at the expense of taxpayers of this state. No taxes or public funds of this state shall be spent enforcing any court order requiring the issuance or recognition of a same-sex marriage license.
There are actual reasons beyond gods that we don't let adults marry and do it with kids.
The child bride question was an extreme example after Frazz asked another community member to clarify whether "anyone who refuses to condone the activities of others is a bigot. ". There was no attempt to equivocate homosexuality and child brides.
Exactly. Other substitutes would be -a polygamous marriage, or marriage of someone (or both who are divorced). I actually do know of people who won't provide services or attend weddings of people who were previously divorced. They're not hostile, they just believe in one marriage only.
Then why quote and respond to Skyth if your post wasn't even trying to rebut anything he put forward? You were rebutting an argument you made up in the same post as the rebuttal. What's even the point of that?
Prestor Jon wrote: I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive.
The gay rights lobby is no longer about an urgent need to prevent actual discrimination (contrast this to the Civil Rights Movement). Thanks to the radical change in public opinion about the morality (or rather amorality) of homosexuality, the gay rights movement has become infested with strident triumphalism. It's not enough that most people are okay with homosexuality; now they need to make sure anyone who isn't is publicly reviled and humiliated.
It's like they've won the war... and now going back to look for wounded survivors to execute.
They haven't won the war yet. Gay marriage still isn't legal in all states and sexual orientation is not a protected class.
And much like racists, anti-homosexual bigots need to be revilled and shamed.
You don't need to become a member of a protected class for society to stop descriminating against you. There's a whole host of attitudes towards specific groups of people that have changed over time without any of those groups becoming protected classes.
You don't need to become a member of a protected class for society to stop descriminating against you. There's a whole host of attitudes towards specific groups of people that have changed over time without any of those groups becoming protected classes.
True, but I bet it wouldnt hurt. For some reason, I am having difficulty to gst RFRA supporters to answer this question:
Are you in favor of adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act, and why or why not?
There are actual reasons beyond gods that we don't let adults marry and do it with kids.
The child bride question was an extreme example after Frazz asked another community member to clarify whether "anyone who refuses to condone the activities of others is a bigot. ". There was no attempt to equivocate homosexuality and child brides.
Exactly. Other substitutes would be -a polygamous marriage, or marriage of someone (or both who are divorced). I actually do know of people who won't provide services or attend weddings of people who were previously divorced. They're not hostile, they just believe in one marriage only.
Then why quote and respond to Skyth if your post wasn't even trying to rebut anything he put forward? You were rebutting an argument you made up in the same post as the rebuttal. What's even the point of that?
hardly. He declared anyone not supportive of gay marriage to be bigots. I merely extended his argument to other situations.
Why? Why the reluctance to answer this question ? We are talking about civil rights and discrimination. The CRA is directly applicable to the conversation.
jasper76 wrote: For some reason, I am having difficulty to gst RFRA supporters to answer this question:
Are you in favor of adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act, and why or why not?
For some reason? For the reason that is immaterial to RFRAs except that amending the CRA to cover sexual orientation would be another reason to pass RFRAs.
The Office of Civil Rights requires the following non-discrimination statement (or similar) from school districts around the country as of this year:
It is the intent of the District to be nondiscriminatory to all students regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, age, or genetic information. The district also provides equal access to the Boy Scouts of America and other designated youth groups.
jasper76 wrote: For some reason, I am having difficulty to gst RFRA supporters to answer this question:
Are you in favor of adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act, and why or why not?
For some reason? For the reason that is immaterial to RFRAs except that amending the CRA to cover sexual orientation would be another reason to pass RFRAs.
Fine, but why not answwe if you do or do not think that sexual orientation should be a protected category, and why discourage others from speaking their mind on this ?
jasper76 wrote: Why? Why the reluctance to answer this question ? We are talking about civil rights and discrimination. The CRA is directly applicable to the conversation.
jasper76 wrote: why not answwe if you do or do not think that sexual orientation should be a protected category, and why discourage others from speaking their mind on this ?
The question of whether sexual orientation should be a protected category under the CRA is ultimately about the nature of sexual orientation. There is no reason whatsoever to hijack this thread with useless arguments about whether, for example, sexual orientation is a choice. That way lies madness ... or at least a barren stand off.
The question is not whether there should be laws to protect homsexuals from discrimination. Those laws exist in some places. There is every indication they will be passed in others.
The question posed by the Indiana RFRA is whether privately-held businesses may discriminate against people (including homosexuals) despite prospective non-discrimination laws where religious liberty is threatened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Maybe he doesn't want death threats when people see the answer...
Good point! Fortunately, I already posted an answer that I doubt will inspire death threats:
Manchu wrote: I don't think a person should be treated poorly because they are homosexual. But I am not sure how that sentiment best translates into a law.
hardly. He declared anyone not supportive of gay marriage to be bigots. I merely extended his argument to other situations.
So you compared homosexuality to paedophilia then? Nice. Well done with that. I'm glad we got round to the admitting it part.
Because you were either doing that, or you were arguing with your own strawman which no-one else had put forth.
Nope. As much as you'd like to tar me with that brush, that dog won't hunt.
So I'll ask the question again.
If people who don't agree with homosexual weddings are bigots, why aren't people who don't agree with child brides, or polygamous weddings bigots as well?
jasper76 wrote: Why? Why the reluctance to answer this question ? We are talking about civil rights and discrimination. The CRA is directly applicable to the conversation.
The question of whether sexual orientation should be a protected category under the CRA is ultimately about the nature of sexual orientation. There is no reason whatsoever to hijack this thread with useless arguments about whether, for example, sexual orientation is a choice. That way lies madness ... or at least a barren stand off.
The question is not whether there should be laws to protect homsexuals from discrimination. Those laws exist in some places. There is every indication they will be passed in others.
The question posed by the Indiana RFRA is whether privately-held businesses may discriminate against people (including homosexuals) despite prospective non-discrimination laws where religious liberty is threatened.
it's inevitable that legislation will be introduced to amend the CRA to include sexual orientaion in an effort to shield homosexuals from discrimination as provided for by RFRAs, so its a viscious circle.
I just want to know how the "other side" percieves this, whether they think its a good or bad idea, and why.
jasper76 wrote: Why? Why the reluctance to answer this question ? We are talking about civil rights and discrimination. The CRA is directly applicable to the conversation.
jasper76 wrote: why not answwe if you do or do not think that sexual orientation should be a protected category, and why discourage others from speaking their mind on this ?
The question of whether sexual orientation should be a protected category under the CRA is ultimately about the nature of sexual orientation. There is no reason whatsoever to hijack this thread with useless arguments about whether, for example, sexual orientation is a choice. That way lies madness ... or at least a barren stand off.
The question is not whether there should be laws to protect homsexuals from discrimination. Those laws exist in some places. There is every indication they will be passed in others.
The question posed by the Indiana RFRA is whether privately-held businesses may discriminate against people (including homosexuals) despite prospective non-discrimination laws where religious liberty is threatened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Maybe he doesn't want death threats when people see the answer...
Good point! Fortunately, I already posted an answer that I doubt will inspire death threats:
Manchu wrote: I don't think a person should be treated poorly because they are homosexual. But I am not sure how that sentiment best translates into a law.
Thats fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Nope, you tarred yourself. Too late now, Weeeee!
You're just jealous because we tarred all your tax guys. Why are you holding such a long grudge? Don't be a hata!
jasper76 wrote: It's inevotoble that legislation will be introduced to amend the CRA to include sexual orientaion in an effort to shield homosexuals from discrimination as provided for by RFRAs, so its a viscious circle.
You still are not getting it.
The CRA does not exist to counter discrimination allowed by RFRAs. Rather, RFRAs (at least currently) exist to make sure the First Amendment trumps the CRA and other non-discrimination laws (and any law) where executing those laws would violate the First Amendment.
MrDwhitey wrote: Nope, you tarred yourself. Too late now, Weeeee!
You know, this is a real concern. It is socially acceptable in the USA and apparently to some extent in Canada and Europe to try to ruin someone's life if enough people agree with your righteous anger regarding whatever political topic, regardless of what that person actually said or believes about the matter.
The same reason why races, genders, and religions are all protected, to stop discrimination.
Why? People are discriminated against all the time.
Because discrimination is wrong, in all it's forms. The civil rights act of 1964 makes discrimination based on race, sex, colour, religion, or national origin illegal. What is so strange with wanting to ad sexual identity to that list? People should not be able to discriminate against you for anything that you didn't choose.
MrDwhitey wrote: Nope, you tarred yourself. Too late now, Weeeee!
You know, this is a real concern. It is socially acceptable in the USA and apparently to some extent in Canada and Europe to try to ruin someone's life if enough people agree with your righteous anger regarding whatever political topic, regardless of what that person actually said or believes about the matter.
Socially acceptable to some.
I personally found what happened to the Pizza place to be abhorrent.
The fake website, sure, funny.
The Yelp reviews were a step too far because a lot of them were outright lies about eating there and hating it etc.
Death threats? Right out. Go feth yourselves the witches who did that gak.
What Frazzled did was one of two things, I've already said what they are. If he insists his response was a form of rebuttal to skyth's post, it's one, if not it's the other.
jasper76 wrote: It's inevotoble that legislation will be introduced to amend the CRA to include sexual orientaion in an effort to shield homosexuals from discrimination as provided for by RFRAs, so its a viscious circle.
You still are not getting it.
The CRA does not exist to counter discrimination allowed by RFRAs. Rather, RFRAs (at least currently) exist to make sure the First Amendment trumps the CRA and other non-discrimination laws where executing those laws would violate the First Amendment.
I understand what you are saying....the RFRAs exist to protect First Amendment Rights. In response, its likely that the CRA will be amended to protect homosexuals from discrimination "sanctioned" by RFRA laws. Then the right wants more religious freedom to discrimimate , making the left want more protections, making the right want more freedom, left more protection, etc until the Courts decide how this all pans out constitutionally.
Frazzled wrote: So you compared homosexuality to paedophilia then? Nice. Well done with that. I'm glad we got round to the
So I'll ask the question again.
If people who don't agree with homosexual weddings are bigots, why aren't people who don't agree with child brides, or polygamous weddings bigots as well?
Because they (those who call indivuals who disagree with gay marriage bigots) do not happen to disagree those people.
Co'tor Shas wrote: People should not be able to discriminate against you for anything that you didn't choose.
I don't normally play Devil's Advocate, but do you think people choose their religion? If so, do you think it is okay to discriminate against someone based on their religion?
Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings
Memories Pizza is a nine-year-old shop in downtown Walkerton, Indiana, just a few blocks from John Glenn High School. It’s owned by an openly-Christian couple, the O’Connors, who decorate their shop with mementos of their faith in Christ. So how does a small business in a small town wind up making headlines around the world as the new avatar of Christian bigotry?
Perhaps, you say, they brought this upon themselves, seeking out publicity for their strict biblical views.
Eh…no.
Some cursory internet forensics shows how it happened…or rather, how it was made to happen.
ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”
What we have here is — as we called in journalism school jargon — “no story.” Nothing happened. Nothing was about to happen.
If I were forced to mark out a story line, it would be this: A nice lady in a small town tries to be helpful and polite to a lovely young reporter from “the big city.”
In other words, Memories Pizza didn’t blast out a news release. They didn’t contact the media, nor make a stink on Twitter or Facebook. They didn’t even post a sign in the window rejecting gay-wedding catering jobs. They merely answered questions from a novice reporter who strolled into their restaurant one day – who was sent on a mission by an irresponsible news organization.
Next: ABC-57 anchor Brian Dorman leads the evening newscast dramatically with this:
Only on ABC-57 News tonight. We went into small towns looking for reaction to the Religious Freedom Act. We found one business, just 20 miles away from a welcoming South Bend…with a very different view.
Notice that his city of South Bend is “welcoming,” but that small-town business is not. It’s very different. That’s why ABC-57 “went into small towns,” as if embarking on a safari to aboriginal lands.
Not only did ABC-57 News create that story ex nihilo (out of nothing), but the next day, the station’s Rosie Woods reported on the social-media backlash against the Christian pizza shop owners.
“Our Facebook page has been blowing up with comments after we aired that story last night,” said Woods.
At this point, even my old Leftist journalism professors would be grinding their teeth and rending their garments.
You see, not only did ABC-57 manufacture the story with an ambush interview, it then doubled-down by making the reaction to the story into another story to give the sense of momentum, as if it were growing at its own impetus. Yet, everything about it is a fabrication.
Memories Pizza didn’t “publicly vow to reject gay weddings” as HuffPo says it. The O’Connors were just, quite literally, minding their own business.
Back in the ABC-57 studio, Rosie Woods read three negative social media comments attacking the pizza shop owners, and then said, “And that’s just one side of this debate that’s heating up as more people and business owners speak up about the law.”
She then quotes one (1) person, the owner of another business, who agreed with the O’Connors. Seems that “just one side of this debate” deserves more attention than the other.
The unnamed ABC-57 editor then sends another reporter door-to-door on Walkerton’s rather depressed-looking main drag, trying to get reactions from other business people about the pizza shop owners. And the story inexorably snowballs onward, with only man’s yearning for truth to propel it.
All of the blog traffic and social media activity led to about 36,000 Facebook shares at ABC57.com on the original Alyssa Marino story less than 24 hours after it aired.
BuzzFeed posted its own inaccurate headline, with the kicker: ”The Internet has unleashed its wrath.”
All of those eyeballs benefit the TV station, which sells advertising on its website. It also helps several young, minor-market reporters who hustled and stumbled their way into the national spotlight. But don’t blame them. Blame the editor.
Meanwhile, over at Yelp.com, more than a thousand “reviews” of Memories Pizza rapidly accumulated, quickly overwhelming the positive comments from actual customers who like the pizza, the hospitality and the small-town charm. Folks who never heard of Walkerton attacked Crystal O’Connor’s business, her morality and her Lord. Many of the remarks included racially charged descriptions of genitalia and sex acts. “Reviewers” also posted pictures of naked men, of Adolf Hitler shouting “Ich habe ein pizza” (I have a pizza), and of Jesus gesturing with his middle finger. Over on Facebook, the restaurant’s 5-star average rating rapidly plunged to one star, as non-customers slammed away at Crystal’s little business.
In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a manifesto of political power, Rule No. 12 says, in part:
Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
he Left doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as they get what they want. They’re willing — no, they’re eager — to sacrifice a small-town business, and it’s owners.
Lest you think I’m being too dramatic. Late Wednesday, word comes that Jess Dooley, a female coach at Concord High School 45 minutes away in Elkhart, has been suspended after tweeting:
Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?
Wo... gofundme for that pizza joint is now at $210k. o.O
MrDwhitey wrote: Nope, you tarred yourself. Too late now, Weeeee!
You know, this is a real concern. It is socially acceptable in the USA and apparently to some extent in Canada and Europe to try to ruin someone's life if enough people agree with your righteous anger regarding whatever political topic, regardless of what that person actually said or believes about the matter.
You're talking about the perils of a "Conformist Society".
Which, forgive my language, is fething anti-American.
jasper76 wrote: In response, its likely that the CRA will be amended to protect homosexuals from discrimination "sanctioned" by RFRA laws.
No that is not likely. This is because adding sexual orientation as a protected category would have no effect on any RFRA. In other words, a court reviewing a case based on the strict scrutiny standard required by a RFRA could still find that application of the CRA to prevent discrimination against homosexuals in a particular circumstances would be unconstitutional.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Which, forgive my language, is fething anti-American.
I totally agree because I believe the most American thing about America is the Bill of Rights. And the Bill of Rights exists in large part to protect people from the tyranny of prevailing convention.
Manchu wrote: No that is not likely. This is because adding sexual orientation as a protected category would have no effect on any RFRA. In other words, a court reviewing a case based on the strict scrutiny standard required by a RFRA could still find that application of the CRA to prevent discrimination against homosexuals in a particular circumstances would be unconstitutional.
It is certainly possible. This RFRA issue will play into the next election, and it's a losing issue for Republicans on a national level. It has highlighted the fact that homosexuals are not a federally protected class in the CRA, surely an unintended consequence , and has shown that there is a vocal minority that is interested in discriminating against homosexuals, anoher probably unintended consequence.
So if Clinton gets elected, which lets face it is all but inevitable, and the Democrats take back control of Congress, an amendment to the CRA is not out of the question.
But perhaps, as you say it would have little to no effect on RFRA laws in the Courts.
jasper76 wrote: But perhaps, as you say it would have little to no effect on RFRA laws in the Courts.
Now you're getting it. It doesn't matter whether the CRA is amended to include sexual orientation. Applying the CRA could still be unconstitutional in some cases.
jasper76 wrote: But perhaps, as you say it would have little to no effect on RFRA laws in the Courts.
Now you're getting it. It doesn't matter whether the CRA is amended to include sexual orientation. Applying the CRA could still be unconstitutional in some cases.
Could. Also could not. I've never heard of an application of the CRA being overturned due to unconstitutionality as yet, and after all, all his would be doing would be adding another class to an established law
1) denying service to gays is just dumb, and a dick move
2) HOWEVER, the bill puts it to the Individuals choice.
In my opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and as a business owner, you do have the right to deny service to whoever you choose. Both sides are in the wrong in the argument over the bill, the LGBT community for wanting to force actions onto others, and the business owners who want to deny service based on sexuality. Business owners should technically speaking have the right to deny service because they invested the money into the business. You do not sacrifice the freedoms of others to improve your own freedoms.
In regards to Gencon, this is a dumb way to protest, Instead of moving, make your point by denying businesses that would discriminate. this does a better job than moving.
jasper76 wrote: Could. Also could not. I've never heard of an application of the CRA being overturned due to unconstitutionality as yet, and after all, all his would be doing would be adding another class to an established law
Is this supposed to be an argument for or against something?
Co'tor Shas wrote: People should not be able to discriminate against you for anything that you didn't choose.
I don't normally play Devil's Advocate, but do you think people choose their religion? If so, do you think it is okay to discriminate against someone based on their religion?
It really depends. Lots of people don't really "choose" their religion, it's given to them when they are kids, and often drilled into them to the point where they can't just leave. But leaving that aside, my statement was not one of restriction. Just because I believe that people should not be able to discriminate against something that is not chosen, doesn't mean I don't think that you can discriminate against people for things they did choose.
skyth wrote: There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.
The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.
The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community if forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?
Because they are not forcing their beliefs on the business owner. They are not requiring the business owner to marry someone of the same sex. THAT would be forcing their beliefs on the business owner. Having the business owner do the same thing that they always do is not an impositon of beliefs.
Then, by that same logic, nether would the business owner be imposing their beliefs on the homosexual couple. The business owner is not preventing them from being married, nor is the business owner stating that they shouldn't be married. The business owner is simply refusing to participate in or assist with a ritual that the business owners' religion prevents them from participating in or assisting with.
Nope. By acting not as a public accomodation, they are trying to keep someone else from not following the tenets of their religion. There is an ecpectation that a business not discriminate as far as customers are concerned.
This doesn't mean they have to serve people who want something out of the usual. If you only provide something a certain way (as in, you only provide sandwhiches with ham in them, a customer has no right to expect a turkey samdwhich). As a business, you have a right as to what to sell, but not who to sell to. I would put an ecception for rude customers or customers who wamt to harm someone. However, these can't be based on who the person is. A homosexual holding their partner's hand is not rude.
At no point does the act of refusing to break with ones faith in order to accomodation somone elses constitute an act of suppression of said others ability to express their beliefs in any way they are legally capable. Additionally, it is not the customer who is being discriminated against, but the ritual itself. A business owner does not cease to be a person when they start their buisness, nor do they lose their religious freedoms. If said buisness owners religion mandates that its adherents not participate in or otherwise facilitate in the holding of certain types of ceremonies, or rituals, then forcing said buisness owner to do so would constitute a violation of their religious freedoms. The same cannot be said for those who are demanding the buisness owner provide for said ceremony or ritual, as they're ability to hold said ritual is in no significant way being infringed.
hardly. He declared anyone not supportive of gay marriage to be bigots. I merely extended his argument to other situations.
So you compared homosexuality to paedophilia then? Nice. Well done with that. I'm glad we got round to the admitting it part.
Because you were either doing that, or you were arguing with your own strawman which no-one else had put forth.
Nope. As much as you'd like to tar me with that brush, that dog won't hunt.
So I'll ask the question again.
If people who don't agree with homosexual weddings are bigots, why aren't people who don't agree with child brides, or polygamous weddings bigots as well?
And I'll answer again...child brides do not involve informed consent.
Polygamous weddings involve a choice, not something that someone is. I would look down on someone against real polygamous marriges (as opposed to non-willing arranged marriages)
Brennonjw wrote: and as a business owner, you do have the right to deny service to whoever you choose.
This assumption is incorrect. We ha've the CRA which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, and national origin. These forms of discrimination are illegal.
jasper76 wrote: Could. Also could not. I've never heard of an application of the CRA being overturned due to unconstitutionality as yet, and after all, all his would be doing would be adding another class to an established law
Is this supposed to be an argument for or against something?
No, it's just a tangent. Did you go to Charm School?
Brennonjw wrote:
and as a business owner, you do have the right to deny service to whoever you choose.
jasper76 wrote:
This assumption is incorrect. We ha've the CRA which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, and national origin. These forms of discrimination are illegal.
so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others? In other words others rights > a persons right to run their own business? Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-gay, but I feel that this is the wrong way to handle the situation. Personal freedoms shouldn't be limited, and yes, there are those out there who would deny service due to sexuality or religion and that number has been on the fall, but there is a larger percentage of the population who would serve anyone just fine. I just think that it i not okay to trample others to get what you want, and this goes both ways.
Brennonjw wrote: so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.
Brennonjw wrote: so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.
It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.
Brennonjw wrote: so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.
It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.
Unless an individual can successfully argue in front of a court that proving services to a particular population solely on the grounds of their identity constitutes a significant infringement of said individuals religious rights, no, businesses more than likely wont ban people from their establishments.
Brennonjw wrote: so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.
It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.
I wouldn't lose too much sleep over businesses failing because they choose to discriminate against a broadly-defined customer population. It's just bad business, to begin with, and the right of consumers to decide not to patronize businesses due to their policies was never in question.
Brennonjw wrote: so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.
It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.
Unless an individual can successfully argue in front of a court that proving services to a particular population solely on the grounds of their identity constitutes a significant infringement of said individuals religious rights, no, businesses more than likely wont ban people from their establishments.
The thing is, that is exactly what is being argued with the gay cake argument. It wasn't that it was for a wedding or even a non-Religious wedding, but rather the argument was solely against the identity of who was getting married.
One question I have for the religious-minded of the Christian persuasion.
Wouldn't refusing to provide services to people simply because you believe they are sinning in itself constitute a sin?
The bible says a lot of stuff but the gist of the New Testament is pretty much summed up by Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other." Matthew 7:12 (KJV)
I particularly like the stuff about not judging others because there's really only one real judge and he might not like what you come up with. Matthew 7:1-3 (KJV)
Personally, if I were going to go around tooting my religion horn about something, I think that I'd be darned sure that it was actually a part of the religion that I say that I follow. The issue that I have is with all the people these days who profess to be Christian denouncing homosexuality while forgetting the basic teachings of the bible.
James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment (criticism or condemnation) or partiality (prejudice or discrimination):
You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)
So, for me as a Christian, I wish that people would stop hiding behind my religion to perform ill works towards our neighbors. It is fine to disagree with their choices, it's fine to converse with them about sin and invite them to worship but that's really it. It's hard to not be angry about stuff like this.
If a Pastor truly, in his/her heart, believes that gay marriage is wrong and doesn't want to perform a civil union, he/she should counsel the couple and try to convince them to change...if nothing else, that will convince them to go elsewhere if they don't agree with that church's teachings.
Salesforce CEO: We're helping employees move out of Indiana
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is helping employees who are uncomfortable with Indiana's controversial religious freedom law to transfer out of the state.
Benioff told CNN's Poppy Harlow on Wednesday that several employees have asked for transfers -- and he has agreed, even supplying relocation packages.
"I just got an email on the way to studio from another employee who said, 'look I don't feel comfortable living in this state anymore, you have to move me out,' and I gave him a $50,000 relocation package and said, 'great, you're clear to go.' "
Benioff acknowledged that Salesforce (CRM, Tech30) won't be able to completely pull out of Indiana, given the size of the company's operations there. But the company is helping individual employees who feel oppressed to leave.
The move is in response to a law signed last week by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence that allows businesses to refuse service to gay, lesbian and transgender people on religious grounds.
Benioff had already pledged to reduce his company's investments in Indiana, calling the law "brutal," "unfair" and "unjust." The cloud computing CEO said he is working with state officials in hopes of changing the statute.
Moving employees out of the state is a new step, however, and one of the most aggressive corporate actions taken in response to the new law.
Big business has been at the forefront of the backlash against the Indiana law, and similar legislation pending in states around the U.S.
Apple (AAPL, Tech30), Yelp (YELP), the NCAA, Eli Lilly (LLY), NASCAR, General Electric (GE), Angie's List and PayPal are among the companies that have raised concerns. Leaders from some 39 tech companies and organizations have also condemned the legislation.
"This is a really important point that, you know, CEOs have a lot of power and control on investment in states and we want to invest in states where there is equality," Benioff said.
"One thing that you're seeing is that there is a third [political] party emerging in this country, which is the party of CEOs," he said.
Brennonjw wrote: so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.
It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.
I wouldn't lose too much sleep over businesses failing because they choose to discriminate against a broadly-defined customer population. It's just bad business, to begin with, and the right of consumers to decide not to patronize businesses due to their policies was never in question.
Sorry, I wasn't being clear, I was saying that that would be their punishment, not saying the bill shouldn't pass to prevent this.
You are confusing avoiding sin with sinning. Refusing to participate in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is not tantamount to "performing ill works." At least not necessarily ... conscience is case by case, after all.
jasper76 wrote: Salesforce CEO: We're helping employees move out of Indiana
How about:
CEO Sees Marketing Opportunity In Public Ignorance About RFRA
Manchu wrote: You are confusing avoiding sin with sinning. Refusing to participate in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is not tantamount to "performing ill works." At least not necessarily ... conscience is case by case, after all.
jasper76 wrote: Salesforce CEO: We're helping employees move out of Indiana
How about:
CEO Sees Marketing Opportunity In Public Ignorance About RFRA
Did you take Mind Reading in lawschool. Maybe the guy is sincerely interested in the welfare and happiness of his employees???
jasper76 wrote: But perhaps, as you say it would have little to no effect on RFRA laws in the Courts.
Now you're getting it. It doesn't matter whether the CRA is amended to include sexual orientation. Applying the CRA could still be unconstitutional in some cases.
Could. Also could not. I've never heard of an application of the CRA being overturned due to unconstitutionality as yet, and after all, all his would be doing would be adding another class to an established law
The CRA protects native Americans under the national origin protected class but the reason we have a federal RFRA law is becuase native Americans were being fired for failing drug tests at work after ingesting peyote during religious rituals. The RFRA provides more individual protection than the CRA.
Well, personally, I am more interested in the CRA and covering sexual orientation as a protected class as a matter of principal. If homosexuals are provided the same protections as other minorities, I will shut up and go away.
It would seem to me at least that the fate of RFRA laws and businesses that would use them as a tool to discriminate may very well be market-driven.
Brennonjw wrote: so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.
It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.
Unless an individual can successfully argue in front of a court that proving services to a particular population solely on the grounds of their identity constitutes a significant infringement of said individuals religious rights, no, businesses more than likely wont ban people from their establishments.
The thing is, that is exactly what is being argued with the gay cake argument. It wasn't that it was for a wedding or even a non-Religious wedding, but rather the argument was solely against the identity of who was getting married.
The service isn't withheld because of the identity of the individuals, they may purchase a cake from the fictional (or nonfictional) baker whenever they like. In the example, the service is withheld because, for the baker, participating in or assisting in a homosexual marriage ceremony is against the tenets of the bakers faith. When, in order to fullfil the request, the baker would need to perfom and act (participating in or assisting in a homosexual marriage ceremony ) which would put said baker at odds his/her faith then, and only then, is the service withheld. The justification for the refusal isn't the sexual orientation of the clients, but the identity of the ritual and how it relates to the bakers religious beliefs. While sexual orientation is a factor, the client(s) isn't(aren't) refused because of their sexual orientation(s), but rather because their request would put the baker at odds with his/her faith.
No need for mind-reading when reading is sufficient. Businesses do not just hand out $50K relocation packages because of legally unfounded employee anxieties. There needs to be a return. I guess he could have really fussy, unreasonable employees who are crucial to the success of the business. But it more likely that this is an excellent opportunity for positive media coverage.
If Indiana was really a hotbed of homophobic vitriol, there would be evidence beyond ideologically driven disinformation of the RFRA.
This takes us back to the thread title. The GenCon letters are a joke. Letter 1 rattled the saber because GenCon supports Equality(R)(TM). Letter 2, however, reassured us that nobody at GenCon has faced homophobic prejudice so keep attending GenCon Indy as long as GenCon is contractually obliged to hold the con there (and maybe beyond).
You are confusing avoiding sin with sinning. Refusing to participate in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is not tantamount to "performing ill works." At least not necessarily ... conscience is case by case, after all.
Not really, at least if you actually read and follow the teachings of Christ and the Bible considering Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or shun or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18:9-14). A requirement of Bible teachings is that we must act with kindness and respect for all people and avoid judging the moral choices others make (Matthew 22:37-40, Matthew 7:1-5, Romans 14:10-14, James 4:11-12). Jesus even tells us, point blank, in John 8:7, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." and that was in defense of a woman accused of adultery, a sin that is lumped together with homosexuality throughout the bible.
Why? Because we're all sinners. Do you think that the priest/pastor who refuses to perform the union is any less a sinner than the gay couple might be? The fact is we are all sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8), and none of us can claim to be worthy of heaven on our own merit. We all must depend on God's love, mercy and forgiveness for our salvation (Mark 10:24-27, Ephesians 2:4-8, Titus 3:3-8). There is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against; sure there are actual passages about homosexual, sexual contact and "lust" but the bible is silent on all else.
In my opinion, such laws do nothing but serve the end game of the devil because they ultimately are designed to separate God's people from each other and place them at odds with one another. Who else benefits?
As an aside, don't we already have a third part? Team Violate? I was under the impression the librarian party was already a thing. Not a very relevant thing ( ), mind you, but still a thing.
jasper76 wrote: So concern over being discriminated against is "fussy" and "unreasonable"? Has it reached the point of being "uppity" yet?
Yeah, in the sense of being a sign of privilege. Because remember what we're talking about here is the grave injury of not being able to use the government to force someone to take pictures at your wedding in exchange for money.
Quelle horreur! Is life even worth living if I can't appropriate the state to show my contempt of other people's religion in the most petty and entitled way???
Yes really. I'll try again: A person who believes homosexual acts are sinful does not avoid participating in a public celebration of homosexual relationships in order to avoid being around sinners. In Christian terms, it is impossible to avoid sinners ... because you can't avoid yourself. No, the reason is because the participation is itself a sin. It's not that other people are sinning (by getting gay married or whatever). It's that (in their view) it is a sin to pretend that is okay and to support it. That person isn't avoiding sinners; she trying to avoid doing something that violates her own conscience, which is the most concise definition of sin.
Manchu wrote: Yes really. I'll try again: A person who believes homosexual acts are sinful does not avoid participating in a public celebration of homosexual relationships in order to avoid being around sinners. In Christian terms, it is impossible to avoid sinners ... because you can't avoid yourself. No, the reason is because the participation is itself a sin. It's not that other people are sinning (by getting gay married or whatever). It's that (in their view) it is a sin to pretend that is okay and to support it. That person isn't avoiding sinners; she trying to avoid doing something that violates her own conscience, which is the most concise definition of sin.
Again, not if you follow the teachings of Christ and the bible. It would only be a sin if the pastor himself/herself were the homosexual person in question getting married. There is literally nothing in the bible that even hints that the sin of someone else may enter us, on the contrary, the bible cautions us to avoid our own sin. Does condoning the happiness of God's other children impart sin? I would argue no and it is most certainly not our place to pass judgement that what they are performing is sinful because the final JUDGEMENT therein is between the person and God, not someone on the outside.
Jesus himself associated with tax collectors and sinners of all stripes and even went about with them during their daily lives. Are you saying that he did ill? I would think that a pastor who believes strongly that a couple is sinning would try all the harder to bring them closer to God rather than turn them away from the house of God.
WTH does this have to do with pastors? To save time -- nothing.
Jesus hung out with sinners yet told people (including sinners) not to sin. See how there is a difference there? Again, to save time: avoiding sinners and avoiding sin are different things.
Now whether you or I or anyone else agrees with them, some folks sincerely believe as a matter of their Christian faith that participating in rituals of acceptance and support of homosexual relationships is sinful. The (supposed) sin of attending a gay marriage is separate from the (supposed) sin of getting gay married. Nobody's sin is transfering to anyone else here, or whatever you were on about.
I get that you might find this outlook preposterous. That's fine. In the USA. Thanks to the First Amendment.
But also thanks to the First Amendment, the government doesn't get to tell people that law trumps their religion, even if many or most of us find their religion preposterous, unless the government MUST get something pretty important done and there is no better way of doing it.
Hordini wrote: I thought Red and Blue were already the CEO parties.
I guess I can hardly be surprised that controlling both major parties is not enough for CEOs.
jasper76 wrote: So concern over being discriminated against is "fussy" and "unreasonable"? Has it reached the point of being "uppity" yet?
Yeah, in the sense of being a sign of privilege. Because remember what we're talking about here is the grave injury of not being able to use the government to force someone to take pictures at your wedding in exchange for money.
Quelle horreur! Is life even worth living if I can't appropriate the state to show my contempt of other people's religion in the most petty and entitled way???
You are trivializing the possible ramifications of this law. Noone has convinced me yet, despite valiant efforts by Prestor John, that this law could not be used to successfully defend discriminatation against homosexuals (and others) in businesses that provide critical services, rather than wedding cakes and flower arrangements. Especially given the political context of the bill, it is neither "unreasonable" or "fussy" for a homosexual to decide, "Indiana is no longer for me, maybe I'll ask my boss for a transfer."
Try to empathize, and imagine that you are a homosexual. Or if not possible, that wave after wave of constitutional amendments and legislation is sweeping through the nation, aimed to make sure that Christian marriages are no real marriages, and giving people vaguely-written legal avenues to discriminate against Christians. And then that wave hits your state. What do you do? Some Christians may stay and fight the good fight, others may decide to move to more friendly territory. I wouldn't dream of sayinjg that the movers were "unreasonable" or "fussy", but rather, the word "wise" comes to mind.
jasper76 wrote: You are trivializing the possible ramifications of this law.
The possible ramifications are already trivial; they don't require trivialization.
Again, take the GenCon letters:
Letter 1 = Tsk tsk, GenCon is deeply troubled by the possibility of homophobic discrimination.
Letter 2 = Whoops, we actually talked to vendors and attendees and found no evidence of homophobic discrimination so please don't let our deep concerns expressed in Letter 1 convince you not to come to GenCon Indy!
jasper76 wrote: Noone has convinced me yet, despite valiant efforts by Prestor John, that this law could not be used to successfully defend discriminatation against homosexuals (and others) in businesses that provide critical services
The real question is, what has convinced you that the law could or will be used to allow discrimination against homosexuals when it comes to accessing critical services?
Or is the burden on those who say the sky is not falling?
jasper76 wrote: Noone has convinced me yet, despite valiant efforts by Prestor John, that this law could not be used to successfully defend discriminatation against homosexuals (and others) in businesses that provide critical services
The real question is, what has convinced you that the law could or will be used to allow discrimination against homosexuals when it comes to accessing critical services?
The law in no way differentiates between critical services and luxuries. In fact, one possible solution I proposed many pages ago to this dilemma is that the law be updated to make this very differentiation, so that a purveyor of services deemed critical could not withhold such services, even if it contradicts his/her religious beliefs.
Landlords and tenants are the prime example. PJ has argued again and again that homosexuals aren't a protected category when it comes to housing, so this scenario is a non-starter, but homosexuals are in fact a protected class in some localities, and this law now gives the landlord a loophole around those local protections, assuming that state law trumps local law, which I honestly don't know.
Manchu wrote: You have consistently failed to make any case where non-discrimination laws in housing could be trumped by the First Amendment.
If a landlord is a conservative Christian, and a qualified homosexual couple in a "gays protected" zone of Indiana comes in, the landlord could hypothetically turn them down on the basis of their sexual orientation, claiming that housing homosexuals violates his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion. The gay couple really liked that apartment, so they decide to sue using local protection laws as their justification. And our landlord gets it to a state court, and runs down the RFRA checklist. Religion? Check. Sincere? Lets say the judge says so. Substantial burden? You betcha, God will make him burn for it, he thinks. Least restrictive means? Alternatives are available, so stop being "fussy" and "unreasonable", and go get a place somewhere else.
What burden does renting to a homosexual (as opposed to non-homosexuals) place on the landlord's religious liberty?
Now -- allow me a turn advising you to try being empathetic. Try, hard though it may be, to imagine the POV of someone with actual, sincere religious beliefs rather than ones (which would not even qualify as sincerely held) merely invented to justify a priori homophobic bias.
I don't believe you have accounted for compelling government interest or least restrictive means, either.
Manchu wrote: Your analysis is (at least) incomplete.
What burden does renting to a homosexual (as opposed to non-homosexuals) place on the landlord's religious liberty?
Now -- allow me a turn advising you to try being empathetic. Try, hard though it may be, to imagine the POV of someone with actual, sincere religious beliefs rather than ones (which would not even qualify as sincerely held) merely invented to justify a priori homophobic bias.
Because renting a place to a homosexual couple can easily be construed as taking an active role in their cohabitation. Some forms of Christianity say that homosexuality is a sin, and furthermore that if you contribute to a sin, you are guilty of the sin yourself.
I don't have to empathize too hard. Non-supernatural religious beliefs are just personal moral beliefs adopted by the adherent, and I have those, too.
Manchu wrote: You have consistently failed to make any case showing how non-discrimination laws in housing could be trumped by the First Amendment.
Where is the line exactly then between what laws do trump an individuals religious comfort and which ones don't?
Obviously the line is somewhere before "My dark lord Krozdoth, demands I smash the skull of every baby with a ballpeen hammer"
many in this thread certainly seem fine with it being drawn after "Jesus will be angry at me if I make a cake for a gay wedding", but it's all so sticky and subjective. How do we decide which religious beliefs allow people to ignore the laws the rest of the population is bound to, and which ones do not.
If I can prove my religious beliefs forbid me from paying taxes, should I be exempt from them?
If I can prove my religious beliefs dicates all things from under the earth are communal property that I'm free to take at any time from anywhere, should I be able to steal gasoline consequence free?
If I can prove my religious beliefs forbid me from keeping my dog on a leash, should I be exempt from leash laws?
If I can prove my religious beliefs forbid me from paying parking tickets should I be exempt from them?
If I can prove my religious beliefs forbid me from allowing my children to receive any form education not explicitly found in my religious text, should I be allowed to home-school without meeting the general standards?
If I can prove my religious beliefs command me to beat my wife, should I be able to beat her?
Earlier you outlined that secular law should only trump religious rules, when said secular law is an absolute MUST for the government? How many of those things are a must? It's so goddamn fuzzy. In the end it really just seems like it boils down to judges selecting for and endorsing the religions they most approve of.
jasper76 wrote: Because renting a place to a homosexual couple can easily be construed as taking an active role in their cohabitation.
Cohabitation is when an unmarried couple live together. As I already explained to you, marital status is not a federally protected category. I also already explained to you that whether a couple is legally married or not is not a religious matter. So ... as I stated, you have consistently failed to show how the First Amendment could trump non-discrimination laws in housing covering sexual orientation.
I suspect your argument is, the landlord just has to say that renting to gays is against his religion. But such a declaration does actually not rise to a legal argument that a government requirement that the landlord not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation violates his First Amendment rights.
Or in other words ... the sky still isn't falling.
Chongara wrote: Earlier you outlined that secular law should only trump religious rules, when said secular law is an absolute MUST for the government? How many of those things are a must? It's so goddamn fuzzy.
It is nowhere near as fuzzy as you seem to believe.
So you gave this example of human sacrifice. Well, does the law against murder impose on the hypothetical demon-worshiper's First Amendment rights? Absolutely. But that is NOT unconstitutional because the government has a compelling interest in murder being illegal and there is no less intrusive means of pursuing that interest than, you guessed it, making murder illegal.
A lot of the anxiety around this issue frankly comes down to (1) prejudice, (2) ignorance, and (3) lack of reflection to mitigate (1) and (2).
jasper76 wrote: Because renting a place to a homosexual couple can easily be construed as taking an active role in their cohabitation.
Cohabitation is when an unmarried couple live together. As I already explained to you, marital status is not a federally protected category. I also already explained to you that whether a couple is legally married or not is not a religious matter. So ... as I stated, you have consistently failed to show how the First Amendment could trump non-discrimination laws in housing covering sexual orientation.
I suspect your argument is, the landlord just has to say that renting to gays is against his religion. But such a declaration does actually not rise to a legal argument that a government requirement that the landlord not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation violates his First Amendment rights.
Or in other words ... the sky still isn't falling.
Chongara wrote: Earlier you outlined that secular law should only trump religious rules, when said secular law is an absolute MUST for the government? How many of those things are a must? It's so goddamn fuzzy.
It is nowhere near as fuzzy as you seem to believe.
So you gave this example of human sacrifice. Well, does the law against murder impose on the hypothetical demon-worshiper's First Amendment rights? Absolutely. But that is NOT unconstitutional because the government has a compelling interest in murder being illegal and there is no less intrusive means of pursuing that interest than, you guessed, it making murder illegal.
A lot of the anxiety around this issue frankly comes down to (1) prejudice, (2) ignorance, and (3) lack of reflection to mitigate (1) and (2).
First off, Krozdoth is not a demon OK? Krozdoth is a living vortex of psychic energy, formed from soul's of the the most wicked members of the hyper-intelligent reptilian precursor race that ruled the earth before humans. Also they're not sacrifices his worshipers don't give or offer them to him, Krozdoth just hates babies and therefore has mandated they be smashed. Yeesh.
Secondly, I gave that as an example of something that is clearly absurd. Something everyone would agree is well over the line, such beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with even a basically functioning society. It's a lot less clear you can can say anything like the above about making sure everyone has equal access to housing, or has to obey parking laws, or educations of specific individuals.
jasper76 wrote: Because renting a place to a homosexual couple can easily be construed as taking an active role in their cohabitation.
Cohabitation is when an unmarried couple live together. As I already explained to you, marital status is not a federally protected category. I also already explained to you that whether a couple is legally married or not is not a religious matter. So ... as I stated, you have consistently failed to show how the First Amendment could trump non-discrimination laws in housing covering sexual orientation.
I suspect your argument is, the landlord just has to say that renting to gays is against his religion. But such a declaration does actually not rise to a legal argument that a government requirement that the landlord not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation violates his First Amendment rights.
Correct. Let me revise. Two qualified people come into an office, and tell the landlord they are a gay couple, and this takes place in a locality where homosexuals are a protected class. The landlord in my scenario feels that renting to them would violate his religious beliefs, because gay sex, and when sued, uses the new Indiana law in his defense. All I have is your say-so that his defense would be invalidated by a judge. Nothing in the law seems to indicate that this is so, but then again, I am no lawyer.
Krozdoth. Oh sorry, I misread that as Krazdorth -- the demonic prince who demands innocent blood. My bad.
On-topic, the purpose of a non-discrimination law that covers sexual orientation is obviously to prevent/discourage discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If the government has a compelling interest in preventing/discouraging such discrimination, is there a less intrusive means of doing so other than disallowing landlords to turn down applicants based solely on their sexual orientation?
If so -- what is it?
If not, then the non-discrimination law does not unconstitutionally impose on the landlord's religious liberty.
And that's being generous, sidestepping the problem the landlord would have arguing that not being allowed to discriminate solely on the basis of applicant sexual orientation does in fact impose on his First Amendment rights.
@jasper76
I think my response to Chongara covers your post as well.
If the government has a compelling interest in preventing/discouraging such discrimination, is there a less intrusive means of doing so other than disallowing landlords to turn down applicants based solely on their sexual orientation?
If so -- what is it?
Yes, the government could provide housing directly.
WTH does this have to do with pastors? To save time -- nothing.
Jesus hung out with sinners yet told people (including sinners) not to sin. See how there is a difference there? Again, to save time: avoiding sinners and avoiding sin are different things.
Now whether you or I or anyone else agrees with them, some folks sincerely believe as a matter of their Christian faith that participating in rituals of acceptance and support of homosexual relationships is sinful. The (supposed) sin of attending a gay marriage is separate from the (supposed) sin of getting gay married. Nobody's sin is transfering to anyone else here, or whatever you were on about.
I get that you might find this outlook preposterous. That's fine. In the USA. Thanks to the First Amendment.
But also thanks to the First Amendment, the government doesn't get to tell people that law trumps their religion, even if many or most of us find their religion preposterous, unless the government MUST get something pretty important done and there is no better way of doing it.
I'll give you a hint. Pastors are supposed to be men, and women, of God, first and foremost; they aren't supposed to have the luxury of personal convictions or comfort levels, not if they're following a faith anyway. The bible itself has some pretty clear directions that I already quoted and you've ignored; love thy neighbor, treat others as yourself, everyone is a sinner and a child of God. One of my points, which you failed to grasp, is that by closing the doors of the house of God to people, fellow sinners, the pastor is not doing their job. You keep saying that a wedding is a ritual of acceptance and it is but it's not the pastor/priest that's doing the accepting, it's a contract between the couple and their God. It doesn't matter if the pastor thinks their relationship is sinful; hell, he/she probably sinned three times from breakfast to the time they entered the pulpit for their Sunday morning service. By your definition, no one should attend church because they are tacitly approving their pastor's sins by even listening to him or celebrating each others' birthdays (which used to be frowned on by the church by the way).
What makes me sad is that people justify and hide their bigotry behind a veneer of faith and then create ignorant laws that further the stupidity. It truly is a shame in our country that we have such silliness and feel the need to pass laws that supposedly "protect" religion but just serve to further the ends of a selfish few.
The only good thing is that, at the end of the day, these laws are just flash. A way for noisy people to bang their chests and appease a minority of fringe voters while accomplishing little because the gay community is well aware of which churches they can go to for service and which not.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, the government could provide housing directly.
Pithy, I admit, but not pertinent. The Supreme Court dicta to this effect in HobbyLobby assumes the context of the ACA. As of yet, there is no federal mandate that all persons in the US be housed.
@agnosto
I am mostly skipping all your stuff about pastors because it is totally irrelevant except this unavoidable line (in which the part about pastors remains mostly irrelevant):
agnosto wrote: You keep saying that a wedding is a ritual of acceptance and it is but it's not the pastor/priest that's doing the accepting, it's a contract between the couple and their God.
I'm sure the theological understanding varies by denomination. In Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament conferred by each spouse to the other. I don't want to get too far into it (because it's just an example) but it is important that a priest witness this on behalf of the Catholic Church, which indicates the marriage is licit so far as the Church is concerned. Similarly, the ancient practice of celebrating weddings is premised on connecting communities in mutual support. This is why, for example, weddings were often the occasion of political alliances. So yes of course weddings, even when the spouses are not religious, implicate social acceptance and support. This is why gay people want to be able to be married, after all.
TBH your religious convictions or mine are actually irrelevant. The only religious convictions in question are those of the person who claims a law unconstitutionally violates their First Amendment rights. And the only question courts get to ask of those religious convictions is whether they are sincerely held.
Or in reaction to real laws being proposed or passed that actively demonize them. In my state, a proposed law to support Gay Conversion Therapy or the forced brainwashing of a professed gay person to think that they are not gay...and others.
Which is not the case with SB101, the law this thread is discussing
Manchu wrote: You know, this is a real concern. It is socially acceptable in the USA and apparently to some extent in Canada and Europe to try to ruin someone's life if enough people agree with your righteous anger regarding whatever political topic, regardless of what that person actually said or believes about the matter.
A Concord High School coach has been suspended after she tweeted about arson in relation to a Walkerton pizzeria whose owners told the media they agree with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Jess Dooley, who is the head coach of the girls golf program and also an assistant coach with the softball and girls basketball programs, took to Twitter Wednesday, April 1, to voice her opinion about the RFRA.
She was adding to the conversation about Memories Pizza, a Walkerton restaurant whose owners announced in a television news segment that they would not cater gay weddings.
Her tweet read: “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?”
whembly wrote: Here one summary on how this Pizza Joint evolved into a "thing"
Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First
Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings
Memories Pizza is a nine-year-old shop in downtown Walkerton, Indiana, just a few blocks from John Glenn High School. It’s owned by an openly-Christian couple, the O’Connors, who decorate their shop with mementos of their faith in Christ. So how does a small business in a small town wind up making headlines around the world as the new avatar of Christian bigotry?
Perhaps, you say, they brought this upon themselves, seeking out publicity for their strict biblical views.
Eh…no.
Some cursory internet forensics shows how it happened…or rather, how it was made to happen.
ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”
What we have here is — as we called in journalism school jargon — “no story.” Nothing happened. Nothing was about to happen.
If I were forced to mark out a story line, it would be this: A nice lady in a small town tries to be helpful and polite to a lovely young reporter from “the big city.”
In other words, Memories Pizza didn’t blast out a news release. They didn’t contact the media, nor make a stink on Twitter or Facebook. They didn’t even post a sign in the window rejecting gay-wedding catering jobs. They merely answered questions from a novice reporter who strolled into their restaurant one day – who was sent on a mission by an irresponsible news organization.
Next: ABC-57 anchor Brian Dorman leads the evening newscast dramatically with this:
Only on ABC-57 News tonight. We went into small towns looking for reaction to the Religious Freedom Act. We found one business, just 20 miles away from a welcoming South Bend…with a very different view.
Notice that his city of South Bend is “welcoming,” but that small-town business is not. It’s very different. That’s why ABC-57 “went into small towns,” as if embarking on a safari to aboriginal lands.
Not only did ABC-57 News create that story ex nihilo (out of nothing), but the next day, the station’s Rosie Woods reported on the social-media backlash against the Christian pizza shop owners.
“Our Facebook page has been blowing up with comments after we aired that story last night,” said Woods.
At this point, even my old Leftist journalism professors would be grinding their teeth and rending their garments.
You see, not only did ABC-57 manufacture the story with an ambush interview, it then doubled-down by making the reaction to the story into another story to give the sense of momentum, as if it were growing at its own impetus. Yet, everything about it is a fabrication.
Memories Pizza didn’t “publicly vow to reject gay weddings” as HuffPo says it. The O’Connors were just, quite literally, minding their own business.
Back in the ABC-57 studio, Rosie Woods read three negative social media comments attacking the pizza shop owners, and then said, “And that’s just one side of this debate that’s heating up as more people and business owners speak up about the law.”
She then quotes one (1) person, the owner of another business, who agreed with the O’Connors. Seems that “just one side of this debate” deserves more attention than the other.
The unnamed ABC-57 editor then sends another reporter door-to-door on Walkerton’s rather depressed-looking main drag, trying to get reactions from other business people about the pizza shop owners. And the story inexorably snowballs onward, with only man’s yearning for truth to propel it.
All of the blog traffic and social media activity led to about 36,000 Facebook shares at ABC57.com on the original Alyssa Marino story less than 24 hours after it aired.
BuzzFeed posted its own inaccurate headline, with the kicker: ”The Internet has unleashed its wrath.”
All of those eyeballs benefit the TV station, which sells advertising on its website. It also helps several young, minor-market reporters who hustled and stumbled their way into the national spotlight. But don’t blame them. Blame the editor.
Meanwhile, over at Yelp.com, more than a thousand “reviews” of Memories Pizza rapidly accumulated, quickly overwhelming the positive comments from actual customers who like the pizza, the hospitality and the small-town charm. Folks who never heard of Walkerton attacked Crystal O’Connor’s business, her morality and her Lord. Many of the remarks included racially charged descriptions of genitalia and sex acts. “Reviewers” also posted pictures of naked men, of Adolf Hitler shouting “Ich habe ein pizza” (I have a pizza), and of Jesus gesturing with his middle finger. Over on Facebook, the restaurant’s 5-star average rating rapidly plunged to one star, as non-customers slammed away at Crystal’s little business.
In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a manifesto of political power, Rule No. 12 says, in part:
Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
he Left doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as they get what they want. They’re willing — no, they’re eager — to sacrifice a small-town business, and it’s owners.
Lest you think I’m being too dramatic. Late Wednesday, word comes that Jess Dooley, a female coach at Concord High School 45 minutes away in Elkhart, has been suspended after tweeting:
Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?
Wo... gofundme for that pizza joint is now at $210k. o.O
I think that if anything else was needed to be said that article says it pretty well; the reporter was sent past many larger population centers (South Bend, Mishawaka, La Porte, and Goshen) to find fuel to keep the story going. Lest we forget the pizzeria said that they would not refuse service to gay customers, only that they would not want to provide their product for a gay wedding - something that they have not been asked to do before. And in the event that they are asked to cater a gay wedding it has to be shown that to do so is a "substantial burden".
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So has anyone yet been able to provide any widespread evidence of discrimination against homosexuals in the state of Indiana?
According to GenCon on March 26:
Due to specific dialog with long-time partners in Indy, we believe that Gen Con attendees not only will receive the same great service and hospitality in 2015, but an even warmer response from the city.
And again on March 30:
Gen Con’s growth in Indianapolis has been tremendous. Our success is due in part to Hoosier hospitality and the acceptance of the Indy community.
And yet they still feel the need to fearmonger in the same letter:
[...] we are reading that some members of our community feel unsafe traveling to Indiana, subsequent to the passage of the RFRA law. We understand this sentiment, and will act to support safety
This kind of insincere mixed message is typical of cynically playing to the marketing.
It is hard to believe people are still talking about this while Netflix is threatening everyone with a new Full House. Comparatively this seems insignificant to another season of John Stamos, Dave Coulier, and Bob Saget.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So has anyone yet been able to provide any widespread evidence of discrimination against homosexuals in the state of Indiana?
According to GenCon on March 26:
Due to specific dialog with long-time partners in Indy, we believe that Gen Con attendees not only will receive the same great service and hospitality in 2015, but an even warmer response from the city.
And again on March 30:
Gen Con’s growth in Indianapolis has been tremendous. Our success is due in part to Hoosier hospitality and the acceptance of the Indy community.
And yet they still feel the need to fearmonger in the same letter:
[...] we are reading that some members of our community feel unsafe traveling to Indiana, subsequent to the passage of the RFRA law. We understand this sentiment, and will act to support safety
This kind of insincere mixed message is typical of cynically playing to the marketing.
To be fair, the last part reads as though they have had people contact them expressing concerns about safety and traveling to Indiana not simply playing the role of fearmonger.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So has anyone yet been able to provide any widespread evidence of discrimination against homosexuals in the state of Indiana?
According to GenCon on March 26:
Due to specific dialog with long-time partners in Indy, we believe that Gen Con attendees not only will receive the same great service and hospitality in 2015, but an even warmer response from the city.
And again on March 30:
Gen Con’s growth in Indianapolis has been tremendous. Our success is due in part to Hoosier hospitality and the acceptance of the Indy community.
And yet they still feel the need to fearmonger in the same letter:
[...] we are reading that some members of our community feel unsafe traveling to Indiana, subsequent to the passage of the RFRA law. We understand this sentiment, and will act to support safety
This kind of insincere mixed message is typical of cynically playing to the marketing.
That would have been the ideal time for GenCon to reach out to the Governor and work to clarify the matter for the attendees instead of grandstand and aid the misinformation. After all their letter makes it sound as though there has not been any targeting of a non-protected class that has been experienced in their whole time using Indy as a base.
Even assuming GenCon had any interest in the truth, God knows what would happen to the company if it dared to publicly acknowledge that the Indiana RFRA is not a threat to homosexual people.
Manchu wrote: Even assuming GenCon had any interest in the truth, God knows what would happen to the company if it dared to publicly acknowledge that the Indiana RFRA is not a threat to homosexual people.
Exactly my point. Imagine the insults, lies, and harassment GenCon would have to deal with if it actually engaged with the legal reality rather than the media-sponsored news entertainment bonanza.
jasper76 wrote: I don't get the joke. Are you not willing to give me an answer? Is this another "death threat" type issue. If so, I rescind the question.
You say you want me to answer a question because I am talking about a law but the condition of the question is to forget everything about law. Then you ask a question centered on the term discrimination, which is a legal term. So what is the game?
jasper76 wrote: I don't get the joke. Are you not willing to give me an answer? Is this another "death threat" type issue. If so, I rescind the question.
You say you want me to answer a question because I am talking about a law but the condition of the question is to forget everything about law. Then you ask a question centered on the term discrimination, which is a legal term. So what is the game?
Outside of the modern legal context, discrimination is a synonym for distinction. Religions not only make distinctions but exist because of them. Every religion distinguishes between believers and non-believers, for example. Does that slake your curiosity?
Outside of the modern legal context, discrimination is a synonym for distinction. Religions not only make distinctions but exist because of them. Every religion distinguishes between believers and non-believers, for example. Does that slake your curiosity?
No, that's not the way I intended to use the word 'discrimination', although I do understand the definition you are using.
I meant: Discrimination: n. unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice
Speaking only for my own faith, I do not believe that Christianity commends treating anyone poorly on any basis. But I also do not believe that refusing to acknowledge a homosexual relationship as a valid and licit sacramental marriage is poor treatment. Furthermore, because I acknowledge the truth that sin is a fundamental condition of human history, I do not believe that Christianity provides a blueprint for the hard and often sinful work of this life: the preservation and management of the state, governance of the people, administration of the laws, etc.
My impression of the laws is that it protects vendors from providing goods or services to another person/group if that persons/group is not in accordance with their religious views.
Removing the chance to sue the florist who refused service to a gay wedding and was successfully sued.
Surely the US is big enough to allow people to just take their business elsewhere?
I know it is not discriminatory story but...
We contacted 3 bathroom renovators and got quotes in the last 3 months, all 3 came out and reviewed what we wanted. Only 1 returned a quote.
Do we feel aggrieved at the groups that didn't return a quote. No, but we will not be using the other groups ever again and they loose our business.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also a quick google search showed that 19 US states have similar or harder laws than Indiana.
Manchu wrote: Speaking only for my own faith, I do not believe that Christianity commends treating anyone poorly on any basis. But I also do not believe that refusing to acknowledge a homosexual relationship as a valid and licit sacramental marriage is poor treatment. Furthermore, because I acknowledge the truth that sin is a fundamental condition of human history, I do not believe that Christianity provides a blueprint for the hard and often sinful work of this life: the preservation and management of the state, governance of the people, administration of the laws, etc.
My point of view as relates to this Indiana law, is that it doesn't seem to me that by asking for a cake for a gay wedding, the baker is being asked to acknowledge that a homosexual marriage is a "valid and licit sacramental marriage". That, IMO, would be a step too far. I am certain that there are Christian homosexuals who do want other straight Christians to acknowledge the supernatural elements they ascribe to their marriage. I am an atheist, so to me, the supernatural element of marriage is a non-issue. However, I sympathize with homosexuals here, because I truly don't believe that the vast majority of human beings in any meaningful way are capable of choosing the sex that attracts them physically and romantically.
The average non-Christian gay couple probably just wants a wedding cake, and if its not to much to ask, a smile and a thank you, or at the very least professionalism.
As a side note, and this is meant with only the tiniest bit of humor, I would not be surprised in the least if homosexual marriage was permitted by the Catholic Church before all 50 United States are issuing licenses. Go Francis!!!
Manchu wrote: But I also do not believe that refusing to acknowledge a homosexual relationship as a valid and licit sacramental marriage is poor treatment.
Fortunately baking a cake for a gay wedding does not require you to acknowledge it as a "valid and licit sacramental marriage". You just have to bake a cake and sell it to the customer. Similarly, you don't have to acknowledge that black people have a right to shop in the same stores as white people, you just have to sell to all customers regardless of race.
jasper76 wrote: it doesn't seem to me that by asking for a cake for a gay wedding, the baker is being asked to acknowledge that a homosexual marriage is a "valid and licit sacramental marriage"
No one said it was. This is exactly why I did not want to humor your question.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: My impression of the laws is that it protects vendors from providing goods or services to another person/group if that persons/group is not in accordance with their religious views.
Not even that. Anyone can attempt to break non-discrimination laws. But until they prove to a court that said laws violate their First Amendment rights, they are just breaking the law.
jasper76 wrote: it doesn't seem to me that by asking for a cake for a gay wedding, the baker is being asked to acknowledge that a homosexual marriage is a "valid and licit sacramental marriage"
No one said it was. This is exactly why I did not want to humor your question.
Well, I never said you were taking this position or anything, just asking what your position was. But obviously some people do feel like baking the proverbial cake enters them into a supernatural "Gay-OK" arrangement, otherwise, why are they pushing legislation to shield themselves from related business transactions?
jasper76 wrote: [...] otherwise, why are they pushing legislation to shield themselves from related business transactions?
Because there is a genuine religious liberty question that doesn't boil down to a single circumstance.
OK, what is the nightmare scenario for proponents of this bill? What is the major threat they are seeking to defend themselves against with this kind of legislation?
Surely, we can't be talking about baking a wedding cake...
Automatically Appended Next Post: For real, would a laws like this satisfy the religious right:
"Noone can be compelled to personally participate in a religious ceremony against their will."
-and-
"Noone can be compelled to acknowledge the sanctity of a religious ceremony against their will."
Because if that's all you're after, sigm me up yesterday!!
jasper76 wrote: OK, what is the nightmare scenario for proponents of this bill?
The nightmare scenario is the violation of the First Amendment ... what we have been talking about for pages and pages. We have talked about HobbyLobby, we have talked about the Arizona wedding photographer ... all of this is preserved by the way, you can look back at it.
jasper76 wrote: Because if that's all you're after, sigm me up right away!
Manchu wrote: The nightmare scenario is the violation of the First Amendment ... what we have been talking about for pages and pages. We have talked about HobbyLobby, we have talked about the Arizona wedding photographer ... all of this is preserved by the way, you can look back at it.
You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.
If you want to amend the First Amendment to clarify it somehow, put your revision to the vote of\ the nation. Two-Thirds, IIRC must approve.
jasper76 wrote: You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.
It feels condescending to post but ... I'm afraid it's not that simple. Congress passed the RFRA in response to a change in Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Manchu wrote: The nightmare scenario is the violation of the First Amendment ... what we have been talking about for pages and pages. We have talked about HobbyLobby, we have talked about the Arizona wedding photographer ... all of this is preserved by the way, you can look back at it.
You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.
If you want to amend the First Amendment to clarify it somehow, put your revision to the vote of\ the nation. Two-Thirds, IIRC must approve.
The thing you're missing jasper is that two opposing sides could have legitimate reasons.
jasper76 wrote: You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.
It feels condescending to post but ... I'm afraid it's not that simple. Congress passed the RFRA in response to a change in Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Don't even bother to give it a second thought. You established your condescending bona fides long, long ago, and I've hung with you in this conversation this long. You went to law school, so I forgive you.
Manchu wrote: The nightmare scenario is the violation of the First Amendment ... what we have been talking about for pages and pages. We have talked about HobbyLobby, we have talked about the Arizona wedding photographer ... all of this is preserved by the way, you can look back at it.
You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.
If you want to amend the First Amendment to clarify it somehow, put your revision to the vote of\ the nation. Two-Thirds, IIRC must approve.
The thing you're missing jasper is that two opposing sides could have legitimate reasons.
Manchu wrote: Great, welcome to supporting the RFRA.
Hell no. The RFRA is WAAAAAAY too broad. The laws I just proposed are specific to religious ceremonies, NOT business transactions.
Alright, here's an easy business transaction...
A muslim printing shop sees a preacher in his print shop.
The preacher want to print out pamphlets depicting Mohammed.
Can the shop owner refuse?
Crazy hypothetical, sure... but, we do live in crazy time.
Or better yet, here's a real world application: The Amish.
There are cases that the Amish tried to use the RFRA to prevent being forced to but reflector lights on their buggies.... most of the time, they've lost.
Whereas, there are cases now that the Amish is trying to use RFRA to prevent being forced to install fire detector... and I believe they're coming from a strong position.
I have no evidence to support it but I assume you are an adult. It just feels weird to have to tell another adult that the mere existence of the First Amendment does not mean that no law will ever violate it.
@whembly
What's the point of these hypotheticals? Here's a real case: Can someone be forced by the government to attend a gay wedding because she owns a wedding photography business?
Morally, the thing about the Amish, similar to any religion when you think about it, is that their children are innocent of their decisions, and incapable of making decisions like putting in safety devices like reflector lights and fire detectors.
Those kind of regulations shield innocent children from the poor decisions made by their parents, be they caused by religion, ignorance, laziness, or whatever.
Manchu wrote: The nightmare scenario is the violation of the First Amendment ... what we have been talking about for pages and pages. We have talked about HobbyLobby, we have talked about the Arizona wedding photographer ... all of this is preserved by the way, you can look back at it.
You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.
If you want to amend the First Amendment to clarify it somehow, put your revision to the vote of\ the nation. Two-Thirds, IIRC must approve.
The thing you're missing jasper is that two opposing sides could have legitimate reasons.
Please explain what you mean, Whembly.
Okay... please understand that I'm not trying to be snarky, or put you in a "gotcha trap".
K?
Think out perspectives.
What you and I think may be right can be totally different.
Let's take your Baker example of making a wedding cake for a SSM.
You think this, in itself, is NOT a 'participation' of said wedding. That's your perspective on this issue. Right?
Other think that it forms some sort of tactic approval or assent to the idea of SSM. That's another perspective on this issue. With me so far?
Now you have two opposing viewpoints by two Americans. How do you resolve this?
*notice that I didn't interject who's more valid than the other... just that, there are two opposing points of views.
What's the point of these hypotheticals? Here's a real case: Can someone be forced by the government to attend a gay wedding because she owns a wedding photography business?
Because the red herring here is about gay rights. Take that out of the equation and I think we can convince folks that RFRA is a good law.
If so, I'd resolve it by telling the baker to bake the cake for his fellow citizen, its just a cake, and there is no need for him to participate in or even respect the concept of the event.
Morally, the thing about the Amish, similar to any religion when you think about it, is that their children are innocent of their decisions, and incapable of making decisions like putting in safety devices like reflector lights and fire detectors.
Those kind of regulations shield innocent children from the poor decisions made by their parents, be they caused by religion, ignorance, laziness, or whatever.
Now I want you to think about this for a bit... let it stew while you process different scenarios.
I'm hoping you'll see how scary these line of thinkings can be...
Morally, the thing about the Amish, similar to any religion when you think about it, is that their children are innocent of their decisions, and incapable of making decisions like putting in safety devices like reflector lights and fire detectors.
Those kind of regulations shield innocent children from the poor decisions made by their parents, be they caused by religion, ignorance, laziness, or whatever.
Now I want you to think about this for a bit... let it stew while you process different scenarios.
I'm hoping you'll see how scary these line of thinkings can be...
Nah. I do like a good guessing game, but you might as well just spell it out for me, because I cant read minds.
jasper76 wrote: You're not being snarky at all (at least so far )
Cool... sometimes I can't help it, as I'll admit I'm the regular OT gak-disturber.
Like, were I magistrate or something??
If so, I'd resolve it by telling the baker to bake the cake for his fellow citizen, its just a cake, and there is no need for him to participate in or even respect the concept of the event.
Why? What makes the customer's right stronger in this case over the owner's belief?
Its my opinion that if you go into business with the public, while you should not have to in any way engage in any kind of religious ceremony, or be compelled to acknowledge the validity or sanctity of any kind of religious ceremony, neither should you be free to deny any of your ordinary services, such as baking wedding cakes in a wedding cake shop, to people on broad, incidental categories, such as are enumerated in the Civil Rights Act, and also sexual orientation.
Morally, the thing about the Amish, similar to any religion when you think about it, is that their children are innocent of their decisions, and incapable of making decisions like putting in safety devices like reflector lights and fire detectors.
Those kind of regulations shield innocent children from the poor decisions made by their parents, be they caused by religion, ignorance, laziness, or whatever.
Now I want you to think about this for a bit... let it stew while you process different scenarios.
I'm hoping you'll see how scary these line of thinkings can be...
Nah. I do like a good guessing game, but you might as well just spell it out for me, because I cant read minds.
It's the idea that there can't be any middle ground here...
The Amish for example... I think the government would have a much stronger argument if an Amish family moved into a regular suburb building their traditional homes / parking the buggy next to your SUV. (not likely to happen). However, most Amish communities are well closed off from the rest of the world, as it's their belief and world view to live as they do. They lived this way for how long now?
The middle ground would be to grant a waiver to these Amish communities, imo.
Likewise for your Baker issue...
The customer has options to take their business elsewhere. That is the middle ground Jasper. What's scary is that, as Manchu opined earlier, there's a startling phenomenon that if a person/group isn't conforming to whatever SJW are fighting for... that it's okay to fething destroy this person / business.
jasper76 wrote: The Amish communities are not so closed. I'm in PA all the time. They travel heavily tafficked roads.
If they don't have those reflector lights, drunk or reckless drivers will smash there buggies, likely killing everyone inside, and the horse.
I know that, I wrote earlier that most of the Amish tried going to court to object putting those on their buggies. As far as I know, most of them lost and is forced to have it on their buggies.
I don't object to that at all. They had their day in court.
EDIT: I should've clarifed in my previous post that the waivers would be the fire safety inspection at their homes, and not a waiver for their buggies.
I have no evidence to support it but I assume you are an adult. It just feels weird to have to tell another adult....
This is ironic, because, until you told me that you went to law school, I assumed you were a minor.
My mom told me something about the word assume? I bet they teach that lesson in Charm School, too.
You're correct, I am of drinking age, and I never claimed, or at least never intended to claim, that the Indiana law violates the First Amendment, or that it is impossible for a law to be passed that is in violation of the First Amendment, or whatever you're on about.
Wow it would be even weirder if a kid had to explain these simple points to you.
jasper76 wrote: I never claimed, or at least never intended to claim, that the Indiana law violates the First Amendment, or that it is impossible for a law to be passed that is in violation of the First Amendment, or whatever you're on about.
The Indiana law as in the Indiana RFRA? ... are you even paying slight attention to the conversation?
The customer has options to take their business elsewhere. That is the middle ground Jasper. What's scary is that, as Manchu opined earlier, there's a startling phenomenon that if a person/group isn't conforming to whatever SJW are fighting for... that it's okay to fething destroy this person / business.
This isn't "tolerance"... it's flat out bullying.
I don't know what SJW means. I don't know what phenomenon you are referring to.
What if the customer has no other options? What if the only other options for the customer are in a bad part of town?
Wow it would be even weirder if a kid had to explain these simple points to you.
Right? You are explaining things to me that I already know. A law can be passed that violates the First Amendment? When or how did you construe that I didn't know that? Quote it and tell me, and I will immediately apologize for it.
jasper76 wrote: You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.
It feels condescending to post but ... I'm afraid it's not that simple. Congress passed the RFRA in response to a change in Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The customer has options to take their business elsewhere. That is the middle ground Jasper. What's scary is that, as Manchu opined earlier, there's a startling phenomenon that if a person/group isn't conforming to whatever SJW are fighting for... that it's okay to fething destroy this person / business.
This isn't "tolerance"... it's flat out bullying.
I don't know what SJW means.
Social Justice Warrior.
I don't know what phenomenon you are referring to.
I'll just re-quote Manchu who nailed it:
Manchu wrote: You know, this is a real concern. It is socially acceptable in the USA and apparently to some extent in Canada and Europe to try to ruin someone's life if enough people agree with your righteous anger regarding whatever political topic, regardless of what that person actually said or believes about the matter.
whembly wrote: The customer has options to take their business elsewhere. That is the middle ground Jasper.
And this exact same argument applies just as well to "whites only" businesses. Black customers had other options to take their business elsewhere, so do you think that they should have just accepted the "middle ground" of segregation and not challenged those policies in court?
that it's okay to fething destroy this person / business.
Why shouldn't it be? Why should the business owner be immune to criticism of their beliefs? If a racist business owner is racist towards their customers should we feel an obligation to say "I don't like this, but I'd better not say anything because it would destroy their business"?
There’s been a lot of soul-searching lately about the myriad “Religious Freedom” (RFRA) laws that have begun popping up around the country in places like Arizona, Mississippi, Michigan, Georgia, Arkansas, and now most famously, Indiana. Much of the brouhaha began when a bakery way out in Oregon, acting on the religious beliefs of its owner, refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Thus were born the great cake debates.
Of course, the issue runs much deeper than that. The cake is really just that, a cake—but if you believe the rhetoric of the right, we gay people are trying to have our marriages and eat our cakes, too.
Supporters of the RFRA laws commonly point out that a federal version of the law has been on the books for a long time—since 1993 in fact—and was signed by President Clinton. They argue that there could be nothing wrong with further protecting the First Amendment rights of citizens to believe what they want to believe, to associate with whom they want to associate, and to bake for whomever they want to bake. And what is more, the argument goes, requiring a Christian baker to make a cake for a gay couple is no better than requiring a Jewish one to bake a swastika cake for a neo-Nazi couple.
Critics of such laws, and I am one of them, counter that states are resurrecting them in a cynical response to marriage equality decisions coming out of federal courts. These laws were originally enacted to protect certain Indian tribal rites from government intrusion. They were never intended to extend the personal rights of citizens so far as to potentially impinge upon the public accommodation rights of others. Thus twisted, the RFRA transforms into a license to discriminate against LGBT persons. That is why context—the reason the laws were drafted today—matters a great deal, and why so many stand opposed to their enactment.
"A bakery held open to the public must acknowledge that a gay couple’s request is as good as a straight one’s, and it must act accordingly."
So then, what is really going on beneath the politics and the legal maneuvering? Why would a state like Indiana want to arm its citizens with the power to discriminate, to refuse to make that cake, especially after federal law held that LGBT couples’ vows are equally worthy of respect and protection? And why does that notion sit so badly with so many that we are out calling for boycotts of an entire state?
Perhaps it is my nearly eighty years of perspective, but I cannot help but think we have seen this before on a more serious and deadly level—down in the South, when African Americans fought for the right to vote. Many in state government there did not like the trend toward greater participation by minorities in elections, and so even though the 15th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote, they put measures in place to undercut that right; poll taxes, literacy tests, and the constant threat of violence kept black voters away on election day. Even after the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, its enforcement was weak. States did not like what the politicians and judges in Washington had decided, so they decided not to play along. Instead, they did what they could to make it painful for anyone to enjoy the fruits of a civil rights victory. The law may have said “equal,” but these states still wanted “separate.”
Today, proponents of the RFRA want to send a similar message: “Federal law may say your marriages are equal, but the good, pious people of this state think otherwise, and so we should not have to bend so much as a finger for you.” Especially in small towns across the country, that message sometimes translates into one of open hostility: Go ahead and have your gay marriage; you may not find anyone here willing to help you with it.
In many ways, then, modern day RFRA truly are “sore loser” laws designed to make as hollow as possible the fruits of marriage equality. That the state would sanction this type of law, which effectively gives shopkeepers and proprietors the right to turn-out-the-gays, feeds into a general unwelcoming atmosphere where LGBTs cannot feel accepted or at peace, precisely because they never know when or from whom the next indignity will come.
With regard to the dreaded and much-touted swastika cake, it simply is a false analogy. Comparing LGBTs to Nazis, fashionable as it is, misses several crucial distinctions. There simply is no long and pernicious history of Nazis not being allowed to marry each other. There are not millions of Nazi couples affected by the views and votes of non-Nazis. On the other hand, LGBT couples have until recently often been told by largely straight leaders elected by largely straight voters that our relationships are less valuable and not worthy of public acceptance and legal recognition. That is why anti-discrimination laws, passed in places other than Indiana, are at pains to identify discrete groups traditionally marginalized or mistreated by the majority. It is also why the law draws distinctions between those with generally immutable characteristics, such as sexual orientation, versus those with personal beliefs such as Nazism, however repugnant.
No one is saying a Jewish shopkeeper should have to make a swastika cake for a Nazi couple, nor should they have to make a cake with an obscenity on it if they choose not to. Rather, we are saying that in the era of expanding equality for LGBTs, the law has finally accepted millions of our relationships as equal in its eyes. A bakery held open to the public must acknowledge that a gay couple’s request is as good as a straight one’s, and it must act accordingly. After all, one of the foreseeable consequences of permitting same sex-marriages is same-sex wedding cakes. And contrary to myth, we will not generally make and decorate our own cakes. In fact, we have come very far ourselves, entrusting many straight bakers with this delicate mission.
So if you are a baker with your door open to the public, you may not exempt yourself from baking for some kinds of couples simply because of your personal religious beliefs, or because you want to make gay people feel lousy on their wedding day. You may not do this, just as you may not refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple, even if you believe it's against God's Will that the races intermarry, and even if this belief is sincere. You do not get to elevate your beliefs so high as to ruin another person’s experience and participation in society. Instead, your cooperation is part of the social contract we all implicitly signed onto as part of this civil society.
It is this very social contract that we had in mind when calling for boycotts of states passing or considering RFRA today. The Indiana boycott, which appears to have successfully caused the legislature to move quickly to defang it, sent a powerful signal that we will not be Jim Crowed again, and that states refusing to abide by the spirit of federal marriage recognition will be shunned. They can choose to thumb their noses, and cynically to empower their citizens with the right to be uncivil in the name of their beliefs, but there are, and must be, consequences to that. Wedding cakes will be made for both straight and gay couples, it seems, in the Hoosier state.
So there it is, my thoughts on the great cake debate. Don’t even get me started on florists.
Washington (CNN)Indiana's social conservatives wanted a law that insulated them from the gay rights movement. Instead, the state has now enacted protections based on sexual orientation for the first time in its history.
Top Indiana Republican lawmakers overhauled their week-old religious freedom law Thursday with a follow-up measure intended to ease concerns driven by businesses that it could lead to discrimination. Gov. Mike Pence then signed it into law.
The changes appear to have tamped down some of the criticism -- but in doing so Pence and lawmakers infuriated social conservative activists and set the stage for a bigger fight next year over expanding Indiana's anti-discrimination law to cover gays and lesbians.
Republican legislative leaders unveiled their series of changes Thursday morning to the law that triggered intense backlash from businesses, sports associations, pro-LGBT groups and even fiscally-focused conservatives when Pence signed it last week.
The GOP-dominated House and Senate approved a legislative fix, which was added into an unrelated bill, on Thursday, sending it to Pence's desk almost immediately.
Despite last-minute lobbying from conservative groups like Indiana Right to Life to get Pence to veto the fix, the governor signed it Thursday evening.
"In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation. For that I will be forever grateful," Pence said in a statement.
"There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough, but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, 'What is best for Indiana?'" he said. "I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana."
2016ers step into Indiana debate
2016ers step into Indiana debate 04:15
PLAY VIDEO
The changes prohibit businesses from using the law as a defense in court for refusing "to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing" to any customers based on "race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."
It doesn't accomplish what the law's critics wanted most: Adding sexual orientation to the list of categories protected by Indiana's anti-discrimination law.
But that debate, GOP legislators acknowledged, is coming soon. House Speaker Brian Bosma said the backlash against the religious freedom law has "opened many perspectives" and that the anti-discrimination law "needs to be discussed."
Indiana's rapid rush to change its controversial law comes as Republican governors in states like North Carolina and Georgia back away from similar proposals in their states.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who just days ago said he was rejecting the first version of a religious freedom bill that landed on his desk, got the changes he wanted, signing into law Thursday afternoon a religious freedom measure that lawmakers there had revamped this week so that it's identical to the federal law.
The religious freedom debate has touched a particularly raw nerve in Indiana, where a GOP push to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions was defeated last year -- exposing tensions within Republican caucuses that already have more than two-thirds super majorities in both the Indiana House and Senate.
Several Indiana cities already have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, but the legislative fix to the religious freedom law will be the first time protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity are recognized statewide.
RELATED: Is the GOP losing Walmart?
Social conservatives lambasted lawmakers for walking away from what they saw as a crucial protection for Christian businesses that did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians -- particularly for same-sex weddings.
Eric Miller, the head of Advance America and a powerful lobbyist who stood behind Pence at last week's private bill signing ceremony, said on his website: "Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That's not right!"
Nationally, social conservatives expressed similar objections. Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted: "This Indiana "compromise" is a train wreck. It should be voted down."
Still, lawmakers said they had to do something.
"What was intended as a message of inclusion was interpreted as a message of exclusion, especially for the LGBT community," Bosma said Thursday morning. "Nothing could have been further from the truth, but it was clear the perception had to be addressed."
The Indiana law and a similar bill that Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson has asked lawmakers there to change had drawn criticism from major companies like Apple, Walmart and Salesforce, as well as sports associations like the NCAA, NBA and NFL.
Katie Blair, the head of Freedom Indiana, a group that lobbies against anti-LGBT measures and is funded by several of Indiana's largest businesses, said the changes announced Thursday "represent a step in the right direction."
"Today, the harm has been lessened, but we have not reached the day when LGBT Hoosiers can be assured that they can live their lives with freedom from discrimination," Blair said.
Even as they moved to fix the law they'd passed, though, Indiana Republicans maintained that nothing had really been wrong with it in the first place.
"It was misinterpreted," Bosma said. "But all we can say is we are sorry that misinterpretation hurt so many people."
The baker example isn't a case of refusal of service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the clients, rather a refusal of service on the grounds of the ritual the baker is being asked to cater for and the restrictions placed on said baker by his/her faith with regards to such rituals.
The baker example isn't a case of refusal of service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the clients, rather a refusal of service on the grounds of the ritual the baker is being asked to cater for and the restrictions placed on said baker by his/her faith with regards to such rituals.
Does cake have some religious connotation that I'm unaware of? If not, how would an atheist wedding cake be different than a gay wedding cake?
The baker example isn't a case of refusal of service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the clients, rather a refusal of service on the grounds of the ritual the baker is being asked to cater for and the restrictions placed on said baker by his/her faith with regards to such rituals.
Does cake have some religious connotation that I'm unaware of? If not, how would an atheist wedding cake be different than a gay wedding cake?
Other than being delicious and infinity better than the abomination that is pie? Not in general, no. The ritual it's made for, though, possibly.
The baker example isn't a case of refusal of service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the clients, rather a refusal of service on the grounds of the ritual the baker is being asked to cater for and the restrictions placed on said baker by his/her faith with regards to such rituals.
Does cake have some religious connotation that I'm unaware of? If not, how would an atheist wedding cake be different than a gay wedding cake?
article wrote:Social conservatives lambasted lawmakers for walking away from what they saw as a crucial protection for Christian businesses that did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians -- particularly for same-sex weddings.
Eric Miller, the head of Advance America and a powerful lobbyist who stood behind Pence at last week's private bill signing ceremony, said on his website: "Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That's not right!"
Nationally, social conservatives expressed similar objections. Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted: "This Indiana "compromise" is a train wreck. It should be voted down."
And yeah, let's just keep pretending that this had nothing to do with discrimination and the people saying "if we add a 'no discrimination' rule the law is worthless" in other states had nothing to do with the Indiana law.
A large pizza with a side of hate by Eugene Robinson, Washington Post
The only purpose of the “religious freedom” laws in Indiana and other states is to assert that discrimination against gay people is acceptable. The only way to “fix” such measures is to repeal them.
As events this week have shown, the nation is becoming intolerant of intolerance. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) insisted that the absurdly titled “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” was not meant to enable discrimination. But no sooner had the ink dried on the new law than a local pizzeria announced it was just raring to discriminate.
“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” said Crystal O’Connor, whose family owns and operates Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Ind.
As a practical matter, I’m betting that few couples, gay or straight, would be devastated to go without pizza at their wedding reception. But that’s not the point. O’Connor correctly understood that the law was intended to let her discriminate against gay couples. Her family’s Christian beliefs, she said, lead her to disapprove of same-sex marriage.
It is her right to believe whatever she wants. Religious liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution. But in a pluralistic society, freedom of worship cannot mean a business that serves the general public can discriminate. When I was growing up in the South, there were business owners who believed the Lord didn’t intend for different races to mix, much less marry. Federal civil rights legislation barred these businesses from acting on that belief. The proprietors got over it.
At Pence’s urging, the Indiana legislature quickly came up with a proposal to amend the law to prohibit discrimination based on “race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.” Pence signed it into law on Thursday. In other words: Never mind the whole thing, and we’re sorry we bothered everyone.
Read that list and contemplate the supreme irony: Indiana has ended up with an anti-discrimination law protecting the LGBT community that is among the toughest in the nation. Apparently, there will be pizza for everyone.
Doubtless with an eye toward Pence’s travails, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) announced that he will not sign the religious-freedom law his legislature just handed him without significant changes, probably along the lines of those done in Indiana.
Pence was a big supporter of the original law, so why the rapid moonwalk in the opposite direction? Because the business community, both locally and nationally, announced its opposition and activists began talking about a boycott of the state. Because the NCAA, which is holding the Final Four tournament in Indianapolis this weekend, announced its urgent concern. Because Apple chief executive Tim Cook, who heads the most valuable company in the universe, wrote a Post op-ed denouncing the Indiana law as discriminatory.
In Arkansas, Hutchinson heard expressions of concern from Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retailer — which happens to be headquartered in Bentonville, Ark. When Wal-Mart calls, and you’re governor of Arkansas, you pick up the phone.
About 20 states already have these religious-freedom laws on the books, although most are not as far-reaching as Indiana’s. There is no indication that rampant discrimination is taking place — but that’s not the point. The clear target is same-sex marriage, and the intention is to reassure citizens that discrimination against same-sex couples is at least theoretically permissible.
The fact that we don’t hear of these laws actually being used proves a truth about same-sex marriage that should be blindingly obvious: Whether two men or two women decide to marry has not the slightest impact on anyone else.
Just a decade ago, most gay activists considered same-sex marriage a bridge too far. Today, it’s the law in 37 states and the District. The world has not come to an end. “Traditional” marriage has not been threatened. Opponents cannot cite one negative impact on society, unless you count the deprivation felt by citizens who need somebody, anybody, to discriminate against.
With a few exceptions, such as Hobby Lobby, the business community has decided that bigotry is bad for the bottom line. Politicians can fight the likes of Apple, Wal-Mart and the NCAA if they want. It’s just not a high-percentage move.
Which brings me to the wrenching struggle the Republican Party is having with itself over the issue. It’s time for the GOP to get on the right side of history. The next time you order an extra-large pepperoni, tell them to hold the hate.
And yet atheists are one of the least trusted groups in America, even ranking below rapists in some studies.../
Right???
At Pence’s urging, the Indiana legislature quickly came up with a proposal to amend the law to prohibit discrimination based on “race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.” Pence signed it into law on Thursday. In other words: Never mind the whole thing, and we’re sorry we bothered everyone.
It did not escape my notice that my particular minority status did not make the list. It would seem that our overlords are either unaware of us, or we are the true target of their masterplan!!!!
article wrote:Social conservatives lambasted lawmakers for walking away from what they saw as a crucial protection for Christian businesses that did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians -- particularly for same-sex weddings.
Eric Miller, the head of Advance America and a powerful lobbyist who stood behind Pence at last week's private bill signing ceremony, said on his website: "Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That's not right!"
Nationally, social conservatives expressed similar objections. Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted: "This Indiana "compromise" is a train wreck. It should be voted down."
And yeah, let's just keep pretending that this had nothing to do with discrimination and the people saying "if we add a 'no discrimination' rule the law is worthless" in other states had nothing to do with the Indiana law.
Still trying to pretend that statements made by a legislator in Georgia are relevant to Indiana legislation?
With this new clause the law is still more than viable, and still gives protection from "substantial burden" to regions. So which social conservatives said that (absent gay weddings) they "did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians"? I note that the quote provided from Mr. Miller specified weddings, while it was the article's text that made the point of a blanket refusal of service (which religious businesses could not get away with under the unamended SB101)
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Still trying to pretend that statements made by a legislator in Georgia are relevant to Indiana legislation?
I guess you missed the point that I just quoted Indiana lobbyists who supported the law talking about the Indiana law in the exact same way that the legislator in Georgia talked about the Georgia law? You claimed the comments about the Georgia law didn't apply, and now we have the same "if we ban discrimination the law is worthless" comments about the Indiana law. So I guess the Indiana law was about discrimination after all.
Peregrine wrote: I guess you missed the point that I just quoted Indiana lobbyists who supported the law talking about the Indiana law in the exact same way that the legislator in Georgia talked about the Georgia law? You claimed the comments about the Georgia law didn't apply, and now we have the same "if we ban discrimination the law is worthless" comments about the Indiana law. So I guess the Indiana law was about discrimination after all.
You appear to have omitted a great deal of my post, which relates to the points you are attempting to make;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: With this new clause the law is still more than viable, and still gives protection from "substantial burden" to regions. So which social conservatives said that (absent gay weddings) they "did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians"? I note that the quote provided from Mr. Miller specified weddings, while it was the article's text that made the point of a blanket refusal of service (which religious businesses could not get away with under the unamended SB101)
You'll note that neither person you quoted said "if we ban discrimination the law is worthless".
Does cake have some religious connotation that I'm unaware of? If not, how would an atheist wedding cake be different than a gay wedding cake?
If you listen to/believe some of the people who fight on the side of "the baker should be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds" you can pretty much infer that the simple act of writing "Congrats Steve and Pat" on a cake with a two dude topper is such a sin that God will drown them in a vat of their own buttermilk frosting. Either that or, as I alluded to earlier ITT, there's sometimes this crazy belief that The Gay is contagious like a cold or Flu, and doing business for a gay couple, such as this proverbial cake will ensure that the person who serves them catches The Gay.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the pastry of their liking, but by the content of their character."
I’m for marriage equality — having filed many briefs supporting challenges to restrictive state laws — but I have no problem with Indiana’s new religious-freedom law. And neither should progressives.
The Supreme Court said in 1990 that the First Amendment doesn’t grant exemptions from generally applicable laws, so religious objectors have to seek relief from the legislature. Accordingly, a near-unanimous Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ensure that laws and other government actions only burden religious exercise where absolutely necessary to achieve a compelling goal.
Twenty states have followed suit — including Illinois, with the support of state Senator Barack Obama — plus courts in 11 other states interpreted state constitutions to provide similar protections. So mark me unimpressed by Hillary Clinton’s tweeted disappointment that “this new Indiana law can happen in America today.”
Indeed, the American Civil Liberties Union and other progressive groups long supported these laws, which have been used to protect religious practices involving hallucinogenic substances, animal sacrifices, eagle feathers, and symbolic daggers — but not discrimination in hiring employees or serving customers.
None of these laws, at either the federal or state levels, have ever allowed exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. Indiana isn’t even one of the 21 states that prohibit employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation, so there’s no exemption to be granted here.
Some who protest the new law point to its explicit application to disputes between private parties. But most courts — including the most progressive federal appellate court in the nation, the California-based Ninth Circuit — have interpreted the federal RFRA in this manner too. And that makes sense: If someone invokes a law to force you to do something, your objection would be to that law, without which there would be no burden on your religious exercise.
But again, never has a RFRA allowed a private party to discriminate against gays (or anyone else) in employment, service, housing, or any other scenario in the parade of horribles raised by opponents of Indiana’s law.
But really this debate is all a misunderstanding — by both sides — of the difference between government and private action.
Progressives are right that states must extend official recognition to same-sex couples — though I don’t see a need for government involvement in marriage in the first place — but egregiously seek to bend the will of private citizens who have religious differences from the prevailing viewpoint. Conservatives are wrong to oppose giving state marriage licenses to same-sex couples but correctly argue that people should be free to live their lives according to their consciences.
We’re all born free and equal under the law. That means that we may associate with anyone who wishes to associate with us, and also to decline to associate. While governments must treat everyone equally, individuals should be able to make their own decisions on whom to do business with and how — on religious grounds or otherwise. Those who disagree with those choices can take their custom elsewhere and encourage others to do the same.
The prototypical scenario that the Indiana law is meant to prevent is the case of that New Mexico wedding photographer who was fined for declining to work a same-sex commitment ceremony. Note however that she lost despite New Mexico’s RFRA, and her stronger argument was based on her First Amendment freedom of expression (which the Supreme Court alas refused to hear).
For that matter, gay photographers shouldn’t be forced to work fundamentalist celebrations, blacks shouldn’t be forced to work KKK rallies, and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities. This isn’t the Jim Crow South; there are plenty of wedding vendors who would be willing to do business regardless of sexual orientation, and no state is enforcing segregation laws.
Moreover, I don’t know why you’d want to have someone who can’t in good faith (literally) support your wedding work it. It must be the desire to narrow the rules of the game such that private institutions are allowed to continue operating only as long as they follow a prescribed list of mores.
Doesn’t that strike you as reactionary and illiberal? If progressives support tolerance and respect for diversity, they should support Indiana’s law.
A baker had to tell someone that they wouldn't make their cake because putting 2 little dudes, or 2 little women, on top of the cake offended them so deeply that they were willing to offend the previously happy couple, and lose buissiness over it.
A photographer can cancel and say they can't make it, without bringing up their reasoning.
There is a difference between refusing service with tact, and refusing service and expressing an opionin that hurts the customer while doing it.
adamsouza wrote: There is a difference between refusing service with tact, and refusing service and expressing an opionin that hurts the customer while doing it.
Totally agree. As David Brooks wrote, this is a matter of manners. You know what else is bad manners -- tracking down people who you know will be uncomfortable doing something and then using the government to force them to do it and using social media to destroy their business and make them the targets of threats and harassment.
Besides it being rude, petty, and immoral, there's also Ilya Shapiro's question:
Doesn’t that strike you as reactionary and illiberal?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I don't think that ridiculing people for being an donkey-cave for the point of being an donkey-cave is really "though police".
traceable death threats are however, which is what the pizza joint has been receiving. How very Klan like.
That's people being donkey-caves back. It always surprises me how many donkey-caves there are in the world.
I should start a pizza place in Indiana, seems like a nice way to make a quick buck...
Having a one dimensional opinion.. ok it can be pretty gakky
Destroying a family's entire lively hood....thats going beyond gakky. its pretty fethin "though police" when people will destroy you for having an opinion.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How exactly did they destroy there way of living? It's not like they went and stole all their money.
You ever try to start a busness?
You ever been blacklisted?
Its pretty damning for them to have to deal with no income and being a social pariah.
And yeah its pretty much like thy stole all there money as they are still paying taxs, probably there lease and so on.
Market forces at work...Though no excuse for the death threats assuming that there actually were some and this isn't just an extension of the Martyr complex.
There's no excuse for death threats, but I think blaming bad PR on "thought police" is a bit silly. They brought the bad PR on themselves by saying things meant to offend people.
The Indiana RFRA has been the target of massive amounts of disinformation. Thought Police is a tongue in cheek term of course but it is a tongue in cheek term that applies nicely to this situation.
That I agree, but I don't think the pizza place has or will have, anything actually bad happen to it. Closing because of threats on the internet is probebly one of the more stupid things I've heard. Death threats are practically the normal conversation equivalent of "feth you" on the internet nowadays, especially in the cespit that is social media.
Co'tor Shas wrote: There's no excuse for death threats, but I think blaming bad PR on "thought police" is a bit silly. They brought the bad PR on themselves by saying things meant to offend people.
They shouldn't have worn those short skirts. They brought it on themselves!
Co'tor Shas wrote: That I agree, but I don't think the pizza place has or will have, anything actually bad happen to it. Closing because of threats on the internet is probebly one of the more stupid things I've heard. Death threats are practically the normal conversation equivalent of "feth you" on the internet nowadays, especially in the cespit that is social media.
While I agree in principle, I'm not sure that's something you can always reasonably take so lightheartedly, particularly when you have a family to worry about and the like.
Someone anonymously telling me "IMA KILL YOU MORAN!" on the internet in response to a comment I make is one thing.
Someone being able to look at a map and know when I'm going to be at work and get precise directions to said location who's saying it is a different caliber of creepy.
Co'tor Shas wrote: There's no excuse for death threats, but I think blaming bad PR on "thought police" is a bit silly. They brought the bad PR on themselves by saying things meant to offend people.
They shouldn't have worn those short skirts. They brought it on themselves!
Not really equivalent. Saying stuff that offend people is bad PR. It always has been, and it always will be. Anyone who runs a business should know that. A store that plastes it's walls with KKK flyers it going to get bad PR. A store that hangs nazi flags is going to get bad PR. A store that goes out of it's way to offend gay people is going to get bad PR.
Co'tor Shas, once again Ima call your post out as effed up. There is a difference between not partonizing a business on the one hand and harrassing, threatening, and vandalizing a business on the other hand.
Or is this kind of antisocial behavior okay because it suits some widely agreed upon ideology of "tolerance"?
I sure hope that Indiana will get around to passing laws that make death threats illegal at some point.
People in this thread complaining that a business is getting tons of bad PR (Freedom of the Press) and people voicing their disgust with them (Freedom of Speech) after screaming "won't someone please think of the 1st Amendment"? Priceless.
Manchu wrote: Co'tor Shas, once again Ima call your post out as effed up. There is a difference between not partonizing a business on the one hand and harrassing, threatening, and vandalizing a business on the other hand.
Or is this kind of antisocial behavior okay because it suits some widely agreed upon ideology of "tolerance"?
As I have said multiple times, there is no excuse for death threats, but when on purposely offend people, you are going to get bad PR. That is a fact that has been part of business since there have been business. If I ran a ice cream shop and declared that I was't going to serve Christians, bad PR would ensue. If I said I wound't serve Muslims, bad PR would ensue. If I said I wouldn't serve mexicans, bad PR would ensue. When even you offend people, you get bad PR.
The O'Connors were not trying to purposely offend people. That's like saying a gay couple holding hands in public is trying to purposefully offend people.
I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.
Manchu wrote: The O'Connors were not trying to purposely offend people.
Yes they were. They were just surprised at how many people ended up being offended. They expected to just offend gay people. They didn't realize that gay people very often have straight friends.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I find it very hard to believe that people going out of their way to say "We won't treat gay people the same as everybody else." was not meant to offend.
Great, but no one asked them in the first place to do any such thing. They wanted to get the word out about their business, likely in the hope of attracting other bigots to their restaurant in solidarity, and instead they kicked a hornets nest of public opinion. They are bigots who wanted attention. They got attention. The country knows they are bigots and donkey-caves, and other bigots and donkey-caves are giving them money.
!
.jpg)
)
