Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 streamdragon wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


...The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays....

You cannot be that naive. Nobody over the age of six is that naive.

It's not naivete. It's willful blindness.

Care to quantify that in the face of the evidence presented.

I showe the legislation documents by link.
I showed other lawful applications of the law in separation to homsexuality.
I showed other beneficiaries other than the Christian right.

What evidence have you presented? Nothing. So contribute properly or stop trolling.

What happens if someone claims that a business person denied them service because they were gay based on the business persons "religious beliefs", but then the gay person then claims that the business person is then infringing on their religious beliefs, in which being gay is A-OK... hence the business person is discriminating against a protected class (their religion), rather than the unprotected class of their sexuality?

Also, how can someone who is not religious benefit from this law? If it is my deeply held belief that I will not offer my services to Christians or republicans can I point to this law as I kick these kinds of people out the door? Or is this just to protect " religious" beliefs? Or certain subsets of Christian, and as soon as other groups use the law in ways the creators didn't intend it will be killed deader than Jesus?

 Orlanth wrote:

Care to quantify that in the face of the evidence presented.

Why should anyone quantify anything when all you've done is qualify?

 Orlanth wrote:

I showed other beneficiaries other than the Christian right.

How many of those hypothetical beneficiaries do you believe live in Indiana?

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


Just another state to put on the Do Not Disturb List. 'm sure my presence will not be missed. Say hi to Arizona, Indiana!

I'm sure the Colts, Pacers, Indy 500, Final Four, Big 10 Championship, and Three Floyds Brewing will miss you terribly..

Until they move out, too. I read today that one of the big basketball tournaments is considering moving out, as well...Final Four IIRC. I will try to find that article..


Here it is: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2015/03/26/ncaa-tournament-final-four-indiana-religious-freedom-law-gay-rights/70492134/

from NCAA

"We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week's Men's Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."

 jasper76 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


I'm sorry, did these people not have the right to go to court to begin with???

I ask again, what need for this bill then?

As stated before: it provides religious people with a legal basis.

Let me rephrase: It provides religious people with a legal basis which by all accounts they already had to begin with, so what's the point?

Which legal basis did they have before?

 Orlanth wrote:
What evidence have you presented?

There's never going to be any evidence because politicians know how to lie about their motives. Saying "we hate gay people and want to punish them" is a good way to lose your next election unless you're representing a district where the bigots are a high enough percentage to give you the winning votes even when nobody else votes for you. So instead of being honest about it they present it as "religious freedom", because who could possibly want to stand in the way of freedom? That's plausible deniability, and even if someone points out the fact that discrimination will happen they can bring out the "we don't agree with discrimination, but you have to give people freedom even if they do things you don't agree with" excuses.

Now, if you stop assuming that politicians are always honest and look at the context it's pretty clear that anti-gay discrimination is the major reason behind this bill. Tiny religious minorities don't have the power to get something like this passed, so any benefit to them is just a side effect of legalizing discrimination by conservative Christians.

 Frazzled wrote:

people, in general, are decent and things will get better over time as shown throughout human history.

The 20th Century would like to have a word with you. Looks like the 21st Century wouldn't mind a little chat after you two get through.

That same freedom should also be given to the other side. More freedom is better than less.

So you're actually agreeing with us? Then why are you arguing?

Are you saying that you think you think things were demonstrably better in the 20th century than they are now? Society has improved over time in regards to social and legal equality, I think even a cursory look at history shows that to be true.

I agree that individuals have the right to not patronize a business if they so choose. I'm not sure if both you and Freya agree that businesses also have a right to refuse the patronage of any customer.

Also, if nobody argued there wouldn't be any point to having these threads.

 Freya wrote:

Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?

You shouldn't fixate too much on being called a sinner, according to the teachings bible we are all sinners before the lord (gay or straight). Nobody is free of sin, to be born to this world means you are flawed and sinful no matter what. We can aspire to over come our sins and be forgiven for them, but as human beings we can never truly be free of sin as long as we walk on this earth.

It sounds like the person refusing to bake a gay cake needs to listen to what's actually being said in church sermons and remove the plank in their eye first before worrying about the splinters in others.

That said I've had plenty of people attempt to chastise and insult me based on the fact that I am Christian and they were of a different religion or atheist. (heck even a different Christian denomination) But I try not to pay them much mind because the world is full a-holes who don't respect anyone but themselves.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


I'm sorry, did these people not have the right to go to court to begin with???

I ask again, what need for this bill then?

As stated before: it provides religious people with a legal basis.

Let me rephrase: It provides religious people with a legal basis which by all accounts they already had to begin with, so what's the point?

Which legal basis did they have before?

If any citizen feels their First Amendment Rights have been violated in some way, they have the right to sue, don't they? That's all I was referring to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
What evidence have you presented?

There's never going to be any evidence because politicians know how to lie about their motives. Saying "we hate gay people and want to punish them" is a good way to lose your next election unless you're representing a district where the bigots are a high enough percentage to give you the winning votes even when nobody else votes for you. So instead of being honest about it they present it as "religious freedom", because who could possibly want to stand in the way of freedom? That's plausible deniability, and even if someone points out the fact that discrimination will happen they can bring out the "we don't agree with discrimination, but you have to give people freedom even if they do things you don't agree with" excuses.

Now, if you stop assuming that politicians are always honest and look at the context it's pretty clear that anti-gay discrimination is the major reason behind this bill. Tiny religious minorities don't have the power to get something like this passed, so any benefit to them is just a side effect of legalizing discrimination by conservative Christians.

Are there really several businesses in Indiana that want to refuse to provide goods and services to LGBT customers and believe they can meet the new legal burden of proof of substantial burden to their religious beliefs in a court of law? Seriously, I don't live in Indiana so I have no idea if this legislation is ever actually going to be come into play or not. In order for politicians to get a meaningful political benefit from passing this law they would have to believe that a good number of constituents would approve of this law and/or make use of or benefit from it. They could be wrong, politicians frequently are, but it seems to me that if there was that much anti LGBT sentiment in Indiana that it would have manifested itself in overt tangible newsworthy ways already.

 jasper76 wrote:

If any citizen feels their First Amendment Rights have been violated in some way, they have the right to sue, don't they? That's all I was referring to.

No one has the right to sue under the First. American citizens can petition, but not sue.

 dogma wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

If any citizen feels their First Amendment Rights have been violated in some way, they have the right to sue, don't they? That's all I was referring to.

No one has the right to sue under the First. American citizens can petition, but not sue.

People go to court to sue for violations against their First Amendment Right to freedom of religion all the time, no? I didn't mean to say that the right to go to court over violations to their Constitutional Rights was embedded within the First Amendment itself.

 Orlanth wrote:

Some Christian, Jewish, or Moslem denomination members who might not want to support industries involved in:
- abortion
- birth control

These are the only two things on your list that maybe, possibly, might actually come up in real life. There have been news stories about Christians working in pharmacies not wanting to give customers birth control or the morning after pill, so there is the chance that someone might actually use this law to refuse to serve a heterosexual customer. But we both know that's not who the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote it. The political and cultural climate that exists in this country is such that all those other possibilities you listed (none of them even remotely possible in Indianna, where refusing to do business with customers who eat pork means you have no customers) aren't even a blip on anyone's radar. This law was made as a direct response to what conservative Christians see as a broadening of rights and an increase of acceptance for homosexuals; a group they oppose on religious grounds.

This has nothing to do with kosher delis or halal butchers.

Prestor Jon wrote:
In order for politicians to get a meaningful political benefit from passing this law they would have to believe that a good number of constituents would approve of this law and/or make use of or benefit from it.

No, they just need to mobilize their partisan voters, leading to Party support.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
In order for politicians to get a meaningful political benefit from passing this law they would have to believe that a good number of constituents would approve of this law and/or make use of or benefit from it.

No, they they just need to mobilize their partisan voters, leading to Party support.

Lets all have a laugh together and consider the possibility that the politicians introduced and passed this law because they personally believed it was the right thing to do. Since its a somewhat local issue, I suppose it is an actual possibility. In any case, the voters are responsible for its passage, and responsible for its future.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
What happens if someone claims that a business person denied them service because they were gay based on the business persons "religious beliefs", but then the gay person then claims that the business person is then infringing on their religious beliefs, in which being gay is A-OK... hence the business person is discriminating against a protected class (their religion), rather than the unprotected class of their sexuality?

There isn't a contest here, either both parties in the business are mutually inclusive or exclusive.
Remember this is about non participation, and enforces the right to non participation. It isn't about enforced participation.
In the case above the potential clients religious beliefs are not relevant.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Also, how can someone who is not religious benefit from this law? If it is my deeply held belief that I will not offer my services to Christians or republicans can I point to this law as I kick these kinds of people out the door? Or is this just to protect " religious" beliefs? Or certain subsets of Christian, and as soon as other groups use the law in ways the creators didn't intend it will be killed deader than Jesus?

I mentioned this earlier, and the concept should be expanded to include any 'encoded ethos'. Trouble is that is difficult.
Do you have a code that says you cannot serve Republicans or Christians? How is it quantified?

Any number of people may have personal preferences but a coded ethos is separate to that but we must make proper distinction between membership of say a Synagogue and that of the KKK, both of which will practice separation and non participation for different reasons.

You could form a Gay Atheist Cult with tenets that do not allow trade with people of other faiths. Then you can legally refuse to serve Christians in your shop. Justifying a code that has tenets against the Republican party might be harder to justify and your defence would be laughed out of court.

Besides sexuality is already protected. If Christians walk into a gay bar and aren't welcome, they don't get to sue. It's the other way around thats not protected, and again it is not limited to or about homosexuals, or Christians for that matter. It's just the easiest example to follow due to public attention.

 jasper76 wrote:

Lets all have a laugh together and consider the possibility that the politicians introduced and passed this law because they personally believed it was the right thing to do.

In the case of this law they most likely did.

 dogma wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Lets all have a laugh together and consider the possibility that the politicians introduced and passed this law because they personally believed it was the right thing to do.

In the case of this law they most likely did.

Perhaps you're correct. It seems pretty certain that none of this is in the economic interest of the state.

 jasper76 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
In order for politicians to get a meaningful political benefit from passing this law they would have to believe that a good number of constituents would approve of this law and/or make use of or benefit from it.

No, they they just need to mobilize their partisan voters, leading to Party support.

Lets all have a laugh together and consider the possibility that the politicians introduced and passed this law because they personally believed it was the right thing to do. Since its a somewhat local issue, I suppose it is an actual possibility. In any case, the voters are responsible for its passage, and responsible for its future.

Do you mean thought it was right in the sense that it would be met with popular acclaim or right in the sense that the politicians who voted for it personally believed that it needed to be done regardless of what their constituents might believe?

At Prestor Jon: The latter.

 jasper76 wrote:

People go to court to sue for violations against their First Amendment Right to freedom of religion all the time, no?

For sure, but they are usually motivated by politics and have little traction...unless they're Christian issues; in which case they have lots of traction.

 jasper76 wrote:

Perhaps you're correct. It seems pretty certain that none of this is in the economic interest of the state.

I should correct; they believed it was the Right thing to do.

 Orlanth wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
What happens if someone claims that a business person denied them service because they were gay based on the business persons "religious beliefs", but then the gay person then claims that the business person is then infringing on their religious beliefs, in which being gay is A-OK... hence the business person is discriminating against a protected class (their religion), rather than the unprotected class of their sexuality?

There isn't a contest here, either both parties in the business are mutually inclusive or exclusive.
Remember this is about non participation, and enforces the right to non participation. It isn't about enforced participation.
In the case above the potential clients religious beliefs are not relevant.

However, the client is now a member of a class protected against being descriminatesd against...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Also, how can someone who is not religious benefit from this law? If it is my deeply held belief that I will not offer my services to Christians or republicans can I point to this law as I kick these kinds of people out the door? Or is this just to protect " religious" beliefs? Or certain subsets of Christian, and as soon as other groups use the law in ways the creators didn't intend it will be killed deader than Jesus?

I mentioned this earlier, and the concept should be expanded to include any 'encoded ethos'. Trouble is that is difficult.
Do you have a code that says you cannot serve Republicans or Christians? How is it quantified?

Any number of people may have personal preferences but a coded ethos is separate to that but we must make proper distinction between membership of say a Synagogue and that of the KKK, both of which will practice separation and non participation for different reasons.

You could form a Gay Atheist Cult with tenets that do not allow trade with people of other faiths. Then you can legally refuse to serve Christians in your shop. Justifying a code that has tenets against the Republican party might be harder to justify and your defence would be laughed out of court.

Besides sexuality is already protected. If Christians walk into a gay bar and aren't welcome, they don't get to sue. It's the other way around thats not protected, and again it is not limited to or about homosexuals, or Christians for that matter. It's just the easiest example to follow due to public attention.

I'm unsure why Christians would be unwelcome in a gay bar, after all, there are many gay Christians. As a straight person I have had occasion to attend a few gay barsbars and club nights (and other events) - at no point have I ever been made to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable (and I'm secure enough in my sexuality to be able to politely decline any advances made on my person).

However, that aside, I'm not even sure under what grounds a Christian would be unwelcome in a gay bar unless they were causing problems. Ejecting them "because they were ChristianChristian" should be (and is?) as against the law as ejecting someone because they were gay.

As for the rest, why do your "deeply held beliefs" get additional protections above mine? Is !y imaginary friend who tells me what to do and think not just as real as yours or something?

Sorry for all of text and random double words - my tablet is having a fit editing text...

A religious person who feels unwelcome in a gay bar is likely producing their own awkwardness. In my experience gay bars are extremely welcoming.

squidhills wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Some Christian, Jewish, or Moslem denomination members who might not want to support industries involved in:
- abortion
- birth control

These are the only two things on your list that maybe, possibly, might actually come up in real life.

Thats enough, so even you would unwillingly agree its not therefore about homosexuality, its about religious freedom of non participation.

If the set of conditions that are covered by a bill include sexuality, abortion and birth control, and let us assume for the sake of argument it stopped there. Then the definition of the set is not sexuality.
The set is correctly defined in the bill, its is about Religious Freedom.

Freedom of expression is generally regarded as a good thing in a democratic society, you would have to go to a desperate stretch to deny religious people freedom of expression, though some here and in society at large clearly would like to do so, and post frequently with that aim.

So in a nutshell we should take the Indiana legislators word for it what the bill is about, and not the host for a role players convention.

squidhills wrote:

But we both know that's not who the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote it.

Do you now. The law was written in a neutral format
It does not single out Christianity as a protected class
It does not single out sexual preference as a described target

The Law is the ultimate RAW, read it as such.

squidhills wrote:

The political and cultural climate that exists in this country is such that all those other possibilities you listed (none of them even remotely possible in Indiana, where refusing to do business with customers who eat pork means you have no customers) aren't even a blip on anyone's radar.

You need to read carefully. I didn't mention eating pork as the example, I mentioned farming pigs as the example. Sounds similar but different. If a food supplier supplies pork to its clients refusing service has no partical application.
However if the case is reversed there is.

In some interpretations of Kosher and Halal rules a farmer who produces pork cannot produce clean food at his farm even if the produce is not pork related.
So a Kosher/Halal butcher or food supplier to religious butchers might refuse to deal with a farmer who raises pigs. This happens, routinely.

squidhills wrote:

This has nothing to do with kosher delis or halal butchers.

Maybe not, they are already protected indirectly. No one is going after a minority religion for 'discrimination', its not the type of fight most lawyers relish. Christians are a much easier target.
And even the militant gay lobby avoids going after Islam, though Islam has very strong and vocal homophobic elements. Westboro baptists are liberal by comparison.

squidhills wrote:

This law was made as a direct response to what conservative Christians see as a broadening of rights and an increase of acceptance for homosexuals; a group they oppose on religious grounds.

It affects the timing of the new law, but legislation always come as a result of public need (though the definition of public varies).
That law will protect other religions other than Christianity, and the law will permit non-participations on other issues other than sexuality.

However the motive is slightly different to what you suggested. Increased acceptance of homosexuality is not an issue as much as homosexuality being a protected group and protection removed from Christianity in the process.
Its NOT about homosexuality, its about religion. Freedom for homosexuals is not at stake in society, freedom of expression of religion is.
As it so happens the bill in its fair wording protects several groups for several motives, examples given.
It is notable that that protection while not formally present was not needed in statute, no one would sue a kosher butcher for refusing to trade with a farm that raised pigs and also raised other animals that could be prepared for kosher.
It is when protection is available in society for some by cultural norm, but not for others that legislation is needed to enable and liberate the unprotected.

This is why the bill is justly about freedom, not repression.

I'm sure homosexual people looking to visit Indiana will agree with you. /sarcasm

Discriminating against something you actively choose to be =/= something you are.

 Orlanth wrote:
Freedom for homosexuals is not at stake in society, freedom of expression of religion is.

??

Freedom and rights for homosexuals is the Civil Rights issue of the current time. Your freedom to practice and express your religion has been Constitutionally guaranteed since the founding. Homosexuals are not even protected against discrimination by the Civil Rights Act.

 Orlanth wrote:

The set is correctly defined in the bill, its is about Religious Freedom

You have previously defined atheism as a religion. Would you be alright with an atheist refusing to serve a Christian, for example?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

However, the client is now a member of a class protected against being descriminates against...

Discrimination, in it's modern context, is an extreme word for non-participation of service. You can refuse service without 'discrimination', it happens all the time. There has to be a valid excuse, valid excuses vary.
Good examples include refusing to serve an adult legally of age to buy alcohol a drink because they have had too much already. Technically thats discrimination, as you need to discern whether a person should be served by personal judgement call.

The relevance of this is to establish the fact that one can be selective in you you have dealings with without 'bigotry' being automatically applied. You have to establish circumstances societally. Indiana state legislator is one of twenty states to have done so on the grounds covered by this thread.

Indiana legislators have decided in vote that the right to non-participation trumps the right to be served. This is the correct decision as the client can go elsewhere, whereas the trader cannot turn off their core values as easily.
It should also be noted on this level that non-participation is not hateful of itself, in fact most religions would teach against hating that which you shun.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

I'm unsure why Christians would be unwelcome in a gay bar, after all, there are many gay Christians. As a straight person I have had occasion to attend a few gay bars and club nights (and other events) - at no point have I ever been made to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable (and I'm secure enough in my sexuality to be able to politely decline any advances made on my person).

Depends on the gay bar. There are homosexual extremists also, and some have a hate on for religion.
I should have been more clear.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

As for the rest, why do your "deeply held beliefs" get additional protections above mine? Is !y imaginary friend who tells me what to do and think not just as real as yours or something?
Sorry for all of text and random double words - my tablet is having a fit editing text...

First God is not an imaginary friend. Though outside the charismatic community the evidence is thin enough many people have the misfortune of not seeing that. I am in the fortunate position to have witnessed enough of the miraculous to know that God is very real, too many people even those inside religious organisations have to just take that on faith.

However I do agree with you, and posted on this a few pages back, this right should be expanded to include any identifiable secular ethos. That being said most are indirectly protected anyway.
" I refuse to handle that I'm vegan" would work, though would only come up incidentally and someone else would step in. Vegans wouldn't take employment in places where they handle animal products, not if they want to use that line. But a vegan can refuse to perform an ancillary action not related to their regular work

 dogma wrote:
A religious person who feels unwelcome in a gay bar is likely producing their own awkwardness. In my experience gay bars are extremely welcoming.

True, but then the opposite is also true. If as homosexual walkings into a Christian cafe they will probably get served. It's the in your face activists that would cause offense.

Even so gay bars can be very polarised, but that is from knowledge of the UK, in America things may be very different.
The UK has a strong militant gay lobby and the gay pub scene can be very territorial, it depends on the local clientelle.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Freedom for homosexuals is not at stake in society, freedom of expression of religion is.

??

Freedom and rights for homosexuals is the Civil Rights issue of the current time. Your freedom to practice and express your religion has been Constitutionally guaranteed since the founding. Homosexuals are not even protected against discrimination by the Civil Rights Act.

So you agree with me then. You just don't know it to understand it. The historical record is important but no where near as important as the present.

As you say, freedom and rights for homosexuals is the Civil Rights issue of the time, so the emphasis on freedom with regards to sexual preference is not at stake. It would be if the struggle was not won, but the initiative is certainly there.

However religious freedom is at stake because the focus is clearly elsewhere and some expressions of freedom can be mutually exclusive. Where they are mutually exclusive protection needs to be implemented to enable and maintain freedom for all.

How does this law effect landlords. Are landlords now potentially able to deny qualified tenants based on sexual orientation? Have they always been able to do so?

Doctors? Pharmacists? Hospitals? Schools? Parks? Pools? Gas Stations? Utilities?