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.

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If Smith Bakery wants to exist as a separate legal structure taking advantage of the laws protecting Mr. Smith from the public then Smith Bakery should be required to abide by the laws protecting the public from Mr. Smith.

The public does not have a constitutional right to hold liabilities against Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, however, does have a constitutional right to religious freedom.

Good thing that Mr Smith filed the required paperwork declaring that actions by Smith Bakery are not actions by Mr smith and actions against Smith Bakery are not actions against Mr Smith

Prestor Jon wrote:
If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?

No, because there's no discrimination involved. The restaurant doesn't have any pork dishes on their menu, and there is no general principle that allows a customer to demand a custom meal from a restaurant. All customers, no matter what their religious beliefs (or any other attributes), get to order from the same menu.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?

That level of imposition on their religious values would allow them to use the shield of an RFRA to allow their refusal but only if there is a legitimate compelling force that gives my wife and I a legal right to force them to cook for us. Do we have that right? If so what law grants us that right?

I do not think that is a great example because the restaurant is not offering pig to any customer, therefore you are not being discriminated against. A better example would be health and safety inspectors demanding that the Amish install smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and exit signs in all their buildings.

 Manchu wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
What law does the refusal to bake the cake violate?

Prospectively, an amended version of the CRA or existing and prospective state anti-discrimination laws.

But their is no existing law that requires that the baker bake whatever cake that any prospective customer wants for whatever reason/occasion the customer wants?

If there is no such law then there is no burden placed on the baker and no legal grounds to invoke a RFRA law.

 Peregrine wrote:
By "private life" I mean Mr. Smith's life as Mr. Smith. That is separate from Mr. Smith's obligations as an employee and/or owner of Smith Bakery.

The CRA already protects Mr. Smith's right to religious freedom as an employee. These state RFRAs are meant to do the same for Mr. Smith as a a business owner. Because, you know, it's the same guy.

Prestor Jon wrote:
But their is no existing law that requires that the baker bake whatever cake that any prospective customer wants for whatever reason/occasion the customer wants?

Sure there are such laws. I'm sure you must have read about that infamous Arizona ruling regarding the wedding photographer.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I realize that, but (although it might just be me) it seemed a bit like you going "supreme court disagrees with you, thus everything you say is wrong." Probably just me misinterpreting what people say though.

I apologize if I gave that impression. What I was attempting to do was show that the opinion that businesses cannot have a religious character is a point unsupported by current laws.

No need to apologize, it's probably my fault.

 d-usa wrote:
Good thing that Mr Smith filed the required paperwork declaring that actions by Smith Bakery are not actions by Mr smith and actions against Smith Bakery are not actions against Mr Smith

Again, for the purposes of liability. The rest of it, you (and many others) are reading into the law.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?

That level of imposition on their religious values would allow them to use the shield of an RFRA to allow their refusal but only if there is a legitimate compelling force that gives my wife and I a legal right to force them to cook for us. Do we have that right? If so what law grants us that right?

I do not think that is a great example because the restaurant is not offering pig to any customer, therefore you are not being discriminated against. A better example would be health and safety inspectors demanding that the Amish install smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and exit signs in all their buildings.

Its a more analogous example to the gay wedding cake example.

The Amish example is tricky because now you're involving municipal and state building codes/fire codes. I would think it would difficult for any court to rule in favor of the Amish without creating a lot of issues for existing building code laws. Fires and threats to public safety would have to be considered a compelling govt interest. Otherwise there's no point to having codes at all.

 d-usa wrote:

Good thing that Mr Smith filed the required paperwork declaring that actions by Smith Bakery are not actions by Mr smith and actions against Smith Bakery are not actions against Mr Smith

Perhaps business laws are so ineffable that not even a god can understand them.

The principle of limiting liability is pretty simple.

It can just be taken way too literally.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
By "private life" I mean Mr. Smith's life as Mr. Smith. That is separate from Mr. Smith's obligations as an employee and/or owner of Smith Bakery.

The CRA already protects Mr. Smith's right to religious freedom as an employee. These state RFRAs are meant to do the same for Mr. Smith as a a business owner. Because, you know, it's the same guy.

Prestor Jon wrote:
But their is no existing law that requires that the baker bake whatever cake that any prospective customer wants for whatever reason/occasion the customer wants?

Sure there are such laws. I'm sure you must have read about that infamous Arizona ruling regarding the wedding photographer.

The Arizona case involved state law. Does Indiana have a similar law? I was under the impression they did not. As long as LGBT people aren't part of a protected class how can anyone be compelled to contract with them over objections to their sexuality?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?

That level of imposition on their religious values would allow them to use the shield of an RFRA to allow their refusal but only if there is a legitimate compelling force that gives my wife and I a legal right to force them to cook for us. Do we have that right? If so what law grants us that right?

I do not think that is a great example because the restaurant is not offering pig to any customer, therefore you are not being discriminated against. A better example would be health and safety inspectors demanding that the Amish install smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and exit signs in all their buildings.

Its a more analogous example to the gay wedding cake example.

The Amish example is tricky because now you're involving municipal and state building codes/fire codes. I would think it would difficult for any court to rule in favor of the Amish without creating a lot of issues for existing building code laws. Fires and threats to public safety would have to be considered a compelling govt interest. Otherwise there's no point to having codes at all.

The Amish example is not analogous. The Amish example doesn't have them trying to insist English don't have to follow building codes either.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No need to apologize, it's probably my fault.

Please don't worry, this is one thread that given some of the technicalities being discussed it could be easy to get the wrong end of the stick. There are probably some instances where I could be clearer, but I don't want people to feel that I am patronizing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
As long as LGBT people aren't part of a protected class how can anyone be compelled to contract with them over objections to their sexuality?

This brings up an interesting point; if there is no legislation in Indiana (or at a federal level) granting protected class status to homosexuals then why, as it is alleged, was this law needed to permit discrimination against homosexuals?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional, gay marriage is an inevitability union-wide, and religious lobbies are pressuring legislatures to pass the kind of laws. In my honest opinion, these laws are being pushed to make sure religious people can maintain homosexuals as an unprotected class.

 jasper76 wrote:
Because the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning hay marriage are unconstitutional, gay marriage ia an inevitability union-wide, and religious lobbies are pressuring legislatures to pass the kind of laws.

In what way(s) does the Indiana law prevent gay marriage? Please be specific.

This Indiana law does not prevent gay marriage. I never said it did.

 jasper76 wrote:
This Indiana law does not prevent gay marriage. I never said it did.

Perhaps I mis-understood you. We were discussing the Indiana law and you made the comment " these laws are being pushed to make sure religious people can maintain homosexuals as an unprotected class.", which lead me to believe that this comment pertained to the Indiana law. If that was not the case then which law were you discussing was being pushed to keep homosexuals as an unprotected class?

Religious lobbies see since the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage that it is an inevitability, and are trying to maintain their constituents apparent interest in denying business services on the basis of sexual orientation. At least, that seems like the most likely answer to your last question regarding motives for this type of legislation. Especially since the focus of services, not in the legislation bit in terms of the types of businesses that are complaining, seems to be on wedding cakes, floral arrangements, and other services common to weddings.

 jasper76 wrote:
Religious lobbies see since the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage that it is an inevitability, and are trying to maintain their constituents apparent interest in denying business services on the basis of sexual orientation. At least, that seems like the most likely answer to your last question regarding motives for this type of legislation. Especially since the focus of services, not in the legislation bit in terms of the types of businesses that are complaining, seems to be on wedding cakes, floral arrangements, and other services common to weddings.

And this is what you feel the Indiana law was designed to achieve?

I can't peer into the inner thoughts of the lobbyists, legislators, or the Governor, but yesh, this is an Occams Razor conclusion.

 jasper76 wrote:
I can't peer into the inner thoughts of the lobbyists, legislators, or the Governor, but yesh, this is an Occams Razor conclusion.

As discussed above, sexual orientation is not a protected class in Indiana (or 32 other states) or at the Federal level. If people were so inclined then they were at liberty to discriminate against homosexuals long before SB101 was passed. In fact the commotion about this bill seems more likely to advance having sexual orientation recognized as a protected class. The evidence sadly does not support your conclusion.

Right. The difference being that now, gay marriage is an inevitability. There was a big Supreme Court decision about it. I see a direct line from one to the other. Otherwise, why are proponents of this bill so focused on business services that cater to weddings?

 jasper76 wrote:
Right. The difference being that now, gay marriage is an inevitability. There was a big Supreme Court decision about it. I see a direct line from one to the other. Otherwise, why are proponents of this bill so focused on business services that cater to weddings?

So because gay weddings were an inevitability the Christian lobby needed new legislation to permit discrimination against a class of people they could already discriminate against? That is a very strange proposition.

Yes, because the trend is moving more and more to homosexuals becoming a protected class, locally now, and ultimateley federally. The writing is indeed on the wall, but religious interests want to maintain their existing ability to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

In effect, they want special treatments in place to exempt them from existing and future laws.

That's my take anyways, perhaps it is strange.

In any event , the tide has turned. Pence and now Hutchinson have recognized this is a pandoras box, and are rushing to put the lid back on. Hutchinson has even proposed he might pursue a n executive order to prevent discrimination in the workplace in Arkansas.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Right. The difference being that now, gay marriage is an inevitability. There was a big Supreme Court decision about it. I see a direct line from one to the other. Otherwise, why are proponents of this bill so focused on business services that cater to weddings?

So because gay weddings were an inevitability the Christian lobby needed new legislation to permit discrimination against a class of people they could already discriminate against? That is a very strange proposition.

Ehh.... I think it's more the Christian Lobby is trying to protect "traditional marriage" as well as some Christians belief that "The Gay" can spread like the common cold, and if they make a gay-cake or arrange flowers for a gay wedding, etc. they will "catch The Gay" themselves. So they push for legislation that allows them to continue their discrimination even after any potential rulings in favor of same-sex marriages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Yes, because the trend is moving more and more to homosexuals becoming a protected class, locally now, and ultimateley federally.

I believe they already are in the state of Washington.... I just saw a poster for employment discrimination, and sexual ID/orientation was on the list alongside the "usual" discrimination things. Though that is only on the employment side, I haven't seen if this is the same or similar in other facets of life here in WA (such as housing).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Right. The difference being that now, gay marriage is an inevitability. There was a big Supreme Court decision about it. I see a direct line from one to the other. Otherwise, why are proponents of this bill so focused on business services that cater to weddings?

So because gay weddings were an inevitability the Christian lobby needed new legislation to permit discrimination against a class of people they could already discriminate against? That is a very strange proposition.

I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.

 jasper76 wrote:
In effect, they want special treatments in place to exempt them from existing and future laws.

That's my take anyways, perhaps it is strange.

Given that Indiana, and many other states besides, homosexuals are not a protected class and therefore these is no need to be exempted from existing laws it is a strange proposition. As is the claim that there will be an exemption from future, as yet undrafted, laws.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ehh.... I think it's more the Christian Lobby is trying to protect "traditional marriage" as well as some Christians belief that "The Gay" can spread like the common cold, and if they make a gay-cake or arrange flowers for a gay wedding, etc. they will "catch The Gay" themselves. So they push for legislation that allows them to continue their discrimination even after any potential rulings in favor of same-sex marriages.

Except that is not the intention of the legislation. Any Christian business looking to seek relief through the RFRA has a significant struggle to establish "substantial burden", as we have discussed in detail above.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


I believe they already are in the state of Washington.... I just saw a poster for employment discrimination, and sexual ID/orientation was on the list alongside the "usual" discrimination things. Though that is only on the employment side, I haven't seen if this is the same or similar in other facets of life here in WA (such as housing).

Sexual orientation is already a protected category anti-employment-discrimination-wise among the federal workforce, as well, IIRC by executive order.

 d-usa wrote:
I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.

I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation

You keep on claiming that they have to prove a burden, but have yet to demonstrate that Hobby Lobby had to prove anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.

I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation

If you want to pretend that all these laws exist in complete and utter isolation from one another despite being extremely similar and being proposed by a very similar demographic and backed by the same groups from state to state then please feel free to continue to do so.