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.

 skyth wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Eh... it's sympathy for being bullied.

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.

 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.

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 skyth wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
So bigots aren't donkey-caves? News to me.

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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).

Is that Frazzled comparing homosexuality to paedophilia?

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
So bigots aren't donkey-caves? News to me.

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.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you would up those production values for the weiner dog olympics

Just re-brand it as fighting for gay rights or whatever, that seems to work.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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..

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Is that Frazzled comparing homosexuality to paedophilia?

No.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

No.

Then why the feth bring it up?

There are actual reasons beyond gods that we don't let adults marry and do it with kids.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

You do have a point there.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Then why the feth bring it up?

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.

 Manchu wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

You do have a point there.

The Internet Hate Machine has been surpassed by the Internet Outrage Machine.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

They have always been one and the same.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Is that Frazzled comparing homosexuality to paedophilia?

Nope nice try though. Comparing refusal to participate in one type of marriage with another type of marriage.

I noticed he didn't answer the question. By his own standard people who would not participate in arranged marriages are bigots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm getting married in the fall... and, I'm sorely tempted dude... tempted.

Don't. Pizza joints have a notoriously poor selection of distilled spirits. Unless you know of one with a full bar in which case

Actually, you are if you're going off what he said and not the strawman you made up.

Simply because all he said were those two types of marriages. He did not say "any marriage" in the quoted text.

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.

 Manchu wrote:

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.

And yes, you did conflate them.

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

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.

 Manchu wrote:

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.

I agree.