Indiana's "Religious Freedom" Law

[Indy]

It all boils down to one group wishing to make a law allowing them to discriminate against one group of people that they don't approve of.

Exactly. So maybe there is a big group of people in this country looking to strip liberties away from others.

[Nodack]

I have played three gay weddings in the past year.

I guess if the KKK wanted to hire me for an event I would say no. In reality I would probably just tell them I was already booked on the date tney were interested in to avoid a confrontation. I see your point though. I would be refusing my services on the grounds that I didn't agree with their beliefs and that isn't that far from the gay pizza/cupcake issue.

[Nodack]

It all boils down to one group wishing to make a law allowing them to discriminate against one group of people that they don't approve of.

Exactly. So maybe there is a big group of people in this country looking to strip liberties away from others.

Touché Indy

So Libertarians should be on the side of gays on the Indiana law issue.

[Dan H]

I have played three gay weddings in the past year.

I guess if the KKK wanted to hire me for an event I would say no. In reality I would probably just tell them I was already booked on the date tney were interested in to avoid a confrontation. I see your point though. I would be refusing my services on the grounds that I didn't agree with their beliefs and that isn't that far from the gay pizza/cupcake issue.

Yeah the distinction I guess seems to be your reason for declining. The end result is the same, but no one's feelings get hurt? I don't know, seems strange. I have no problem with a a business owner facing consequences in the marketplace (save for arson and death threats, obviously), the government compulsion is where it starts getting a little hinky in my book.

There's a nice outline of the libertarian position here:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/06/i-s ... edom-laws/

But there is an important distinction between a restaurant discriminating against a gay customer and a wedding photographer refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. In the first case, the restaurant is refusing to serve a person because of their sexual orientation. In the second case, the photographer is refusing to participate in a ceremony that would violate her religious beliefs. As was noted in her petition to the court, the photographer had photographed numerous gay couples in the past, and did not discriminate based on sexual orientation. While the government has an obligation to prevent discrimination, it goes beyond its scope when compelling religious persons to attend ceremonies or other proceedings they find religiously objectionable.

[Nodack]

I think this whole thing is silly. I wouldn't be doing the KKK thing based on who the KKK hate. A photographer would refuse service to gays based on who they love.

I guess I think if a pizza shop wants to announce that it will refuse to serve gays then they should be willing to accept that they are making their beliefs part of their business and expect repercussions by patrons who don't agree with their position. Violence is always wrong, but if somebody wants to write a review of the place and state that the reason they are not going there is because of the stance the pizza place took on gays I think that is reasonable.

As a musician I think it is suicide to pick a political side. As a business owner I think it would be just as much political siucide to take a position on any sensitive subject. It's just not good business sense. Apple's CEO is gay and came out recently. I guess they have broken that rule and stated their support for gays. Maybe there will be some conservative backlash against Apple. Who knows?

I think what makes America great is our tolerance of all faiths, races and whatever. In China religion is practically illegal. In ISIS areas Christians can't expect great treatment. I think any religion in the US trying to makes laws to help discriminate against people they don't like based on their religion is silly. We pride ourselves on being tolerant. You don't want people telling you you can't practice being a Christian in the US and if businesses were trying to pass laws to help businesses discriminate against Christians because their religion doesn't approve of Christianity, I think there just might be some backlash from the Christian community from all the persecution.

[Indy]

In the first case, the restaurant is refusing to serve a person because of their sexual orientation. In the second case, the photographer is refusing to participate in a ceremony that would violate her religious beliefs.

I call complete bullshit on this comparison. Photographing a wedding is taking part in the ceremony? I have been to plenty of weddings, and never have I felt like the photographer was either participating in the ceremony, or giving their blessings that the union was holy and everlasting. That is just silly. (Not directed at you Dan, but at the author.)

[Dan H]

I guess I think if a pizza shop wants to announce that it will refuse to serve gays then they should be willing to accept that they are making their beliefs part of their business and expect repercussions by patrons who don't agree with their position. Violence is always wrong, but if somebody wants to write a review of the place and state that the reason they are not going there is because of the stance the pizza place took on gays I think that is reasonable.

Not what was said. They're not refusing service to anyone. They're hypothetically saying if they were hypothetically asked to cater a hypothetical wedding (which they've never done) they'd refuse.

As a musician I think it is suicide to pick a political side. As a business owner I think it would be just as much political siucide to take a position on any sensitive subject. It's just not good business sense. Apple's CEO is gay and came out recently. I guess they have broken that rule and stated their support for gays. Maybe there will be some conservative backlash against Apple. Who knows?

Well sure, that's just common sense.

And yes, there's been some backlash against Apple, particular considering they're all to happy to do business in parts of the Middle East where homosexuality is punishable by death. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[Indy]

I guess they have broken that rule and stated their support for gays.

I don't think it is ever bad business to say you think all people should be endowed with certainly inalienable rights.

And yes, there's been some backlash against Apple, particular considering they're all to happy to do business in parts of the Middle East where homosexuality is punishable by death. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

But there is that. I don't quite think it is the same, since they are not doing business with the government, and the companies they do business with cannot and do not punish people with death, but I get the criticism.

[SDC]

The mute button is a terrible thing to waste, guys.

andy already put me on "ignore" but still respond to my posts.

[SDC]

Next you guys will be talking about what color of food coloring is being used on said cupcakes.

It all boils down to one group wishing to make a law allowing them to discriminate against one group of people that they don't approve of.

Seriously? Shouldn’t businesses have to serve all comers?

I think they should be able to decline service for various reasons, religious scruples included. A liberal printer shouldn’t be forced to print tracts for a right-wing cause. A Jewish deli shouldn’t be required to cater events for the Nation of Islam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opini ... uthat&_r=0

my rule on whether the progressive gay mafia take their beliefs seriously is if they are willing to enforce the same rules on muslim bakeries. if not, then this BDS thing on christians is just selective hate...

[Ghost]

In the first case, the restaurant is refusing to serve a person because of their sexual orientation. In the second case, the photographer is refusing to participate in a ceremony that would violate her religious beliefs.

I call complete bullshit on this comparison. Photographing a wedding is taking part in the ceremony? I have been to plenty of weddings, and never have I felt like the photographer was either participating in the ceremony, or giving their blessings that the union was holy and everlasting. That is just silly. (Not directed at you Dan, but at the author.)

Having been the photographer at a few weddings, including exactly one and only one for some very close friends (I was a groomsman in addition to being the photographer), I can tell you that I have NEVER been less "involved" in a wedding than when I was actually working the event. It actually sucked, and I vowed to never do photos for a friend's wedding again because of it.

[Ghost]

Nodack, I'm going to swap out one word from this line, and would like to know if you still agree with it. I'm going to do it a few times, in fact. Not with your conclusion, which I agree with...bigots should have to deal with any public backlash they receive for their bigotry, but with the underlying assumption that it's OK to run a business as long as you are comfortable with being a bigot and dealing with that backlash.

I guess I think if a pizza shop wants to announce that it will refuse to serve blacks then they should be willing to accept that they are making their beliefs part of their business and expect repercussions by patrons who don't agree with their position.

I guess I think if a pizza shop wants to announce that it will refuse to serve Jews then they should be willing to accept that they are making their beliefs part of their business and expect repercussions by patrons who don't agree with their position.

I guess I think if a pizza shop wants to announce that it will refuse to serve women then they should be willing to accept that they are making their beliefs part of their business and expect repercussions by patrons who don't agree with their position.

[Ghost]

Not what was said. They're not refusing service to anyone. They're hypothetically saying if they were hypothetically asked to cater a hypothetical wedding (which they've never done) they'd refuse.

OK, so they were asked, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Hypothetically, would you behave in a bigoted manner if presented with an opportunity to refuse service and be a bigot instead?" And they answered with "Yes, we would definitely opt to be bigots."

They didn't refuse service. They certainly don't deserve to go to trial (and aren't at risk of that, as they did nothing wrong). They said who they are, and they didn't even have to do that. They DO still get to deal with the public response, though. And we've already talked about how much of that is over the top and inexcusable, but you talk about them like they're innocent victims in all of this, when it's their own words that got them here.

[Ghost]

The mute button is a terrible thing to waste, guys.

andy already put me on "ignore" but still respond to my posts.

That's because every now and then you post crap from the likes of Steve Crowder, and I can't help laughing that you think that passes for political discourse.

[Dan H]

Not what was said. They're not refusing service to anyone. They're hypothetically saying if they were hypothetically asked to cater a hypothetical wedding (which they've never done) they'd refuse.

OK, so they were asked, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Hypothetically, would you behave in a bigoted manner if presented with an opportunity to refuse service and be a bigot instead?" And they answered with "Yes, we would definitely opt to be bigots."

They didn't refuse service. They certainly don't deserve to go to trial (and aren't at risk of that, as they did nothing wrong). They said who they are, and they didn't even have to do that. They DO still get to deal with the public response, though. And we've already talked about how much of that is over the top and inexcusable, but you talk about them like they're innocent victims in all of this, when it's their own words that got them here.

And again, I reiterate, the girl that gave the initial soundbite is 16. Thank God I wasn't asked for my deep thoughts on any subject when I was 16 in a world where Google remembers everything. I'm sure pretty much everyone here feels the same!

[Indy]

It all boils down to one group wishing to make a law allowing them to discriminate against one group of people that they don't approve of.

Exactly. So maybe there is a big group of people in this country looking to strip liberties away from others.

Touché Indy

So Libertarians should be on the side of gays on the Indiana law issue.

Absolutely. And I should have clarified this long ago. I am not a Libertarian; I am a libertarian. I believe in equal liberties and less government mandates in our daily lives. Simple example is, there should be no law telling me that I can't use purple crayons, anymore than there should be a law telling me I can't ingest/inhale THC, or battery acid. Don't be fooled by people that call themselves Libertarians with a capital L, because many of them don't know what that means. Many of them are happy to say that "liberty" is being able to discriminate against others for who they are as a way of "freely expressing their religion." Which is just an excuse to be bigoted.

[Indy]

Not what was said. They're not refusing service to anyone. They're hypothetically saying if they were hypothetically asked to cater a hypothetical wedding (which they've never done) they'd refuse.

OK, so they were asked, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Hypothetically, would you behave in a bigoted manner if presented with an opportunity to refuse service and be a bigot instead?" And they answered with "Yes, we would definitely opt to be bigots."

They didn't refuse service. They certainly don't deserve to go to trial (and aren't at risk of that, as they did nothing wrong). They said who they are, and they didn't even have to do that. They DO still get to deal with the public response, though. And we've already talked about how much of that is over the top and inexcusable, but you talk about them like they're innocent victims in all of this, when it's their own words that got them here.

And again, I reiterate, the girl that gave the initial soundbite is 16. Thank God I wasn't asked for my deep thoughts on any subject when I was 16 in a world where Google remembers everything. I'm sure pretty much everyone here feels the same!

I am sure some of us were bigoted at 16. Although I would think that bigotry doesn't usually go away as much as it is hardened. It is hard to find bigoted kids without bigoted parents. At least that has been my experience. Your mileage may very.

[OE32]

I believe in equal liberties and less government mandates in our daily lives. Simple example is, there should be no law telling me that I can't use purple crayons, anymore than there should be a law telling me I can't ingest/inhale THC, or battery acid.

Do you believe, as seems to be a popular libertarian (or Libertarian?) claim, that taxes are theft?

Some critiques I have of libertarians: First, they seem to focus almost exclusively on government, not recognizing the negative affects that non-government entities and persons can have on freedom. Second, they appear to focus only on the affect of government on negative freedoms, to the neglect of any consideration of its effect on positive freedoms. Third, they seem to feel more oppressed than evidence indicates is justified, given how rare direct interactions with government can be in most places. Fourth, the summary you provide here are roughly consistent with the grounds that lead some to conclude that regulations, generally, are bad without considerations of the consequences.

Our modern way of life is only possible through an incredibly intricate and complicated network of interactions. If you dislike the government's regulation of THC, that puts you on par with liberals like myself who believe that the scheduling of THC is unjustified by any cost-benefit analysis (actually, I think the scheduling was downright illegal, and the failure of the courts to recognize that has caused me to doubt our courts' impartiality in such matters). A cost-benefit analysis would also strain to think of reasons why, say, purple crayon use should be restricted. As for battery acid, I personally believe in a right to die, and I think we'll eventually realize how much more harmful our puritanical view on death has been. But also, I'm sure you recognize that battery acid only exists because of the complicated network of interactions that characterize modernity, and that your pouring on the ground - even your ground - can have profound effects on those around you. I'm sure you recognize that your neighbor has as much right to be free from you as they do from the government.

More complicated questions, from my perspective, have to do with children. We have the right to raise our own children. But does that mean that children are subject to the private tyranny of their parents? Why do people who are so afraid of the federal government appear to be so comfortable with the tyranny of states, municipalities, families?

These are not rhetorical questions, though some are based on my observations, and many likely don't apply to you. I'm just saying, I don't know if your principle is very useful, as it doesn't seem to deal with any of the complicated questions.

[Mori Chu]

When it comes to discussing this law, I kind of don't like the example of whether the bakery should be forced to bake a "gay" cake for a gay wedding. The reason I don't like the example is that cakes feel like a fairly trivial service, where if they did say "no" to the gay couple, nothing catastrophic would happen.

I'd prefer to look at services that are a bit more important. What if they try to go shopping for two tuxedos for their man/man wedding? They go into the suit store and want to be measured for suits together. But this alerts the tailor that they're gay, so he says, "We don't want to serve you here because your lifestyle is in conflict with our beliefs."

Suppose the gay couple wants to go out to a nice restaurant. They walk into the restaurant, and the staff there can tell that the couple are clearly gay. Is the restaurant allowed to refuse to serve them? "We don't want to serve you here because your lifestyle is in conflict with our beliefs."

The couple decides, "Forget that bigoted restaurant; we'll just go buy groceries and make a meal for ourselves at home." They go to the market and pick up a bunch of groceries. They're in the checkout line to pay for them, and the teller can tell that they're gay, so she says, "We don't want to serve you here because your lifestyle is in conflict with our beliefs."

Does this Indiana law allow these businesses to behave like that? If so, FUCK that law. That's bullshit discrimination. You can very quickly make the entire state completely uninhabitable by gay people or any other group you decide you don't like. That's wrong. (If the Indiana law doesn't permit behavior like the above, please do correct me.)

[Nodack]

Nodack, I'm going to swap out one word from this line, and would like to know if you still agree with it. I'm going to do it a few times, in fact. Not with your conclusion, which I agree with...bigots should have to deal with any public backlash they receive for their bigotry, but with the underlying assumption that it's OK to run a business as long as you are comfortable with being a bigot and dealing with that backlash.

I guess I think if a pizza shop wants to announce that it will refuse to serve blacks then they should be willing to accept that they are making their beliefs part of their business and expect repercussions by patrons who don't agree with their position.

I guess I think if a pizza shop wants to announce that it will refuse to serve Jews then they should be willing to accept that they are making their beliefs part of their business and expect repercussions by patrons who don't agree with their position.

I guess I think if a pizza shop wants to announce that it will refuse to serve women then they should be willing to accept that they are making their beliefs part of their business and expect repercussions by patrons who don't agree with their position.

I see your point. Just playing evils advocate, what if they refuse service to a KKK or Hells Angels member? Those groups are much less popular and they had a choice in joining those groups, so it's a little bit apple to oranges, but still to me someone chooses to join a religion the same way someone chooses to join the KKK or Hells Angels. They all have their own beliefs. Who decides which beliefs are right and wrong?

On the planet xenaphobe it's against the law to have sex with a person of the opposite sex. All babies are made in test tubes and only sex with the same sex is permitted. The religion of Bleck dominates and those that decide to engage in sex with the opposite sex are shunned and arrested forcing them to stay hidden in the shadows hiding their dirty little secret from prying eyes that find that sort of thing disgusting and amoral.

Actually Star Trek Next Generation did an episode similar to that where #1 had a secret affair with a women on a strange planet. They got caught and she was shunned.