Indiana's Religious Freedom Law -- Not About Religion?

I want to engage with you, but you make so many assumptions that it's so hard to keep things relevant. I can tell that you hold some very strong opinions towards Christians. One quote I will leave you with however, is this --

"I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Only heard of this law in passing a few times so I'll answer your questions instead.

1. Businesses already pick and choose who they provide service to. If I want a cake with red sprinkles but you only offer green sprinkles, you are well within your right to turn me away or recommend another place that offers red sprinkles. They just can't do if it's infringing on a protected class. Which I think is fair partly because if you're using US infrastructure to do business you need to play by their rules - one of which is to include everyone in the public if you can accommodate them reasonably. Someone's religious beliefs don't trump another's right to equal treatment in society because if it does, I think that starts a slippery slope of religious exemptions.

2. No, it also hurts society. If you are refusing to provide service to a protected class that spot of land you are on isn't being used to it's full potential and possibly depriving another prospective business owner who would provide that same service to everyone.

3. I've never sued anyone in civil court so I don't know. I'm not sure why this question is relevant anyway.

4. The US government is not "forcing" you to do anything. If you choose to open a business you implicitly agree to follow the laws of society ranging from government taxes, state laws, municipal ordinances and everything else in between. Also, this is a bit of a red herring since certain classes aren't offered protection by Federal law yet such as sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is only a protected class in certain US states.

5. I haven't read up on this law but the title of it is Religious Freedom Restoration Act so it seems like religion is a major aspect?

Can you provide specific examples and make it relevant to the thread?

You're missing my point. Saying something shouldn't be illegal because people won't do it anyway is completely illogical. If people aren't going to do it then why bother making it legal? That argument can apply to literally anything "why make murder illegal when the social consequences will make people not want to do it anyway"

Stop saying this is about simply hurting peoples feelings. Are you really so ignorant that you don't understand how much stuff like this can effect peoples lives? Do you think Martin Luther King Jr stood in front of millions just to whine about how his feelings were hurt?

And don't act like things can't go back to the way they were. Just look at Russia. Within just a few years they did a complete 180 on gay rights. Now it's illegal there to be openly gay, and gays are being attacked and killed in the streets.

You're right, that statement is illogical. However, you have to bend to the notion that refusing to give someone flowers and choosing to murder someone are two very different situations. Try not to get hung up too much on the hurt feelings statement, because it's not relevant in the greater context. It was an example to cite differences between refusing to serve an individual and ending the life of a human being. I never said that this is simply about hurting peoples feelings. I'm sure you know that.

And the world Martin Luther King Jr lived in was very different from the world we lived in. I can't take seriously statements like what I bolded above. Please choose to respect the context of the discussion. Choosing to place my words in the past is damaging to any progress we may enjoy throughout this topic. I hope you understand that.

Obama and Putin are also two very different people. I don't see how your example could be relate-able in any compelling way.

Ironic your using such a quote from a man who set out to stop such said discriminatory practices..

It's not ironic.

I'm not your enemy, but you have made me out to be your enemy. We'll all learn one day that you don't have to hate an opinion that does not agree with your own. We should embrace differences of opinion, not choose to hate them.

Oh make no mistake I have np of your opinion for me to some how see you as a "enemy" on a personal level.. I just don't feel your religious views should infringe into other peoples lives.. It's your right to voice them, as well as my right to say that you are wrong. And that is the difference.. Just because you have a different opinion from me, I still wouldn't think its right for me to deny you services.. It works both ways and protects you as much as it does me, or anyone for that matter.

This is a very accurate drawing of the entire situation.. It is easy for you to say as a Christian (in which you are in a group that makes up the majority of the country) to not see a problem with this and be perfectly ok.. But what if you were gay? Or a Muslim? Not too long ago we had leading republicans running in primary saying that NO Mosque should be built in the United States, Herman Cain (who was actually getting a lot of support for a time) was quoted saying this.. What if this were a leading politicians saying a CHURCH, instead of a Mosque? Would you then have objection? these laws are in place to protect the individual, and as a individual you can practice your faith as long as it doesn't conflict with someone in the public setting.. When it comes to a business, that is it's own entity and you have to abide by rules and regulations to run.. Just like the rules and regulations for driving a car, or owning a gun.. Because they are in a realm in which they can affect other people directly and violate their individual rights..

I said "literally anything" so I don't get why you are so hung up on the murder example. If you don't like it then substitute it for theft, trespass, tax fraud, or literally anything.

And like I said the world can go back to how it was like in his day. It wasn't even that long ago, there are people still alive today who grew up in that era. The world isn't as different as you think, it's undeniably better but seeing how people are pushing forward new Jim Crow laws and people like you are supporting them, that hate is still there and can grow again.

Obama isn't going to be president forever, how do you know that the next president isn't going to be worse than Putin? If people will support hate laws then why is it so far fetched to think they may support a hateful president as well? Regardless of that clearly Obama doesn't have that much power as laws like this can still pass regardless of his stance on the subject.

@sSubZerOo said:

Oh make no mistake I have np of your opinion for me to some how see you as a "enemy" on a personal level.. I just don't feel your religious views should infringe into other peoples lives.. It's your right to voice them, as well as my right to say that you are wrong. And that is the difference.. Just because you have a different opinion from me, I still wouldn't think its right for me to deny you services.. It works both ways and protects you as much as it does me, or anyone for that matter.

This is a very accurate drawing of the entire situation.. It is easy for you to say as a Christian (in which you are in a group that makes up the majority of the country) to not see a problem with this and be perfectly ok.. But what if you were gay? Or a Muslim? Not too long ago we had leading republicans running in primary saying that NO Mosque should be built in the United States, Herman Cain (who was actually getting a lot of support for a time) was quoted saying this.. What if this were a leading politicians saying a CHURCH, instead of a Mosque? Would you then have objection? these laws are in place to protect the individual, and as a individual you can practice your faith as long as it doesn't conflict with someone in the public setting.. When it comes to a business, that is it's own entity and you have to abide by rules and regulations to run.. Just like the rules and regulations for driving a car, or owning a gun.. Because they are in a realm in which they can affect other people directly and violate their individual rights..

I never stated my religious beliefs. I only played representative to an unpopular point of view.

Anyone can make statements from conjecture, but it's not a good idea to do so. People this and people that mean nothing to me.

So you don't want to listen to reason but instead want to live in a fantasy world where Jim Crow laws are still in place yet everyone treats each other equally? It is not conjecture, it is an understanding of history and current world events. Something you clearly have none of.

If people shouldn't discriminate why do you want to re-enforce the laws that allowed that discrimination to be possible in the first place?

@kuu2 said:

@sSubZerOo said:

Oh make no mistake I have np of your opinion for me to some how see you as a "enemy" on a personal level.. I just don't feel your religious views should infringe into other peoples lives.. It's your right to voice them, as well as my right to say that you are wrong. And that is the difference.. Just because you have a different opinion from me, I still wouldn't think its right for me to deny you services.. It works both ways and protects you as much as it does me, or anyone for that matter.

Can you please explain your cartoon?

Basically this.. That people seem not to understand what the first amendment means.. That it isn't just about freedom OF religion but freedom FROM religion.. That congress shall make no law respecting a establishment of religion.. And many are trying to do this by playing the "victim" card in saying that Christianity is some how being attacked and that we need laws like "Religious Freedom Law" which actually can be used to violate individual rights and freedoms..

Here is a good example of such things.. This guy is not some random wacko they pulled off the street.. THIS IS a elected official in congress.. TLDR: Guys like this want to have the protection from being infringed by the government, but wants his religion infringed into the government which in turn infringe on others who do not follow his religion..

I love reason and I love logic, but I don't love assumptions nor do I love conjecture. When "people" do this and "people" do that, I find it hard to stay engaged because those examples aren't tangible, they're convenient. We don't live in the 1950's anymore, we live in a country where it's socially unacceptable to the majority to deny service to people based on race or sexuality.

If the majority of businesses were suddenly to deny service to homosexual individuals because they were homosexual, it would be an entirely different situation. Or if businesses segregated their products or services to heterosexual and homosexual individuals, we'd have a big problem on our hands. But that's not what's happening. This law won't automatically create a 1950's America in Indiana.

I'm not interested in fighting you. I wish you and others like you in this thread would be open to opinions that are so diametrically opposed to your own beliefs. I always find it so compelling to exactly that, and I don't understand why others can't find that same enjoyment.

I am not your enemy, I am simply expressing unpopular opinions, and yet it has made me a target. Insert MLKJr quote again.

@sSubZerOo: It's rarely the majority that is outspoken. An example here and there of something that supports your beliefs isn't indicative of greater truths that may not.

The basis of a businesses ability to discriminate doesn't just apply to getting wedding cakes and flowers, it also can effect far greater aspects of the discriminated persons life such as ability to get housing and effect their economic limitations by being bound socially, in can effect their ability to seek an accredited education, it can effect their ability to use banks, get loans and credit, buy a car, using hospital, getting a job.

Even as far back as the 1800s after the Civil War, many blacks stayed in the south and partook in sharecropping, but were unable due to racial discrimination to utilize goods and services like buying farming supplies, except for stores specifically designated to serve blacks. These stores would systematically overcharge the blacks on goods far higher than the market for white stores, and would have a credit system with impossibly high interest rates that kept them indebted for life. Impossible to escape the debt, many tried fleeing, whereby laws were passed to curfew them and prevent them from leaving. It basically became slavery by another name.

So, where does one draw the line. Should businesses be allowed to discriminate on basis of any federal protected class? I mean, go just decades back and people used religion to discriminate on basis of race, now they do it for gays. Should it be allowed to effect their hiring practices? Should private schools and accredited educational institutions be allowed to discriminate on any grounds? Should the real estate market? Landlords? Private services? Limiting peoples access to public accommodation limits them both socially and economically.

Lastly, the religious people that support this have failed to make a compelling basis how denying service to federally protected classes is an affront to their religion, nor explain how it's not discriminatory. After all, if one were to say their Christian beliefs were the foundation for refusing service to someone, what other everyday practices by their customers would they object to by those same standards? I mean, they shouldn't just be able to pick and choose, that'd just be evidence they're using religion as a proxy for discrimination. To apply the religious standards, they'd have to show that their basis for serving customers must be an across the board approval of all aspects of the tenants of their religion, and frankly, they'd have no customers if that were the case.

Let's not parse the issue, this is simply about one thing, right wing bigotry. It's not religious in nature, religion is only a proxy in this battle, if anything it's an affront to religion because people are abusing the name of God and what is holy and righteous in an attempt to justify their scum of the Earth behavior.

... Where exactly have you been made a target? Even with the heated debate I haven't seen any one call you names outside of maybe saying your view point is incredibly ignorant.. Furthermore if your so hopeful of said things, why do we need laws for murder? Or even petty theft, and the police force to enforce them? I mean we all acknowledge on some level in most societies that murder is wrong, yet we have police acting as a security and safety to prevent or seek justice for said crimes.. Why does the United States have so many poor people in a predominately Christian rich country in which one of Jesus's core practices was helping the poor? No one here said that ALL religious people would suddenly become this, but a large portion have indeed this prejudices, large enough in many areas to cause worry..

There's nothing I can say to you that would help you understand. You're too entrenched and hateful. You're more interested in looking for someone to blame than you are open to new or different views. It's very 1939.

.. What exactly am I hateful towards? And who exactly am I blaming? New and different views? On what? Your trying to defend something in which we have a exact historical parallel too, and you dismiss it as unimportant? Exactly who here is entrenched? These laws were not put in place for the hell of it, just like the reason why we have laws against murder, theft, and thousands upon thousands of other things out there. And you have yet to prove otherwise on if things are different outside of "having faith" or "I can't believe its like that anymore".. I am sorry but in a debate you use logic, FACT, and evidence to prove your point.. Not gut feelings and faith. And your falling into ad hominem attacks to create a red herring from the actual debate.. Not to mention falling into the no true Scotsman fallacy earlier on.

Stop pretending that history doesn't matter. Have you ever heard the phrase "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? It's not conjecture, just because you slept through all your history classes and have never watched the news that doesn't mean reality must fit how you perceive it.

Why do you think the change has to be sudden? It could be sudden (again look at Russia, although obviously it won't be as bad as they never reached the point the US did, but the rapid decline was pretty damn sudden) but again why do you think that it can't gradually get worse? This more tolerant generation will die out in only a few decades and what will be left are people born under laws that say not only is it ok to discriminate but discrimination is a part of religion that should be defended.

Are you really trying to play the 'intolerant of intolerance' card?

I never pretended history didn't matter. I acknowledged the fact that it's not 1950 and the national social culture is far, far removed from that era.

Imagining whether or not things would get worse or not get worse is just a 'what if' and not something of substance.

I'm not playing any cards, I'm expressing opinions that are unpopular. That's all it takes to rile up folks who should otherwise learn to listen.

I'm embarrassed that we (not I) believe a government should try and be the false moral compass of our society when it clearly doesn't have any place in doing so. Individuals should make these choices regardless how offensive they may be.

We aren't far far removed. There are still people alive back then who are still around now, and the fact that laws like the Jim Crow laws can still get passed clearly shows you are wrong. Stop pretending we are passed all that, like I said "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
That isn't conjecture.

It's not a what if. It's a what is. It is the world we live in. Like I said you clearly have very little understanding of current world events and events of the past. You even disregarded an earlier comment a user made about american missionaries spreading homophobia into Africa.

And you are deluded if you think the only problem with what you're saying is that it's unpopular. Racism, homophobia and other discriminatory views are bad regardless if it's just one crazy guy or the entire world.

2015 and we are still debating whether or not people should be allowed to be discriminated against just for something as absolutely inconsequential as their sexuality. Religious freedom should never trump the personal freedoms of others; and I am quite sick of religious institutions (who don't pay tax) expecting the government to protect their feelings.

Dying beasts often thrash about violently for a bit. It's natural.

I find this entire thing pretty amazing, actually. Had Indiana just made the law the same as the similar ones in other states and at the federal level this would have passed with just a whisper.

But they put in the clause extending the statute to individual people which fired up, in particular, one CEO that the state simply cannot afford to tick off (not that he's being altruistic, if his other business locations are any indication). He protested, other businesses joined the uproar, and now the state is stuck between removing/softening the provision or being hurt financially.

Their are a number of lessons here, but I think the key one is that this issue has now become a liability to businesses - or, at the very least, certain businesses such as tech companies.

1. They can, just not based on belief, sexuality, race, gender, age, etc.
2. Yep, but they cannot choose whom they serve based on those listed in #1. Just like an employer can't choose who they hire based on the same.
3. Not every business out there has direct competition. Many goods that people consume can only be purchased at one or two locations, and they *must* do their business there lest they not do business at all.
4. I'm glad the government can force people to not be stupid.
5. Tell that to people who claim Leviticus 18:22 is sacrosanct and then don't uphold Leviticus 20:9 in the exact same manner.

I say let all these Christians keep gay bashing all they want and deny groups service, only expose them for the assholes they really are. The sweet irony of Christians acting in a very non-Christ like manner. They'll go down in history just like the racists of the past couple of centuries.

They're a dying breed and its kind of amusing watching them lose ground year after year. Like a fish out of water.

The law was passed so the governor of the state could pander to extreme right wing fundamentalist "Christians" who vote in early state primaries in large numbers. Thats it. That is the only reason the laws exists. They are not "fighting for our freedoms" they are pandering for votes. They hide behind the name of a man who preached compassion and love to justify bigotry, hatred, and oppression. (while themselves pretending to be oppressed, which is a goddamn joke) Most Christians in this country don't even follow Jesus anymore, they follow Paul, who was not a contemporary of Jesus and had an entirely different concept of Jesus than what they have created in the last 2000 years.

To be Christian is just to be Christ like. Read and live your life by the words in red, and Christianity is something I would honestly have almost no issues with. Get a Jefferson bible and stop being hateful oppressors.

Bingo.

Pence and the others now claiming that this has little to do with religion and nothing to do with discriminating against gay people are.... well, let's be charitable and call them naive.

Even ignoring the other tell-tale signs, Pence signed this thing in a ceremony surrounded by religious leaders and anti-gay lobbyists.

Harmful discrimination is a reasonable issue to guard against and I can think of situations in which such a claim might be credible. For example, there could be a country with a democratic process does not allow women to vote and that is how declaring war on a peaceful nation is about to occur. Now, women are prohibited from entering the military for direct combat purposes, so someone might say that they would not be harmed. However, consider the possibility that many of the men in the military are married to women and their deaths would mean damage to their families.

If there are women who are against said war for the very reason of avoiding losing their families and they do not have the right to vote against it then the process is unjust because it is an act of refusing a group of people the right to a public and legal voice.

That logic could apply to other situations based on fact rather than belief. Specific to this situation, the discrimination of any person by a business which can influence social status by the expression of class in the form of glamor or utility, the discrimination of supplying said items could be seen as that which causes harm.

One of the many situations in which this could potentially also apply in is therapy. Specifically, therapy marketed to cure homosexuality. There might be terms of agreement for patients which require said patients to accept a program which essentially stigmatizes and causes clinical depression and suicidal thoughts. I would not say this situation is protected by the justice of law because it would be an abuse of private practice. As a parent cannot abuse her child in said parent's home legally, abuse against homosexuals is not allowable because it violates the assumption that justice is impartial.

@whipassmt: You can try to justify it however you want but it's bigotry and you're a bigot yourself.

You can either stand on the right side of history or be seen in the same light as those who opposed the civil rights movement for life.

I skimmed through what you posed and it basically culminates to "I want to use religion as a reason to hate people so let's give seperate but equal another chance."

Second times the charm right?

"it's not ok to boycott the Montgomery bus chain. They're not just punishing the people that support those laws they're punishing the entire state's economy"

People are mostly the same, dude. Sure, society doesn't discriminate against BLACKS like it used to, but history tends to say that there's almost always gonna be some minority who as seen as the big bogeyman. It could be blacks, foreigners, gays, Christians, atheists, the poor, or supporters of a certain political party. WHO society hates is gonna change, but the point is that we're ALWAYS gonna hate SOMEONE. There's always gonna be the underdog who everyone else thinks is shit. And when public opinion is overwhelmingly against that group, allowing denial of service to them is essentially saying "**** the powerless."

it's a shame the beast had to hit people in the face on the way down

Anyone who runs a business is in it to make money, they require people to go to their business for them to earn money and the more people who do then better. Reducing the amount over one's own opinions and views is from a business aspect both stupid but also unprofessional. Naturally if a business does that then it will take a revenue hit and reduced customers and frankly they'd have nobody else but themselves to blame.

Business part set aside, This is pretty much a parallell to " Whites only" only it's not about race, yet, but rather religion. Meaning one could technically put up a sign in a window reading " No Muslims" , " No Jews", "No Buddists" , " No Christians" , " No Atheists"
But here's a dillemma for you, how do you know if someone is Muslim, Or Jewish, Or Atheist unless they tell you what their religious belief is or they wear a certain clothing that is respective to a specific religion? Do you look at a man with blond hair and light blue T-shirt and go " He must be Gay so I'll tell him to leave" , Or someone with a beard and think " Oh he must be muslim so he can't be here"
If that is the case then you're racial profiling and that is directly linked to the "Whites only" part of US history since then it's about how people look rather then what gods or lack of gods they believe in. And that's when it a clear case of discrimination based on looks rather then religious belief.

@musicalmac:

1. Businesses get tax breaks, food licences, liquor licenses, trash pickup from the government. Receiving government assistance while denying services to citizens in an arbitrary manner is a "no no." Most people use the "gay wedding cake" analogy for this law. But what if it was something more basic like a grocery store? Should a tax-paying citizen have to travel across town to go to the non-discriminatory grocery store because the one in their neighborhood refuses to serve him/her? That places an undue hardship on the citizen. And besides all that, this law as it stands is a clear violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act.

2. As we've seen with the "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Days," it's not necessarily the case that owners who discriminate lose business.

3. For the same reason people got beat so that others could sit at lunch counters, the same reason MLK and Medgar Evers got shot so that others could vote, the same reason John Brown got hanged so that others could live as free men. Some people believe that their actions will help others even as they hurt themselves.

4. I, for one, am quite happy seeing as so many jobs, goods and services are provided by the private sector. If those were closed to me I'd suffer and be at a competitive disadvantage with those who are able to use those goods and services.

5. Seeing as the appeasement of the religious right in the wake of the failure to block gay marriage is at the heart of these laws, I think religion is at the heart of this issue.

@Solaryellow: I made a statement of fact. Some people can't deal with facts as obvious by the statement by the person you wrote about.

Forget your emotions for a moment and forget hurt feelings but why should any of us try and force morals on others? How in the world can our government force a private business owner to serve everyone? I find it reprehensible that people would act this way but I find it even worse when the government tries to force this on others.

Someone else mentioned this but there is discrimination going on everyday and no one says jack squat but say or do something negative towards homosexuals and look out. The media takes this topic and runs with it yet ignores the rest. You are ostracized beyond comprehension.

I don't really have a problem with the law. If a private business doesn't want to serve someone, that is their right, just like it is the right of the customer to shop somewhere else, to tell others to not shop there, to boycott the business, to set up their own business, etc. Don't get me wrong, it would be an ass hat move for a business to deny service, but they are the ones losing out in the end by turning away potential business. Realistically, how many shops would ever actually use this law? My guess would be only a handful of small businesses at most, and who would really want to give them money anyway?

Freedom is a two way street, it applies to both the customer and the business.

the lesson hear is simple. politicians do not give a shit about the people's opinions, but start fucking with the money and they'll heel like the good little puppies they are.

Again this argument can apply to literally anything. Why should the government force us not to steal or kill? People shouldn't do that stuff regardless of what the law says so therefore it should be legal.

@bforrester420: We are not talking drinking fountains, hotels, eateries, or anything else. A good case study is the florists who sold flowers to a gay person for years, but when that person wanted to buy flowers for their wedding she refused because of her religious beliefs. The government was going to force her close her store. This law is to protect her from this kind of government action. My earlier statment were fact based. If you can't deal with facts you have a real problem.

@Solaryellow: laws are pretty good to have for a society. Corrects for imperfections that disallow free movement.

Did you seriously try and equate murder with a private citizen not offering a service to an individual?

Not trying to pick on you or anything but curb your emotions because your logic is skewed and the example you gave is asinine.

@dave123321

Laws are beneficial to society when applied logically though. To me it doesn't make sense for an unethical entity (government) imposing ethics on others. Individuals need to make that decision on their own. Jim not serving Joe is not harmful in the least. It might be offensive and unethical but not harmful.

Read my post again. I am not equating anything to anything. What I'm doing is pointing out how illogical your argument is because it can apply to literally any law be it something major like murder or small like copyright infringement.

Like I said if we follow your logic why should we have any laws at all?

And yes I'm sure nobody was harmed by the Jim Crow laws... Are you serious?

This isn't about morals, though. If you use government infrastructure, benefit from taxes and tax breaks, sell your wares on American soil, and the bevy of other positives you get from operating in the United States - it is expected you treat everyone equally under the law. One such law entails you to not discriminate based on a protected class. Because those same people that you are discriminating against pay taxes that are helping the business owner get those tax breaks and they should be able to shop there if they want.