Indiana - freedom act and other stuff...

[jimnyc]

So many folks are up in arms because of Indiana, and them passing a law that allows businesses to "discriminate", where the act was actually passed to protect them. This actually started in 1993 with Clinton and was passed 97-3 - with the reasoning being that they better have a DAMNED GOOD reason for perhaps violating someone's religious rights.

At any rate, back to business, and the ability to turn folks away that you disagree with, or disagree with their lifestyle decisions...

What if a black couple owned a bakery. A couple of white guys walk in and ask to have a cake made for a big gathering they are having. It's a KKK meeting.

I'm betting that suddenly it should be ok to turn away certain customers...

[jimnyc]

And before anyone brings up the protected characteristic stuff....

The Christians didn't turn away gay people, they turned away making a cake for their actions, the marriage itself. Same as here, the black folks aren't turning away white people, but rather the KKK meeting. What's good for one should be good for all.

So therefore, the KKK would have standing to sue the black couple and win damages.

[Jeff]

And before anyone brings up the protected characteristic stuff....

The Christians didn't turn away gay people, they turned away making a cake for their actions, the marriage itself. Same as here, the black folks aren't turning away white people, but rather the KKK meeting. What's good for one should be good for all.

So therefore, the KKK would have standing to sue the black couple and win damages.


But But But , that's different . :laugh:

Great point Jim.

[jimnyc]

But But But , that's different . :laugh:

Great point Jim.

And as pointed out in another thread - are they going around to Muslim owned bakeries to see if they'll make gay wedding cakes? LOL Good luck with that one - but since they aren't Christian, no one seems to care here in the states.

[LongTermGuy]

And as pointed out in another thread - are they going around to Muslim owned bakeries to see if they'll make gay wedding cakes? LOL Good luck with that one - but since they aren't Christian, no one seems to care here in the states.


`Thanks for that `Muslim owned bakeries` thread / video....I am using it....passing it around...`

[fj1200]

So let me get this straight; After some had advocated for using the power of the State to keep gay people from getting married... likely those same folks get mad when the other side wants to use the power of the State to compel action?

[DLT]

So many folks are up in arms because of Indiana, and them passing a law that allows businesses to "discriminate", where the act was actually passed to protect them. This actually started in 1993 with Clinton and was passed 97-3 - with the reasoning being that they better have a DAMNED GOOD reason for perhaps violating someone's religious rights.

At any rate, back to business, and the ability to turn folks away that you disagree with, or disagree with their lifestyle decisions...

What if a black couple owned a bakery. A couple of white guys walk in and ask to have a cake made for a big gathering they are having. It's a KKK meeting.

I'm betting that suddenly it should be ok to turn away certain customers...

Well it's apparently ok for Muslim-owned US bakeries to turn away gays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4#t=98

But you won't hear the leftist lamestream media attack those ""bigots"".

I think the fact that Memories Piazza, which is now going to reopen bigger and better, has raised over half a million for their cause (being targeted and attacked by the radical left for holding Christian values) speaks for itself. Americans are not OK with this BS. In fact, most of us are FTFU.

[darin]

So let me get this straight; After some had advocated for using the power of the State to keep gay people from getting married... likely those same folks get mad when the other side wants to use the power of the State to compel action?

I'm not sure what you're talking about but...the bottom line is this:

Government wanted to pass a law to protect citizen rights to recuse themselves from services violating the tennants of their established religion.

Morons and idealogs went bat-shit crazy. After all, only THEY can get protections to live THEIR values.

Even dumber people without knowledge of the laws started protesting, yelling and screaming.

Weak-willed politicians caved and liberty was damaged.

(shrug).

[fj1200]

...the bottom line is this:

So stipulated. This law in some respects is in response to NDA laws recognizing sexual orientation (in some states) which use the power of the state to compel acceptance in essence. Many on the other side wished to use the power of the state to keep gays from being married.

Is there a functional difference in either side using the power of the state?

[tailfins]

So stipulated. This law in some respects is in response to NDA laws recognizing sexual orientation (in some states) which use the power of the state to compel acceptance in essence. Many on the other side wished to use the power of the state to keep gays from being married.

Is there a functional difference in either side using the power of the state?

In a word: Yes. A business owner should not be forced to choose between attending a homosexual "wedding" against their religious beliefs or financial ruin.

[darin]

So stipulated. This law in some respects is in response to NDA laws recognizing sexual orientation (in some states) which use the power of the state to compel acceptance in essence. Many on the other side wished to use the power of the state to keep gays from being married.

Is there a functional difference in either side using the power of the state?

I think so. But it's a self-licking ice cream cone. People want special rights, others want protections for the special rights the first group got.

Let the markets decide; that's the best bet. But...people wanna feel SPECIAL. People want their habits legitimized by law, rather than just living their preferences, they will not stop until the whole world is forced into accepting THEIR beliefs. Todays militant Gays are not a lot different than ISIS in terms of zeal, and desire to force the world into their beliefs.

[LongTermGuy]

I think the fact that Memories Piazza, which is now going to reopen bigger and better, has raised over half a million for their cause (being targeted and attacked by the radical left for holding Christian values) speaks for itself. Americans are not OK with this BS. In fact, most of us are FTFU.



Agreed...and thats what its more about ..Christian values and control of this great Nation....the media silence with the muslims above is no surprise...

[indago]

So stipulated. This law in some respects is in response to NDA laws recognizing sexual orientation (in some states) which use the power of the state to compel acceptance in essence. Many on the other side wished to use the power of the state to keep gays from being married.

And why not? What's the point of two guys getting married together? Or, two gals, for that matter?



.

[Kathianne]

My feelings on this whole topic, here and in the nation as a whole is that we sure can get worked up about things that are distractions to the problems that surround us.

Doesn't mean though that I don't form some thoughts on the distractions. From what I've heard, the Pizza folks had it right, "We'd serve gays anytime." What he hypothetically wouldn't do is cater a gay wedding, that would be a defacto endorsement of something he felt was morally wrong.

Turley does a good job, IMO, using many of the examples I've seen here in the past few days:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/03/critics-of-indianas-religious-freedom-law-are-trying-to-have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1&utm_content=buffer3aa24&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


Critics of Indiana’s religious freedom law are trying to have their cake and eat it, too

In their rush to support same-sex rights, they've been too quick to dismiss legitimate questions about free speech and expression.


...Conservatives in Indiana and elsewhere have objected to bakers (and florists and photographers) being “forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding (http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1854).” While those conservatives have been rightly ridiculed for failing to explain how the Indiana law as originally formulated would not license bigotry, critics can be equally chastised for failing to explain where to draw the line between religious freedom and discrimination. Asked on CNN this week whether a Jewish baker should have to make a cake for a KKK couple, Sarah Warbelow (http://jonathanturley.org/2015/04/01/cake-wars-is-the-indiana-rfra-coverage-skirting-the-difficult-questions-of-conflict-between-anti-discrimination-law-and-free-exercise/), legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, insisted that “there’s a huge difference between having to write something objectionable on a cake and being asked to provide a cake for a same sex couple.”

Of course, for some religious bakers, a cake with language or an image celebrating same-sex marriage is objectionable. In other words, critics may be trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

Consider two cases that both happen to involve bakeries in or near Denver, Colo. In July 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop (https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop) to order a wedding cake. Owner Jack Phillips said that, due to his Christian beliefs, he could not provide a cake for the celebration of a same-sex marriage. Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission ultimately ruled that the bakery broke the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

Now, the flip side. In March 2014, Christian customer Bill Jack asked Azucar Bakery (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/this-colorado-baker-refused-to-put-an-anti-gay-message-on-cakes-now-she-is-facing-a-civil-rights-complaint/) to prepare two cakes in the shape of Bibles — with an X over the image of two men holding hands. Owner Marjorie Silva said she would make the cakes but refused to include what she found to be an offensive message. Jack filed a religious discrimination claim that’s now pending with the state’s civil rights division.


Two sets of cakes. Two different sentiments viewed as offensive. Can we compel the baker in one case and permit the other to refuse? And should the right to refuse be limited to religious objections? There are an array of messages that offend non-religious persons or violate non-religious values. Glibly saying that you cannot discriminate ignores legitimate questions of forced speech and forced participation.

I’ve struggled with the tension between anti-discrimination laws and free speech/free exercise for years, and I see three basic approaches to resolving it:
...

[fj1200]

In a word: Yes. A business owner should not be forced to choose between attending a homosexual "wedding" against their religious beliefs or financial ruin.

I agree but that doesn't really answer the question. Opposing groups each choose to use the power of the state to advance their own view.


I think so. But it's a self-licking ice cream cone. People want special rights, others want protections for the special rights the first group got.

Let the markets decide; that's the best bet. But...people wanna feel SPECIAL. People want their habits legitimized by law, rather than just living their preferences, they will not stop until the whole world is forced into accepting THEIR beliefs. Todays militant Gays are not a lot different than ISIS in terms of zeal, and desire to force the world into their beliefs.

(fallacy alert) The gays are ISIS now? :rolleyes: I'm not sure which special rights to which you are referring. Besides, how are the markets going to decide on gay marriage?


And why not? What's the point of two guys getting married together? Or, two gals, for that matter?

I imagine that they want to validate their relationship in the eyes of the community, church, or other. But that doesn't answer the question either.

[fj1200]

My feelings on this whole topic, here and in the nation as a whole is that we sure can get worked up about things that are distractions to the problems that surround us.

I agree. IMO these types of laws, both NDA and RFRA, is legislation in search of a problem. The gay community by and large is not facing discrimination from society (especially compared to specific Jim Crow type laws that blacks faced decades ago) and the Christian community isn't being forced to do anything outside of NDA legislation that has been passed in some states. A Rush e-mail update from a few days ago said it best, "Who can't find a gay florist."

[Perianne]

I think so. But it's a self-licking ice cream cone. People want special rights, others want protections for the special rights the first group got.

Let the markets decide; that's the best bet. But...people wanna feel SPECIAL. People want their habits legitimized by law, rather than just living their preferences, they will not stop until the whole world is forced into accepting THEIR beliefs. Todays militant Gays are not a lot different than ISIS in terms of zeal, and desire to force the world into their beliefs.

Excellent post. Pure excellence.