GenCon threatens to exit Indy over 'religious freedom' measure

[steveh_131]

Would you guys use the government to force a printing company to print a 20 foot banner saying "THANK GOD FOR DEAD BABIES" for the Westboro Baptist Church so they could protest a kid's funeral?

They should get equal protection too, right?

 

[HoughMade]

Would you guys use the government to force a printing company to print a 20 foot banner saying "THANK GOD FOR DEAD BABIES" for the Westboro Baptist Church so they could protest a kid's funeral?

They should get equal protection too, right?

No one forced you to be a printer.

 

[printcraft]

No printing of an illegal, objectionable, or questionable nature. Take that **** down the street.
I'm sure there are other printers or people in any profession who would sell their soul for a dollar.
I'm not one of them.

 

[rambone]

.

 

[HoughMade]

No printing of an illegal, objectionable, or questionable nature....

Except if some people in this thread have their way, YOU do not get to decide what you find objectionable or questionable.

Freedom for some!

 

[rambone]

To All,

My philosophical disagreement to folks who want to use religion as an excuse to not serve someone are overlooking the fact that the business is not a human being with a soul, it is a "person" in law only! As such, I do NOT believe businesses have rights. They DO have interests, but not rights as we do being human. Businesses do not have a soul nor do they have a conscience.

Many businesses (I would guess most) are corporations. As such, they have requested special treatment and protections from the government. The owners cannot easily legally lose private assets if they hurt or even kill someone. Why? Because the "corporation" did it, not the "person." Any person working at a corporation is legally working as an agent of the corporation, so the company will take most of the brunt and not the person.

So these folks that want to wear their religion on their sleeve want the government (with its laws regarding corporations) to give them LOTS of benefits, but at the same time they don't want the government to make them do things they don't like. Hypocrites all!

Doug,

You have assembled an argument that could just as easily be used to defend insurance mandates, wage controls, price controls, or any other market-destroying government intervention.

One could echo you, verbatim, defending Obamacare: "Corporations get benefits, but at the same time they don't want the government to make them do things they don't like!"

Just because two or more people run a business corporately, does not make their private property a matter of public policy. Whatever gripes you have about corporate business law should be discussed on their own merits -- not used as an excuse to subvert private property.

Do not let emotions cause you to abandon principles and sound reasoning.

IF there is going to be an allowance for religious discrimination against anyone then I want to see it followed by a law forcing those companies to prominently post their biases where everyone can see it! Let them proudly and prominently exclaim that they will refuse service to gays, blacks, muslims, people who support abortion etc - whoever is on their "prohibited" list. I'd be OK with the free market and EVOLUTION weeding them out!

No free market -- or free anything -- exists under the presence of government mandated placards and/or armbands designed to brand people for their beliefs.

I respectfully ask you examine your principles and explain how you can endorse all of this government force on a matter that is not even the government's business.

 

[HoughMade]

Where are the cries of: "government shouldn't be involved in marriage to begin with"?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Would you guys use the government to force a printing company to print a 20 foot banner saying "THANK GOD FOR DEAD BABIES" for the Westboro Baptist Church so they could protest a kid's funeral?

They should get equal protection too, right?

My proposal from another thread was pretty simple. No, you aren't required to make custom items for anyone. Yes, you are required to sell goods you do make to anyone who's willing to pay the asking price. If you'd make a "Dead Babies" banner for Bill's Church than you must make one for Tim's Church. If you wouldn't make one for anyone, you don't have to make one for Bill's Church or Tim's Church.

That seems a pretty decent compromise to me. Everyone has equal access to the economy (unless we no longer believe supply vs demand sets price and thus limiting supply reduces the buying power of those who have been excluded).

No one is forced to make things that go against their beliefs. A chocolate chip cookie is a chocolate chip cookie, regardless of who buys it...but you don't have to draw two crossed dongs on it if you don't want.

 

[rhino]

No printing of an illegal, objectionable, or questionable nature. Take that **** down the street.
I'm sure there are other printers or people in any profession who would sell their soul for a dollar.
I'm not one of them.

Amen.

Too many protected classes and too many unprotected classes with the stupid patchwork of laws we have. Either everyone should be protected equally or no one should be "protected."

Private businesses should be able to conduct business the way they choose without the government or people who want to be customers forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

Genuinely free markets solve this kind of problem eventually.

Why is it okay for the government to force a bakery to bake a cake depicting a gay couple if the owner doesn't want to work for buyer? Would it be okay for the government to force a bakery owned by Jews to bake a cake with Nazi symbols and slogans? What about forcing a black bakery owner to bake a cake for a KKK party that has a nice photorealistic image of a lynching on it?

Sometimes I think the real problems is that some special interest groups choose to make examples of businesses that offend them for some reason. They know that in most cases the businesses can't afford the legal defense.

 

[rhino]

My proposal from another thread was pretty simple. No, you aren't required to make custom items for anyone. Yes, you are required to sell goods you do make to anyone who's willing to pay the asking price. If you'd make a "Dead Babies" banner for Bill's Church than you must make one for Tim's Church. If you wouldn't make one for anyone, you don't have to make one for Bill's Church or Tim's Church.

That seems a pretty decent compromise to me. Everyone has equal access to the economy (unless we no longer believe supply vs demand sets price and thus limiting supply reduces the buying power of those who have been excluded).

No one is forced to make things that go against their beliefs. A chocolate chip cookie is a chocolate chip cookie, regardless of who buys it...but you don't have to draw two crossed dongs on it if you don't want.

That would work for me.

I won't bake a Charlie Schumer cake for anyone, so I should not have to bake a Charlie Schumer cake for Charlie Schumer.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That would work for me.

I won't bake a Charlie Schumer cake for anyone, so I should have to bake a Charlie Schumer cake for Charlie Schumer.

Rhino delivers cupcakes:

 

[rhino]

Rhino delivers cupcakes:

You never disappoint me, sir! That's quite a cupcake!

 

[steveh_131]

My proposal from another thread was pretty simple. No, you aren't required to make custom items for anyone. Yes, you are required to sell goods you do make to anyone who's willing to pay the asking price. If you'd make a "Dead Babies" banner for Bill's Church than you must make one for Tim's Church. If you wouldn't make one for anyone, you don't have to make one for Bill's Church or Tim's Church.

I have an even better and simpler proposal.

I'll do whatever the hell I want with my own property and anyone who doesn't like it can go elsewhere.

I can't believe we're even talking about this. It reminds me of the times I have to convince my kids of the basic facts of life. "No, son, I'm not an alien just because I'm not wearing a shirt. Yes, I know Drax didn't wear a shirt and he's an alien but I'm not an alien, ok?"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That would work for me.

I won't bake a Charlie Schumer cake for anyone, so I should not have to bake a Charlie Schumer cake for Charlie Schumer.

Any irony intended with the fact that Chuckie Schumer is the one that sponsored the federal RFRA bill?

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[msmeek12]

If I were a business owner, I could not imagine turning down customers because of a belief. I am saying "no" to money and possibly future revenue if word gets out I did such a thing. I am throwing away money.

Unless you don't like money, don't discriminate.

I'm gonna play Sweden in this one, but well said!

 

[Hornett]

My proposal from another thread was pretty simple. No, you aren't required to make custom items for anyone. Yes, you are required to sell goods you do make to anyone who's willing to pay the asking price. If you'd make a "Dead Babies" banner for Bill's Church than you must make one for Tim's Church. If you wouldn't make one for anyone, you don't have to make one for Bill's Church or Tim's Church.

That seems a pretty decent compromise to me. Everyone has equal access to the economy (unless we no longer believe supply vs demand sets price and thus limiting supply reduces the buying power of those who have been excluded).

No one is forced to make things that go against their beliefs. A chocolate chip cookie is a chocolate chip cookie, regardless of who buys it...but you don't have to draw two crossed dongs on it if you don't want.

I agree with rhino on this one.

Genuinely free markets solve this kind of problem eventually.

Why is it okay for the government to force a bakery to bake a cake depicting a gay couple if the owner doesn't want to work for buyer? Would it be okay for the government to force a bakery owned by Jews to bake a cake with Nazi symbols and slogans? What about forcing a black bakery owner to bake a cake for a KKK party that has a nice photorealistic image of a lynching on it?

Sometimes I think the real problems is that some special interest groups choose to make examples of businesses that offend them for some reason. They know that in most cases the businesses can't afford the legal defense.

And I will add:
Without some sort of protection, how long is it going to be before a gay couple somewhere demands a fundamentalist preacher perform their wedding in his own church?

 

[halfmileharry]

BYE! Kiss my butt, enough of all these do gooders threatening us if we don't buckle under to their pressure to do things THEIR way. They're the visitors and should be respectful as should any guest. Blackmail crap.
See ya later

 

[oldpink]

BBI's points come closest to what seems reasonable.
Taking the not so hypothetical baking company recently drummed out of business as an example, I'm almost dead certain that they would have been more than happy to bake whatever the homosexual couple wanted, just as long as it was left generic.
Any decorating that advocated for a homosexual marriage could be done elsewhere, including by the homosexual couple themselves.
When you demand that someone take part in your little celebration, you're basically asking for that someone to cheerlead for it, whether he actually approves or not.
So, let the baker or whatever do what he'll most likely do anyway by selling to whomever he chooses, but don't compel him to celebrate it with you.
Problem solved.

 

[MCgrease08]

BYE! Kiss my butt, enough of all these do gooders threatening us if we don't buckle under to their pressure to do things THEIR way. They're the visitors and should be respectful as should any guest. Blackmail crap.
See ya later

I honestly don't understand all the comments equating lobbying against a piece of legislation or threatening a boycott to extortion or blackmail.

All they are doing is voicing their opposition to this.

If one of us decides to boycott a local business over a "no guns" sign, is that blackmail? Is it attempted extortion?

Of course not.

 

[steveh_131]

Boycotting is fine.

Demanding someone else's property at government gunpoint is not.