Indianapolis Mother Claims RFRA Defense In Child Abuse Case

[Timjoebillybob]

That isn't true, at least in the case of the Dieseltec guy and Memories Pizza. Both refused to provide their standard services, not gay'd up in any way, to gay people because they were gay.

I'm fine with it being their choice but don't pretend it is anything other than what it is.

Cite please for the pizza place, the owner stated that they wouldn't cater a gay wedding, he also stated that they were welcome in his business and he would serve them. And I have no idea what the dieseltec guy thing is, never heard of it. Do you have a cite for that?

thats not exactly what happened with the pizza place. They were asked if they would cater a gay wedding. They said no or probably not or whatever. They also added that they had never catered any wedding nor was it ever requested or a normal service.

Yep.

We have no one to thank, or blame but our fine Indiana legislature who have a super majority in the house and senate. And our wonderfully futile Governor. What did they think was going to happen? Do I mind that it happened? Not as much as I mind that my tax dollars are going to have to go towards her prosecution. I think it is bad to do something like that to any human (especially your own blood) As far as custom frosting cakes with swastikas, or catchy slogans, no, the idea of business is to make money. But also to be your own boss.

Do you think that if the RFRA hadn't passed we wouldn't be spending the tax dollars to prosecute her? Or that she couldn't/wouldn't claim a religious defense under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and/or Art 1 Sec 3 of the IN Constitution?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Double tap.

 

[jamil]

Dude, it wasn't the government keeping the blacks out; it was the Klan.

Dude, it wasn't every individual in the whole town keeping the blacks out. It was the Klan, who had members in the highest parts of local governments and law enforcement.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Dude, it wasn't the government keeping the blacks out; it was the Klan.

Meant to reply to this earlier. How did the klan keep them out of the town? Esp without the govt helping.

 

[jamil]

thats not exactly what happened with the pizza place. They were asked if they would cater a gay wedding. They said no or probably not or whatever. They also added that they had never catered any wedding nor was it ever requested or a normal service.

That's my recollection. An employee, I think the daughter of the owner, was interviewed by a reporter, who asked if they would cater a gay wedding. The answer was probably not, but they don't cater weddings. Death threats ensued.

 

[LPMan59]

That's my recollection. An employee, I think the daughter of the owner, was interviewed by a reporter, who asked if they would cater a gay wedding. The answer was probably not, but they don't cater weddings. Death threats ensued.

Not to mention iirc , the "reporter" was going door to door asking everyone. And they thought they struck gold when they found the pizza place.

 

[Stickfight]

thats not exactly what happened with the pizza place. They were asked if they would cater a gay wedding. They said no or probably not or whatever. They also added that they had never catered any wedding nor was it ever requested or a normal service.

I know they said they'd never been asked to cater a gay wedding, but I don't know of anywhere they were asked about straight ones. And they most certainly didn't respond with "no or probably not or whatever", it was:

"If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no"

But you can pretend they just added the gay qualifier if it helps you rationalize.

Cite please for the pizza place

See above. And yes he said he would serve gays if they came in, so it seems he doesn't take issue with gayness just gay marriage.

And I have no idea what the dieseltec guy thing is, never heard of it. Do you have a cite for that?

Here is a news article on him, but I think most of the details that sparked it have been deleted from his social media accounts. He was quite clear that he would not offer any services of any kind to anyone he knew or suspected was gay.

Again, RFRA and similar laws were specifically intended to enable this sort of thing and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. The religious should be celebrating this kind of behavior. I'd like the law much better if it didn't discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs but it is a start.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I know they said they'd never been asked to cater a gay wedding, but I don't know of anywhere they were asked about straight ones. And they most certainly didn't respond with "no or probably not or whatever", it was:

"If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no"

But you can pretend they just added the gay qualifier if it helps you rationalize.

See above. And yes he said he would serve gays if they came in, so it seems he doesn't take issue with gayness just gay marriage.

Here is a news article on him, but I think most of the details that sparked it have been deleted from his social media accounts. He was quite clear that he would not offer any services of any kind to anyone he knew or suspected was gay.

Again, RFRA and similar laws were specifically intended to enable this sort of thing and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. The religious should be celebrating this kind of behavior. I'd like the law much better if it didn't discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs but it is a start.

So for the pizza place helping with celebrating what they consider a sin is part of their standard services? You stated specifically that "Both refused to provide their standard services, not gay'd up in any way, to gay people because they were gay."

And I don't believe that he meant that they stated exactly "no or probably not or whatever" I'm pretty sure he meant those as an example of their statement, so he wouldn't have to go search for the exact one. And who is pretending they just added the gay qualifier? Heck I'm not exactly sure what you meant by that statement.

Thank you for the link, if they were local to me I wouldn't patronize them.

And why do you say that they were specifically intended to enable this sort of thing? So Chucky Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Obama, et al intended to enable this sort of thing? And you do know the reason for the various states enacting a state level version of the RFRA right? And the reason that IN did when they did, along with the nickname of the bill in the IN general assembly? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the "ban gays" bill, or "the refuse service to gays" bill, heck the nickname had nothing to do with gays. ETA What particular behavior should the religious be celebrating? And which specific religious or all religious people? And how does this law discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs?

 

[jamil]

Right to someone else's labor? No, that's slavery. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. That's a red herring.

Communities can sort through their own prejudicial issues...but cannot use a representative government to do so. I'm not sure I'm tracking there.

We established that unfettered monopolies were harmful to society as a whole what, about a century ago? That interfering with free access to the market is therefore a 'harm'? I really have no idea in how you're determining what 'rights' actually are, if they are specifically mentioned in the Constitution at the state and/or federal level or those nebulous 'natural rights' or what, but it seems the courts and society as a whole has long ago determined the issue in terms of economic harm from limiting access to markets. Would collusion and price fixing be 'harmless' in your view? What "right" is violated by price fixing that isn't violated by restricting the market for a certain class?

About slavery, I'm not taking it that far. I wouldn't seriously, literally, consider that slavery. If businesses were also forced to provide those goods or services for free, then it is.

But saying that "public accommodations" is giving a special right to services, isn't a red herring. It's an accurate description. A person doesn't have a right to buy someone's goods or services. They have a right to negotiate the terms of a transaction, and in a free society, either party should have the right to walk away for any reason. If one party is prohibited from the choice to decline, that's a right lost for the one and a right gained for the other.

And don't get too hung up on what I mean when I say, "right". The context should make that clear. In this case I'm talking about simply what people should get to do and what they shouldn't.

Also, I think you're conflating institutional harm with individual harm. Allowing individual bakers to decline a sale for any reason isn't an institutional harm. It may have some societal impact, but just about everything does. The reason to decline service may be douchey, but that doesn't make it institutional. Other bakers just want to make money and the money from every class of person conceivable spends the same.

Now, if some bakers were part of a network of individuals in business, political leaders, and law enforcement, and those bakers used this network to coercively ensure that NO bakers could sell to certain classes of people, THAT's institutional. That is a government intervention that I would consent to and I think that's a very distinctive line.

And I also want to comment on the monopoly laws. The problems that those laws were a solution for didn't stay solved. We're still having the same kinds of issues that were blamed on monopolies today. I'm not saying I'm like corporate monopolies, I'm saying I really don't like crony capitalism. With the help of cronies, they figure a way around it anyway. Look at AT&T. Thirtysomething years after breaking up Ma Bell, AT&T is back as one now. A couple of the baby bells bought up the siblings, then merged, and then that company bought the parent. So much for de-unfettered monopolies.

 

[david890]

They were asked...no demanded to offer services and products they did not offer to anybody else.

Please provide hard evidence of those instances. Please. Links.

 

[david890]

Allowing individual bakers to decline a sale for any reason isn't an institutional harm. It may have some societal impact, but just about everything does. The reason to decline service may be douchey, but that doesn't make it institutional. Other bakers just want to make money and the money from every class of person conceivable spends the same.

By your reasoning, denying housing to blacks isn't institutional harm if just a few landlords do it. Okay, I'll buy that, so long as there are reasonable alternatives: another building on the same street with access to the same schools, hospitals, groceries, etc., as those in the restricted buildings. In fact, we already have such facilities; senior living centers. I can't get into them, as I'm not old enough. However, there are similar arrangements nearby that would accept me.

Now, if some bakers were part of a network of individuals in business, political leaders, and law enforcement, and those bakers used this network to coercively ensure that NO bakers could sell to certain classes of people, THAT's institutional. That is a government intervention that I would consent to and I think that's a very distinctive line.

The concern I and others have is when those few instances become the de facto or de jure standards. Gentrification comes to mind for the first, as poor people are priced out of housing they might have been in for decades; "Jim Crow" laws fall into the latter. BOTH have large societal impact, and both should be regulated by the government. Now, since many Southern states refused to do so in the 1950s and 60s with regard to racial issues, we must rely on the federal government to step in.

The point is that laws like RFRA allow de facto discrimination to develop. If a bakery offers 4-tier cakes with a 1-month leadtime, and a couple - any couple - wants a 2-tier cake with a 1-month leadtime, it's not a burden on that bakery, regardless of their personal religious beliefs. It may very well be a burden on the couple to find another bakery, especially in small populations.

I've asked before: what *cannot* be held up as a "deeply-held religious belief"? Laws like RFRA allow someone to use any excuse they wish to deny serivces; all they have to do is claim a "deeply-held religious belief", whatever that is.

 

[jamil]

I've asked before: what *cannot* be held up as a "deeply-held religious belief"? Laws like RFRA allow someone to use any excuse they wish to deny serivces; all they have to do is claim a "deeply-held religious belief", whatever that is.

This is nonsense. I'm with you on the reasonable wrongs with the RFRA. But the slippery slop stuff makes it hard to take you seriously.

And as far as using any excuse they wish to deny services -- gasp! someone's exercising their right to walk away from a transaction!


Actually, I think a business has a right to straight up say, I don't want to serve you because you're black, or white, or woman, or trans, or gay, or straight. People have a right to be douchebags. Okay. Society seems to have figured out how to treat douchebags.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

By your reasoning, denying housing to blacks isn't institutional harm if just a few landlords do it. Okay, I'll buy that, so long as there are reasonable alternatives: another building on the same street with access to the same schools, hospitals, groceries, etc., as those in the restricted buildings. In fact, we already have such facilities; senior living centers. I can't get into them, as I'm not old enough. However, there are similar arrangements nearby that would accept me.

The concern I and others have is when those few instances become the de facto or de jure standards. Gentrification comes to mind for the first, as poor people are priced out of housing they might have been in for decades; "Jim Crow" laws fall into the latter. BOTH have large societal impact, and both should be regulated by the government. Now, since many Southern states refused to do so in the 1950s and 60s with regard to racial issues, we must rely on the federal government to step in.

The point is that laws like RFRA allow de facto discrimination to develop. If a bakery offers 4-tier cakes with a 1-month leadtime, and a couple - any couple - wants a 2-tier cake with a 1-month leadtime, it's not a burden on that bakery, regardless of their personal religious beliefs. It may very well be a burden on the couple to find another bakery, especially in small populations.

I've asked before: what *cannot* be held up as a "deeply-held religious belief"? Laws like RFRA allow someone to use any excuse they wish to deny serivces; all they have to do is claim a "deeply-held religious belief", whatever that is.

Wait, a person can only exercise their rights if others don't exercise said rights in the same way or if they are a minority of those who exercise those rights?

For gentrification, the govt should restrict who purchases property or moves where they wish, or how they can improve or what they can charge for their property? Wouldn't that be de facto discrimination?

And it may be a burden for a couple to find another bakery to bake them their cake, is that the problem of the bakery? Does that couple have a right to the labor of others if they don't wish to provide it? Should their burden restrict the rights of others? Should a business have the right to refuse service to someone they find offensive?

A local grocery store charges a good bit more than others in my town, that is a burden for some. For instance I have a couple of neighbors who don't/can't drive and are lower/fixed income, who are within walking distance of it but not the others. Should they be forced to lower their prices? And should the lower prices be for everyone or just those who the higher prices are a burden?

And what can't be held to be a "deeply-held religious belief" under the 1st Amendment. I asked this to someone else in this thread, and I'll ask you now. Do you know the history of the various RFRA laws in this nation, why they were passed and in particular the reasons for passing the IN version?

Also you seem to have missed this earlier, so I'll re-post it. Would you care to answer?

In the other thread I gave some examples when you asked how I could find any discrimination acceptable. And I asked your opinion of them, which you never responded to. I'll paraphrase a couple of them here. Would it be a burden for a gay baker who customizes cakes for one customer to make one for the westboro "baptist church" that says "god hates fags", how about a Jewish baker making one for a neo-nazi group that says "all jews must die" or "Hitler had the right idea", a black baker making one for the kkk/white supremacists that says "******s are monkeys and should be chained"? Should those bakers be required by law to make those specific cakes, or should they be able to refuse?

This is nonsense. I'm with you on the reasonable wrongs with the RFRA. But the slippery slop stuff makes it hard to take you seriously.

And as far as using any excuse they wish to deny services -- gasp! someone's exercising their right to walk away from a transaction!

Actually, I think a business has a right to straight up say, I don't want to serve you because you're black, or white, or woman, or trans, or gay, or straight. People have a right to be douchebags. Okay. Society seems to have figured out how to treat douchebags.

What are the reasonable wrongs with the RFRA? I'm in agreement with the rest of your post, just curious about this part.

 

[singlesix]

Actually, I think a business has a right to straight up say, I don't want to serve you because you're black, or white, or woman, or trans, or gay, or straight. People have a right to be douchebags. Okay. Society seems to have figured out how to treat douchebags.

What if you're the only gas station, grocery store, etc in town? The right of the individual isn't absolute in our society, individual verses group.

 

[david890]

And as far as using any excuse they wish to deny services -- gasp! someone's exercising their right to walk away from a transaction!

No, that's forcing someone to leave your business. Big difference.

Actually, I think a business has a right to straight up say, I don't want to serve you because you're black, or white, or woman, or trans, or gay, or straight. People have a right to be douchebags. Okay. Society seems to have figured out how to treat douchebags.

A single business that does it? Maybe. It's when most or all of the businesses in a given area refuse a service based on some "offensive" trait. "Your name is Jeff? Sorry, but we don't serve no 'Jeffs' in this town! Go up the road about 100 miles, and you might have better luck!"

Society seems to have figured out how to treat douchebags.

Ya know, for a long time, those "douchbags" were referred to as n****rs and f****ts, and treated rather poorly. "Society" felt treating others badly was just fine.

No blacks in Elwood (and Martinsville ain't no picnic to this day), no Catholics in the country club. Society was just fine with that.

Still waiting on what *cannot* be deemed a "deeply-held religious belief.\

The only "reasonable wrong" of RFRA was ever considering it as a law in the first place. Indiana has lost hundreds of millions because of it, and NC has likely lost billions, yet folks in both states keep doubling down.

 

[JettaKnight]

Actually, I think a business has a right to straight up say, I don't want to serve you because you're black, or white, or woman, or trans, or gay, or straight. People have a right to be douchebags. Okay. Society seems to have figured out how to treat douchebags.

Being that I completely lived in a post Jim Crow world, this concept seems wholly foreign to me, and honestly, distasteful. Just the other day I was learning (again) about the Green Book - I don't want to return to those days for any class, sect, race, etc.


I think if a business was alllowed to operate with a practice of "no muslims served" our society has enough douchebags that they'd be perfectly profitable. Sadly, humans are more capable of rationalizing their hatred of others. If you're atheist, I fully understand - it's perfectly compatible. It's despicable when Christians do it.

 

[david890]

For gentrification, the govt should restrict who purchases property or moves where they wish, or how they can improve or what they can charge for their property? Wouldn't that be de facto discrimination?

Not at all. Many locations have rent control policies in place as a check to gentrification. Also, gentrification tends to be an INVOLUNTARY relocation of folks; rents go up far beyond what the current residents can afford, so they have no choice but to relocate.

And it may be a burden for a couple to find another bakery to bake them their cake, is that the problem of the bakery? Does that couple have a right to the labor of others if they don't wish to provide it? Should their burden restrict the rights of others? Should a business have the right to refuse service to someone they find offensive?

Again, you're assuming other providers exist, that other bakeries are available. That may not be true. Refusing a service to an offensive person (i.e., one who is demanding services you don't provide, or can't provide them in the requested time) is one thing; refusing to provide the same or similar service based on some subjective characteristic of that person is quite another. For example, Tom & Mary come into Timjoebillybob's Bakery and ask for a 3-tier wedding cake in 3 weeks; nothing fancy, no writing of any special message. A cake with blue icing. It's a service that has been provided many times before. No big deal. The next day, Tom comes back and says, "Oh, my fiance, Brad, wants the color changed from blue to pink." You say, "Wait! Wasn't that woman you were with yesterday your fiance???" "Nope", says Tom, "That was my sister."

Do you provide the cake? Nothing about the service you are to provide has changed, other than the color of the frosting. How is a refusal to make that pink defensible?

A local grocery store charges a good bit more than others in my town, that is a burden for some. For instance I have a couple of neighbors who don't/can't drive and are lower/fixed income, who are within walking distance of it but not the others. Should they be forced to lower their prices? And should the lower prices be for everyone or just those who the higher prices are a burden?

No, the store shouldn't lower their prices, unless it can be shown the prices they charge are far out of line with other stores. The sole gas station in a 20-mile radius can't legitimately sell gas at $20/gal when stations just beyond that range are selling for $2/gal (the exception would be if that station showed its own costs were also sky-high, and that it's profit-per-gallon was in line with other stations). The couple should qualify for assistance, as it can be shown that assistance is reasonable (i.e., they have no other option).

And what can't be held to be a "deeply-held religious belief" under the 1st Amendment.

- A minister inciting parishioners to violence is not allowed, even if that minister truly believes they are justified (e.g., stoning a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding day; Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
- Libel and slander are not allowed, even if the person truly believes the other person to be worthy of such libel or slander.
- "Fighting words", thought that falls somewhat under incitement
- Hate speech; "Kill Hillary!", or Trump's "By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." statement (though that might be considered incitement as well).

BTW, the 1st Amendment restricts what the government can do to its citizens; the various RFRAs focus on what citizens can do to each other. Big difference.

 

[david890]

Dude, it wasn't every individual in the whole town keeping the blacks out. It was the Klan, who had members in the highest parts of local governments and law enforcement.

But acting in an individual capacity, not as an agent of the State.

 

[david890]

Meant to reply to this earlier. How did the klan keep them out of the town? Esp without the govt helping.

Seriously?

Oh, intimidation, violence, cross-burnings, refusal of services, etc. No government help needed with cops and city officials merely stood by and did nothing...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What if you're the only gas station, grocery store, etc in town? The right of the individual isn't absolute in our society, individual verses group.

And? What if you're the only whatever in a town and decide to close, should the govt be able to prohibit you from doing so? What if there aren't any whatever in a town, should the govt be able to mandate that you open one? Heck I know of several towns around me that don't have a grocery store and/or gas station. Should the govt mandate that a company open one in those towns?

No, that's forcing someone to leave your business. Big difference.

A single business that does it? Maybe. It's when most or all of the businesses in a given area refuse a service based on some "offensive" trait. "Your name is Jeff? Sorry, but we don't serve no 'Jeffs' in this town! Go up the road about 100 miles, and you might have better luck!"

Ya know, for a long time, those "douchbags" were referred to as n****rs and f****ts, and treated rather poorly. "Society" felt treating others badly was just fine.

No blacks in Elwood (and Martinsville ain't no picnic to this day), no Catholics in the country club. Society was just fine with that.

Still waiting on what *cannot* be deemed a "deeply-held religious belief.\

The only "reasonable wrong" of RFRA was ever considering it as a law in the first place. Indiana has lost hundreds of millions because of it, and NC has likely lost billions, yet folks in both states keep doubling down.

No, that is exactly what it is. Someone exercising their right to walk away from a transaction. It works both ways. Should the govt be able to mandate that you purchase your bread from a store owned by a well known kkk member? Or should you have the right to not do business with those who you do not agree with? Why is a business different?

And what if it is? What about my example above about the only business in town closing or no businesses of that type in town?

And what groups does "society" generally find offensive today? The kkk? Should a black business be forced to serve a klansman wearing full regalia? Or make a cake with decorating that reflects that view? I notice you seem to refuse to answer my questions, is that because you would have to admit that you are for discrimination so long as it's against something that you find offensive?

And nothing just about can't be claimed to be a deeply held religious belief. What is your point? Same question as above, what can't be under the 1st Amendment and what was the reasoning behind the various RFRAs?

Being that I completely lived in a post Jim Crow world, this concept seems wholly foreign to me, and honestly, distasteful. Just the other day I was learning (again) about the Green Book - I don't want to return to those days for any class, sect, race, etc.


I think if a business was alllowed to operate with a practice of "no muslims served" our society has enough douchebags that they'd be perfectly profitable. Sadly, humans are more capable of rationalizing their hatred of others. If you're atheist, I fully understand - it's perfectly compatible. It's despicable when Christians do it.

What do you mean return to those days, we still live in them. Handgunlaw.us is a prime example of it. But there are two different subjects being discussed. One being govt discrimination such as the Jim Crow laws, the other is a private individual deciding on who they wish to do business with. There is a big difference between the two.

And you quite possibly may be right on that. I'd also say that a competing business that doesn't discriminate would gain quite a bit of business do to the others policy. And I agree that it is despicable when people attempt to rationalize their hatred of others in general terms. But there is a difference between a baker that doesn't want to associate/participate to whatever degree with gay marriage by making a wedding cake for one as an example, and one that hates gays. I may patronize a bakery that does the first, I wouldn't patronize one that had a sign "no gays allowed" on the door.