Mike Pence Should Step Down.

[Kutnupe14]

I see a difference.

Wonder if we can get the law changed to simply state that no person or business can be sued for refusing to provide a service for any reason they feel prudent? If it's an employee (private or public) they employer can have whatever policy they'd like so they could fire an employee if they wanted to and public employees could be restricted from denying services by policy. Which special interest group might that offend?

This

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I see a difference.

Wonder if we can get the law changed to simply state that no person or business can be sued for refusing to provide a service for any reason they feel prudent? If it's an employee (private or public) they employer can have whatever policy they'd like so they could fire an employee if they wanted to and public employees could be restricted from denying services by policy. Which special interest group might that offend?

If I'm reading this, I could go along with this. But those that believe they should be protected or those that think they know how other people ought to run their business will take offense to it. Plus, the federal government would likely take offense.

 

[phylodog]

If I'm reading this, I could go along with this. But those that believe they should be protected or those that think they know how other people ought to run their business will take offense to it. Plus, the federal government would likely take offense.

Oh, you mean the hypocrites? The people who believe they should have the right to do whatever they want but want to control what others can and can't do?

I don't pay them much attention.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh, you mean the hypocrites? The people who believe they should have the right to do whatever they want but want to control what others can and can't do?

I don't pay them much attention.

They'll burn your pizza business down!

 

[phylodog]

They'll burn your pizza business down!

Nah, I don't give up that easily.

 

[Beowulf]

I always understood the Indiana RFRA to be in response to the Hobby Lobby lawsuit/decision. Regardless of motivation, though, the law looks, walks, and quacks only like what is actually written in the legislation - and what is actually written in the legislation says absolutely nothing about gay marriage or homosexuals in general. What is written in the law applies to government entities, and government laws, etc.

What is intellectually disingenuous is the claim that the law targets homosexuals, or enables or facilitates discrimination against homosexuals. That claim is an outright lie.



Why does there need to be an example of such in Indiana? There are myriad examples of such substantial burdens elsewhere. Why should a Hoosier be harmed before the legislature acts to provide protections?



If there's no compelling reason for Indiana to have an RFRA, then why do 30+ states have the same law, or court decisions that have implemented the same restrictions on government?

I don't see one here and instead, see a cynical ploy to provide a sop to the anti-gay marriage groups, which as instead blown up in their faces (and sadly, by extension, all of ours as well).

There's nothing in the law about gay marriage. There's nothing in the law that protects, encourages, or facilitates discrimination against homosexuals. So, if the law was intended as such sop, it's a miserable failure in that regard.

By the way: were the laws in all the other states just "sops" as well? Why or why not, and how is Indiana any different from those other states?

Just to be clear (and I'm not trying to be a jerk), but a "sop" is defined as "a conciliatory or propitiatory bribe, gift, or gesture". So, yes, this law and other laws that are being passed recently to this affect are indeed a sop to the anti-gay base. They are pointless or damaging laws being passed to legislators can go back to their vocal (but ever shrinking) base to say "Look what we did here". They don't really accomplish anything and they certainly won't stem the tide of public opinion (and in fact may accelerate it in the opposite direction). After courts struck down Indiana's ban on gay marriage last year (currently being appealed), that same vocal base is certainly feeling very unsettled. Pushing this law through lets legislators give a wink and nod to them, to show solidarity (whether it is really felt or just a cynical grab for votes).

As to why there needs to be an example of such in Indiana, given the amount of bad press and economic damage we are taking from this, Pence and pals better damn well be able show a compelling need for this law to have been passed. They are accountable to us, the tax paying citizens of the state, not just to the social conservatives. I don't really care what beliefs they have or don't have, until they start doing stupid things could affect my livelihood.

 

[oldpink]

He's not trying to keep up with Bill Of Rights. He's just doing his regular schtick.

Accusing others of doing their "regular schtick" coming from you especially is a remarkable display of unintentional humor.

While we're on the subject of schtick, how about this quote from you on the "American Sniper" thread?:

No, the article is correct from the standpoint that he was an invader and his enemies were defending their country.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/371048-american-sniper-9.html#post5608225

I think that nicely exemplifies all that anyone would ever need to know about your mentality.

 

[Alpo]

A business ought to be able to accept or refuse contracts (and a sale of a good or service is a contract with the buyer) based upon their own judgement. But civil rights enter into it when the goods or services are offered to the general public. If the seller is willing to make pizza for you, he should be willing to make pizza for me, or the gay hairdresser down the block. To do less is economically insane and also discriminatory. Like it or not, that hairdresser probably cuts and dyes the pizza owner's spouse's hair. He's good enough to touch your wife, but not enter your business?

That, to me, is outright bigotry and deserves to be held up to public ridicule.

 

[oldpink]

A business ought to be able to accept or refuse contracts (and a sale of a good or service is a contract with the buyer) based upon their own judgement. But civil rights enter into it when the goods or services are offered to the general public. If the seller is willing to make pizza for you, he should be willing to make pizza for me, or the gay hairdresser down the block. To do less is economically insane and also discriminatory. Like it or not, that hairdresser probably cuts and dyes the pizza owner's spouse's hair. He's good enough to touch your wife, but not enter your business?

That, to me, is outright bigotry and deserves to be held up to public ridicule.

Is it still bigotry when a practicing Muslim is requested to make a cake with the image of Muhammad on it, and the Muslim refuses on religious grounds?

 

[Twangbanger]

You are exactly right. And truth be told, this law WOULD be kosher if applied as originally envisioned by the founders (IMO). However this has been incorporated (as are the rest of the BoRs), and is thus uniformly applied to the states. If you disagree, then you are essentially of the belief the states can regulate firearms, just as long as the federal govt does not.

You make a good point about incorporation of the First Amendment. And I see why it would be needed there, because that amendment was written to limit its scope to the actions of Congress. But the Second Amendment contains no such language, it just says "...shall not be infringed," not "...shall not be infringed by Congress." It's pretty clear to me, no government can infringe it. I'm helpful for any assistance the courts would want to give gunowners, but I'm not sure it's needed. (Unfortunately it hasn't stopped states from passing all kinds of gun laws).

But I'm still not clear on why you think the Indiana law is an establishment of religion? (Why would not conscientious objector status be another such establishment)?

I see a difference.

Wonder if we can get the law changed to simply state that no person or business can be sued for refusing to provide a service for any reason they feel prudent? If it's an employee (private or public) they employer can have whatever policy they'd like so they could fire an employee if they wanted to and public employees could be restricted from denying services by policy. Which special interest group might that offend?

A lot of people have expressed this opinion. But this seems certain to me to be shot down immediately if attempted, because it would seem to legalize "I won't sell you a pizza because you're black." I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I thought the discrimination laws were a sort of partial "suspension" of freedom of association, for reasons related to historical patterns of discrimination. And, those suspensions had been Constitutionally validated by case law. (Anybody know?). If those laws trace their viability back to Constitutional reasoning, it seems this new "freedom of association" statute would be found unconstitutional straight away.

So, I guess I really don't see a way of preventing a business owner from being coerced to provide services violating his religious beliefs, without doing it the way Indiana did. The more general approach which doesn't mention religion as justification seems to be a non-starter right off the bat, because of its broadness and the types of transgressions it would therefore allow.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You make a good point about incorporation of the First Amendment. And I see why it would be needed there, because that amendment was written to limit its scope to the actions of Congress. But the Second Amendment contains no such language, it just says "...shall not be infringed," not "...shall not be infringed by Congress." It's pretty clear to me, no government can infringe it. I'm helpful for any assistance the courts would want to give gunowners, but I'm not sure it's needed. (Unfortunately it hasn't stopped states from passing all kinds of gun laws).

But I'm still not clear on why you think the Indiana law is an establishment of religion? (Why would not conscientious objector status be another such establishment)?

We can go back and forth on that all day long. It is settled NOW, that it applies to all levels govt, but in earlier days, there was no such consensus. I am of the opinion, that the BoRs, as originally intended, ONLY applied to the federal govt, and not the states. Most Southern states held this view until the Civil War put it to rest, sort of.

 

[Ericpwp]

Sorry, Eric, but it does not mirror the federal version. You should read and compare the two. The Indiana version has additional language that was added at the behest of the TEAvangelicals like Eric Miller. They are substantially different.

You linked it here.

Secular individuals and businesses are not covered by existing law or the RFRA. They are accorded no protections under it.

Here it is: The text of Indiana's "religious freedom" law

Please cite the added text.

 

[Alpo]

Is it still bigotry when a practicing Muslim is requested to make a cake with the image of Muhammad on it, and the Muslim refuses on religious grounds?

No, he is unwilling to make a cake for anyone with the image of Mohammed. He's probably testing the limits of his spirituality by accepting money with Andrew Jackson's picture on it for the dozen bagels he made that morning.

 

[oldpink]

No, he is unwilling to make a cake for anyone with the image of Mohammed. He's probably testing the limits of his spirituality by accepting money with Andrew Jackson's picture on it for the dozen bagels he made that morning.

He's refusing on religious grounds because he objects to producing images of Muhammad.
Kindly differentiate between that and a person who practices any other religion (yep, that includes at least Jews and Muslims) who declines to decorate a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding?
It's obvious that this manufactured "outrage" is selectively applied to Christians, because the exact same people posturing as social justice warriors and white knights wouldn't dare use their tactics against practitioners of Islam.

 

[JS1911]

Well said, leftists are pussies. Every last one of them.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Most of these would be considered hate speech which is not protected so therefore can be refused. Are you really comparing two men or two women wanting to say "I do" to "kill a cracker" or God hates fags"?

Again I will say, substitute the word black, Hispanic, Jew, etc for the word gay in any sentence. If those sound wrong to you, then so should gay.

BTW, I support this bill when it comes to cases like Hobby Lobby. In that case the religious belief was not against any single group other than the fact that only women take the morning after pill. If there were a drug that caused what they saw as abortion for men, they would have been against it as well. The fact that it was no aimed at a certain group intentionally, and that the action caused harm to another if you believe abortion kills a baby, makes it different that wanting to refuse service to gays.

And no I didn't compare them, I was asking if you would support discrimination in those cases, it sounds like you would. So discrimination is okay only if you think it is?

All they need to do it include Homosexuality as a protected class and this will all go away. If its not about denying service to gays then it should be an easy fix.

Can you show me the law/case law that says "hate speech" isn't protected? I can show case law that at least one of those examples is. And who decides what is hate speech? How about this one, should a Jewish baker be forced to make a birthday cake with "Happy birthday Adolph Hitler"? They make birthday cakes with names on them, and I'm going to guess that there are only a few certain groups that would name their child that....

There will be a lot of time in the future to review what happened here. One thing is for sure: Indiana got a black eye for a non-problem. A pox on all the idiots who failed to think this through before hand. We are not a theocracy.

How exactly does this make us a theocracy?

While I support any business owners right to free association, I will say that I do not care for the negative consequences that may affect me because Pence and the Indiana legislature though it was a burning necessity to put this into law nearly 20 years after the other oft-mentioned states and Federal government did. In my opinion, this law was completely unnecessary and only servers to tick off the entire country, causing an economic backlash against the state.

Here's the real issue, whether you think this law is "protecting religious freedom" or not... it's a big loser with the public. So from just a real politic standpoint, passing it was completely stupid, especially since there was no driving need in Indiana to do so (the only example that relates to this topic that I've heard of was 111 Cakery and they went under, not because the government forced them to serve gay people, but because THEIR CUSTOMERS were revolted by the action and stopped doing business with them).

The government has no business writing legislation that targets you for your beliefs, but it also has no business writing legislation protecting you from the legal consequences of your beliefs (aforementioned public mockery and boycotts... obviously you will still be afforded the same protection any person should have to prevent physical harm from being done to you).

I posted this one before, a business in Indianapolis had to settle with the city for refusing to make rainbow decorated deserts for a gay pride event.
Downtown Cookie Shop Settles Discrimination Claim - TheIndyChannel.com

Can you show me where this has happened? Well in the US anyway.

So wanting the same protection and rights that you have make them "super special"? What does that make you?

What protection and rights don't they have?

How is this NOT a law respecting religion? This law should probably be struck down based on its language alone.

It's not a law respecting an establishment of religion. See below for a longer answer.

If it's called the RFRA, it doesn't make a difference who did it first, second, or at what level.... it's a law respecting the establishment of religion and is verboten according to the constitution. If this is going to fly, it should be re-worded to indicate "beliefs," to allow non-religious entities the same right.

How can a law that provides the same protection as found in the Constitution be unConstitutional? I don't believe you quite understand what the "an establishment of religion" is. It's not a law that protects all religions, it is one that specifically promotes one over others. If they passed a law that said only churches of a certain religion get tax breaks, that would be an establishment of religion. One that says all churches do, is not.

 

[Lucas156]

We're going to see more and more of this as we transition to a more socialist government. This being the government taking away our freedoms

 

[churchmouse]

We're going to see more and more of this as we transition to a more socialist government. This being the government taking away our freedoms

And the majority of the electorate being on board with it.

 

[cobber]

And the majority of the electorate being on board with it.

Until someone is coming for them in the dead of the night. Then there'll be gnashing of teeth, wailing and lamentations.

Revolutions ALWAYS eat their own. Until that point, it's all fun and games, carrying banners and shouting slogans.

 

[churchmouse]

Until someone is coming for them in the dead of the night. Then there'll be gnashing of teeth, wailing and lamentations.

Revolutions ALWAYS eat their own. Until that point, it's all fun and games, carrying banners and shouting slogans.

Check out the crowds that are gathering in protest of this mess.
Nuff said.