The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[Dead Duck]

It's also a distraction meant to keep the populace at large distracted and focused on the left hand so nobody sees what the right hand is doing. Much like sports and reality tv.

NOW YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

 

[IndyGal65]

Ok, I agree with this caller in that it is his business and he can deny service to anyone he wants to. However, own it. Don't be a p*ssy and waste (gay) people's time with this sh*t. Perhaps he and his "tons" of other business brethren should be up front on their door about who they will not serve. We're not talking about not baking a cake for a gay wedding. He's talking about outright refusal of any kind of service to gay people. That's fine. His business. I personally want to know what business(es) feel this same way so I can steer clear and not waste my (and his) time.

KYLE & RACHEL: Local Business Owner Supports Bill 100% and Refused Service to a Gay Couple! (AUDIO) | RadioNOW 100.9

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ok, I agree with this caller in that it is his business and he can deny service to anyone he wants to. However, own it. Don't be a p*ssy and waste (gay) people's time with this sh*t. Perhaps he and his "tons" of other business brethren should be up front on their door about who they will not serve. We're not talking about not baking a cake for a gay wedding. He's talking about outright refusal of any kind of service to gay people. That's fine. His business. I personally want to know what business(es) feel this same way so I can steer clear and not waste my (and his) time.

KYLE & RACHEL: Local Business Owner Supports Bill 100% and Refused Service to a Gay Couple! (AUDIO) | RadioNOW 100.9

I figure the odds of that being a troll, just to stir the pot is about 98%. Many people are looking to be outraged and there are a few that take joy in obliging them.

 

[IndyGal65]

I figure the odds of that being a troll, just to stir the pot is about 98%. Many people are looking to be outraged and there are a few that take joy in obliging them.

I did consider the possibility that this guy is trolling. I find that just as despicable. I guess time will tell.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I pretty much agree with you. I said elsewhere that if we're going to argue against this law, let's do it on the grounds that we're already protected under the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and not on the false claims of what this law allows or forces people to do.

But reality is boring!

 

[ModernGunner]

...This bill carves out special rights for the religious in Indiana, not everyone. They've just made a special class of people in Indiana with special made up rights...

Actually, that alleged 'special right' is contained within that 'other special right', commonly known as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Reads, in part, like this:

"...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

SOME folks incessantly harp on the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" part while willfully ignoring the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part. Both must be applicable, or both are invalid.

And, for the record, bills are regularly 'carved out' giving 'special groups special rights'. LBGT's, notably, are one of those 'special groups'. Does the LBGT community regularly hold marches and demonstrations for the Single, middle-aged, childless, White, Male, middle (and/or median) income, homeowner? No, they do not. They hold marches and demonstrations for their own, specific, special interests.

Ironic.

...Hate and discrimination are always repugnant, and doubly so when they hide behind the guise of religion.

Even more so when hidden behind the guise of a false 'moral superiority'.

The 'solution' is the same as it has always been: If one doesn't like the way they're treated at a certain business, go elsewhere.

 

[Suprtek]

I seldom comment in this section. However I feel a need to express my opinion on this matter. I have not read the entire thread and I do not intend to. My opinions on this matter were well established before this law was created and there is little chance of any discussion on the matter changing that. I'll apologize now if what I'm about to post has already been said.

I agree with the "spirit" of what this law was intended to accomplish. However, I do not agree with the need for this law to exist. The possibility of this law being misused certainly does exist. The same could be said of our Constitution. If the Constitution were always properly interpreted and enforced, the perceived need for this law would never have existed.

There has been an unmeasured amount of legislation created in an effort to reinforce what is already there in the Constitution. IMO these efforts would have been better spent in an effort to insure those in leadership positions in our government were more motivated to obey and enforce that constitution. I'm not saying that our Constitution is perfect. It's not. However, the means to improve and/or correct its flaws were built in. That makes it pretty close.

 

[Arthur Dent]

NOW YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

Okay. I'll take that part back.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I pretty much agree with you. I said elsewhere that if we're going to argue against this law, let's do it on the grounds that we're already protected under the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and not on the false claims of what this law allows or forces people to do.

I'm good with that.

 

[chipbennett]

Ok, I agree with this caller in that it is his business and he can deny service to anyone he wants to. However, own it. Don't be a p*ssy and waste (gay) people's time with this sh*t. Perhaps he and his "tons" of other business brethren should be up front on their door about who they will not serve. We're not talking about not baking a cake for a gay wedding. He's talking about outright refusal of any kind of service to gay people. That's fine. His business. I personally want to know what business(es) feel this same way so I can steer clear and not waste my (and his) time.

KYLE & RACHEL: Local Business Owner Supports Bill 100% and Refused Service to a Gay Couple! (AUDIO) | RadioNOW 100.9

Actually, I would consider this to be potentially actionable discrimination. If you open a business to the general public, then the public has a right of accommodation. If you don't want to risk engagement with people you find offensive, then don't pursue an endeavor that explicitly invites all and sundry people to engage in business with you.

Note that such blanket discrimination is distinct from a reasonable religious burden, or refusing service for other good cause, such as someone disturbing/interfering with your business.

And note also, that SB 101 does not change the landscape one bit with respect to such discrimination.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree with the "spirit" of what this law was intended to accomplish. However, I do not agree with the need for this law to exist. The possibility of this law being misused certainly does exist. The same could be said of our Constitution. If the Constitution were always properly interpreted and enforced, the perceived need for this law would never have existed.

Can you cite the specific part(s) of SB 101 that you believe could be misused, and how/why that specific part(s) could be misused?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Look at all the idiots at today's RFRA ralley

 

[chipbennett]

Kudos to them for exercising their first amendment-protected rights.

Ironic, though, that they are protesting the right of others to do the same.

 

[bwframe]

Angie's List calls off $40M expansion over 'freedom bill' | 2015-03-28 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

 

[Dead Duck]

Not sure why those people are so mad.
When they woke up this morning they were still gay, right?

So...........

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Angie's List calls off $40M expansion over 'freedom bill' | 2015-03-28 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

I guess they never taught me how a business with as much red ink on their financials can continue as an ongoing concern. Maybe that was an advanced class.

http://www.marke****ch.com/investing/stock/angi/financials

ETA: That silly swear filter....

 

[Suprtek]

Can you cite the specific part(s) of SB 101 that you believe could be misused, and how/why that specific part(s) could be misused?

Probably, if I chose to do that amount of research. But like I said, I don't agree with the fact that this law should exist. So why should I be interested in doing that kind of research?

 

[Lowe0]

Angie's List calls off $40M expansion over 'freedom bill' | 2015-03-28 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

Yeah, but all of those jobs would be in Indy. Pence doesn't need our votes, so why would he care?

 

[miguel]

Angie's List calls off $40M expansion over 'freedom bill' | 2015-03-28 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

And right as they were about to turn the corner...

"Angie’s List has never had an annual profit. But last month it reported its second quarterly profit in its 20-year history." (source: Indianapolis council delays vote on Angie's List incentives - Washington Times)

And no wonder: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/online/angies-list.html

 

[PistolBob]

Yeah, but all of those jobs would be in Indy. Pence doesn't need our votes, so why would he care?

Angie is in some financial trouble...I believe the IBJ said something about 18 million in tax fines or something...not sure. They are an internet company that has no real visible means of support...just waiting on the bubble to blow. They are currently mired in court with a class action fraud suit against them...so I don't think any is going to gain any jobs from this campus cut back.

Web Site ?Angie?s List? Sued For Fraud in Federal Court in Philadelphia « CBS Philly

and

What happens to city's $18.5M if Angie's List falters?