The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not asking about the text; I'm asking about the results. What possible upside is there for GLBTs?

If they happen to be religious and Jewish, (just for the sake of argument, since most examples rightly or wrongly center around this sort of hypothetical) and a Muslim comes into their shop and demands a Death to Israel banner and pamphlets for a march, then wouldn't it protect them?

 

[Dead Duck]

I'm not asking about the text; I'm asking about the results. What possible upside is there for GLBTs?

You are asking what good comes from this bill if a person is gay?
It's a bill. This bill doesn't care if you're gay. Why would it?



On that note - I just changed to a new dog food last week. What possible upside is there for GLBTs?
See - It doesn't make any since. Does it......

 

[Lowe0]

You are operating under the false premise that this new laws sole purpose was specifically written as to discriminate against LBGT as the phrasing in the article implies. You buy into that framing and that's exactly what they want.

My expectation that this will be used against GLBTs isn't based on media coverage. It's based on watching the tooth-and-nail fight against same sex marriage. I expect the worst based on that track record.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not asking about the text; I'm asking about the results. What possible upside is there for GLBTs?

You asserted that the law was a *bad thing* for LGBT. You have now changed the subject, to asserting that the law has *no upside* for LGBT. Is that a tacit admission that the law, is not, in fact, a "bad thing" for LGBT?

 

[Lowe0]

You asserted that the law was a *bad thing* for LGBT. You have now changed the subject, to asserting that the law has *no upside* for LGBT. Is that a tacit admission that the law, is not, in fact, a "bad thing" for LGBT?

Not at all. If you want an example of using the law against GLBTs, you'll have to wait longer than 5 days after signing. But I have no doubt that it will be used against them.

Your turn: do you really think it won't be used against them?

 

[chipbennett]

My expectation that this will be used against GLBTs isn't based on media coverage. It's based on watching the tooth-and-nail fight against same sex marriage. I expect the worst based on that track record.

And how would this law enable or facilitate such endeavors? Specifics, please.

Not at all. If you want an example of using the law against GLBTs, you'll have to wait longer than 5 days after signing. But I have no doubt that it will be used against them.

And yet, thus far neither you nor anyone else has cited what in the law can be "used against them". The law directs/restricts/regulates what the government can do; not what individuals can do.

Have you even read the law?

 

[jkaetz]

My expectation that this will be used against GLBTs isn't based on media coverage. It's based on watching the tooth-and-nail fight against same sex marriage. I expect the worst based on that track record.

But why must we assume that it will be abused rather than waiting and seeing what happens? My feelings are that any business that abuses the law will quickly go out of business without any legal action being taken at all.

 

[AA&E]

Tell me this whole uproar isn't fueled by the media when they start to phrase the new law as the..

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/cnn-chris-cuomo-grills-anti-lgbt-indiana-law-135008835.html

There is no truth. There is only perception.

Gustave Flaubert

 

[AA&E]

No, but maybe we can pass a law reinforcing the federal ban and illegality of marijuana. Waiting for an almost sure lawsuit before addressing the issue is playing into the hands of the political activists.


Jeez, do we need to go back 50 pages and start over.

Gee, we should do something about gay marriage then. Some kind of an amendment prohibiting such things might be in order...

 

[chipbennett]

But why must we assume that it will be abused rather than waiting and seeing what happens? My feelings are that any business that abuses the law will quickly go out of business without any legal action being taken at all.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite an example of how a business can "abuse" this law.

 

[cobber]

Apple weighs in. Just as soon as they get China cleaned up and lick the last Party boss's boot they'll show us what supporting liberty is all about.

Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ?religious freedom? laws are dangerous - The Washington Post


Speaking of things that are dangerous to America, what about outsourcing jobs to third-world totalitarian states?

 

[Big Guy]

First, a general warning, if you're offended by slightly suggestive mental images, skip the example hypocrisy narrative.

To AA&E: On the hypocrisy thing, I'm sure you understand that a person doesn't have to believe all the doctrines a given church teaches. Your example of remarrying doesn't necessarily suggest hypocrisy because a lot of people don't believe that. People do pick and choose what to believe, and it is their right to do so. That said, this law should still handle actual hypocrisy.

Let's use an example of a white male named Fred (since we know every white male is evil, especially ones with white names). Fred is a deacon in his local Church, very outspoken against sexual sins, fornication, porn, adultery, homosexuality, etc. Tom, his best friend since childhood, is putting together a bachelor party complete with strippers, for a mutual friend, and wants Fred to make a cake depicting a certain female body part. This is offensive to Fred, and initially he refuses. But Tom has always been a master manipulator, and convinces him to do it. So Fred reluctantly agrees to make the cake as specified, but still feels guilty about it and decides not to attend the party. But starts making the cake anyway.

While he's decorating his friend's cake, Adam comes in and, as he awkwardly tries to ignore the obvious shape of the cake that Fred is working on, asks Fred to make a cake for he and Steve's wedding. Fred stops working on the cake long enough to inform Adam that his Christian conscience does not allow him to participate in accommodating sinful behavior. Adam exclaims, "But you're maKING A ***** CAKE! THAT doesn't offend your Christian conscience?" Fred just repeats the same manipulative lines that Tom had used to rationalize it. Adam takes out his phone and snaps a photo of the ***** cake and storms out of the bakery.

So Adam and Steve sue Fred for discrimination. Fred's defense is based on this sparkling fresh new law.

The law says that "substantially burdened", or something like that, is the standard. In response to Fred's attorney claiming that Fred's conscience is substantially burdened by making a cake for a gay wedding, the opposing attorney props up a poster sized glossy photo of Fred making the ***** cake. He then shows documentation of the bachelor party, complete with midget strippers (wait, was that on the "stuff INGO says thread?"). And then parades scores of witnesses through, who all admit to hearing Fred speak often against all sexual sin.

How could the gay couple's request have burdened his conscience any more than making a ***** cake for his buddies' bachelor party? I'm not an attorney, but if I were and had that going on, I'd be beating that drum all day long.

And that's the point. Two parties' rights are at stake. And a court has to decide, given the all the relevant laws, does the baker's right to choose associations trump the gay couple's right to a wedding cake? Whose rights prevail? Who will get their feelings hurt + damages, mental anguish, and so on?

If this law serves any real purpose at all, it would be to give the religious side some very limited standing to enable a natural right to association. I'm against the fact that it only does this for religious reasons. In a world that values individual liberty, the baker has the right to be a hypocrite. And that does make him an immoral person. And the gay couple has a right to mock him for it. But in this world we live in now, this law would probably not help Fred at all, because 1) he's white, male and straight, and therefore automatically wrong, and especially 2) his claim that making a cake for a gay wedding substantially burdens his conscience is pretty silly given that he made a ***** cake for a bachelor party featuring midget strippers.



I'm not judging. But why would I be judged for saying this law doesn't cause the sky to fall? Is that a sin? Is it sinful to advocate not using government might to enforce social standards?

If I were a baker, according to my beliefs and values, I would serve everyone. Their money all spends the same. Except I'd draw the line at douche bags. Their money is obviously icky. I'd have a sign on the door. "I don't serve douche bags." AFAIK, douche bags are not yet a protected class.



I'd like you to understand that this is a false dichotomy happily passed on by the media....and progressive libertarians, that you're ether against the law, or you're a homophobe.



Yes. But I just can't bring myself to laugh. So we'll need to "carve out a protected class", or some such nonsense, to protect a class from a protected class. I mean, at some point isn't it all just a wash anyway?

Boy, you can say that again!!

What about no shoes, no shirt, no service???? Are we all being discriminated against by business owners ????

 

[D-Ric902]

Gee, we should do something about gay marriage then. Some kind of an amendment prohibiting such things might be in order...

This law has nothing, nothing, did I say nothing, by that I mean nothing at all to do with gays.
the laws against driving without a license don't have a provisions against gay discrimination, does that mean they are a license to discriminate?

I have to keep my lawn mowed, there is no gay provision in that ordinance. Should they protest?

all of these "allow gay discrimination" as much as this law does.

the "issue de jour" for today is for sheep

 

[Big Guy]

I'm gonna call my lawyer and see about filing a lawsuit against the next place I see that sign posted.

 

[AA&E]

Again - This bill has nothing to do with gays. Is it to protect the business owners.

In it's day, the same thing was likely said about Fugitive Slave Laws...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Again - This bill has nothing to do with gays. Is it to protect the business owners.

Wrong! If you suggest such a thing, you should simply remove yourself from the discussion because you have no facts on your side!

http://www.reddit.com/r/Indiana/comments/30xjxe/meet_the_five_indiana_republicans_who_said_no_to/cpwsg4o

</sarc>

 

[Lowe0]

And how would this law enable or facilitate such endeavors? Specifics, please.



And yet, thus far neither you nor anyone else has cited what in the law can be "used against them". The law directs/restricts/regulates what the government can do; not what individuals can do.

Have you even read the law?

Correct; the law restricts the government from finding that a plaintiff's civil rights have been violated if a religious practices defense exists. In other words, the government can't use it against GLBTs - but anyone who wants to violate GLBTs' civil rights now has free rein to do so. You really think an Indiana court is going to tell them no? Yeah, right.

Yes, I've read the law. You guys really need a new catchphrase; " have you read the law " is getting played out.

 

[D-Ric902]

I'm gonna call my lawyer and see about filing a lawsuit against the next place I see that sign posted.

barefoot rights!!

Putin would not get served without a shirt on, I demand a partial nakedness protection provision be added!

 

[Big Guy]

BTW, where was all the opposition to this bill while it was being drafted, long before the Governor got to sign it? This has already been debated at the House level, and if anyone had a gripe with it, they should have contacted their representatives and voiced their opinions then. People let things go, and then they want to complain to late.

 

[ashby koss]

This bill deals directly with private parties NOT just businesses. Why is everyone stuck on "it only applies to businesses". THat is a lie. If you read the bill it says ANY sue-able entity.

View attachment 37308