The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[jamil]

People are going to boycott. Nobody can stop them until they get what they want or decide to stop boycotting. If a business owner freely speaks one way, and a boycott results, isn't that how it's supposed to work? Free market and all...

Apparently the free market isn't ready for the progressively educated, brainwashed hipster generation. We've never had to this extent, an issue with businesses speaking their minds until recently.

 

[AA&E]

The solution to the problem is to get the State out of marriage entirely, and let it remain a religious matter.

Your entire answer and post was very well composed. This sentence stuck out to me though. Is this really what you want? Do you think it is what most Christians want? If this were the case (and likely should be today anyway) if any religion is willing to accept the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, how would the state be appropriate in banning the practice?

It would be granting preference to one religion and their beliefs over another.. would it not?

 

[AA&E]

Cute, but I don't think they passed judgement either, seeing as it was a hypothetical situation that's never happened.

A lot of this seems more anti-religion (or even anti-christian), and less about RFRA.

Thanks, but I'm not your type. This thread getting to you?

obviously.. kidding.

But seriously, that's some serious money and it's showing no sign of slowing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Damn, I tried. I cook a mean steak, if you reconsider. :P

Yeah, $109k now.

 

[dusty88]

I am going to try to respond to this as delicately as possible, so as not to run afoul of forum rules.

Believing in freedom of conscience means tolerating people who hold beliefs different from my own. I can't imagine myself boycotting anyone, based merely on a belief. It is how one acts on a belief that matters.

and you highlighted Liberty's bold "I have no use for those who are so high-handed as to try to harm or interfere with people who are harming or interfering with no one." and said it has nothing to do with the RFRA.

I think you are trying to mix "beliefs" with "acts". It's an act and a choice to cater the wedding, regardless of how you feel about it.

If I run a profitable pizza restaurant in a town of 2100, there are not going to be 3 more pizza restaurants. Supporting that pizza restaurant indirectly supports their actions and prevents other pizza restaurants. So if you choose not to cater a gay wedding (let's say "rehearsal" because who really has pizza at their wedding LOL) you remove opportunity for another pizza restaurant to cater for a reasonable price. Every customer who supports the pizza restaurant is an indirect contributor to their business model. It's like supporting other retail establishments that do things you like. If you like a store that is open on Sundays, but no one spends money there other days of the week, you will likely not have them around when you need them on a Sunday. So some people choose to give them extra business on other days.

I realize that a person can't evaluate every cause or action of a business owner, and most of the time we admittedly don't even try. I'm not suggesting it's our moral obligation to participate in boycotts, just that it is logical and appropriate when the cause is important to you.

I don't see how you can logically argue that refusing to cater a gay wedding is any different than refusing to serve a black person that walks in your door. Based on verbage and body language I have seen, I would say that I have known people who have very strong "feelings" about certain minorities. I'm also quite certain that it wasn't so long ago that associating with people of these races was an offense to their religion. As sad as that behavior is, it's not "direct harm" to remove an opportunity from someone.



I think it's immoral, illogical, and loathsome to refuse someone else service based on your personal beliefs and perceptions. But it should be your right to do so.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

$102k

These people are dumb like a fox.

​I think I'm about due for some threatening phone calls.

 

[miguel]

As we are at 1200+ posts and still going strong here, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this ultimately isn't about whose religion says they should/shouldn't do XYZ and who is/isn't offended by XYZ. That is a side show meant to divide and enflame (no pun intended) both communities.

The question ultimately is, as a citizen of the United States -- dare I say as a human being on planet Earth -- should you have the right to say, "**** you!" to someone in a store you own?

I fully support the freedom to say, "**** you!" to anyone, any time, for any reason. I'd happily say "**** you!" to those who are white, black, gay, straight, "curious", Hindu, agnostic, deist, Catholic (liberal ones, especially), Chevy drivers, pizza eaters, 1911 owners, Glock owners, stray dogs in my yard, people who brake check when crossing the Monon even though the God damn light is a flashing YELLOW, annoying ground hornets, rabbits who eat my lettuce or douche bag INGO members if I was inclined to do so. And I would heartily welcome a big "Yeah, well **** you!" in return, though I reserve the right to put you on my ignore list if you are consistently a douche bag like ****, *********, ******* ******* are.

And, for my more sensitive readers, "**** you!" doesn't necessarily mean a literal uttering of the words, "**** you!" so don't get all ****ing philosophical about meanness, obscenity, hurt feelings, bullying, etc. with me. "**** you!" is a any rejective act or phrase one may decide upon when they don't want to do something for another person who believes they have a right to said thing from another party.

If we boil the issue down to the question, "Should I be able to make you do something you don't want to do?" we will learn alot about each other and those in charge of the American asylum.

 

[Doug]

Cute, but I don't think they passed judgement either, seeing as it was a hypothetical situation that's never happened.

A lot of this seems more anti-religion (or even anti-christian), and less about RFRA.

The Wall Street Journal agrees with you; see post 1169 and Cal Thomas' article in today's Star.

 

[MisterChester]

So now the bill has no teeth thanks to the clarification. Why don't we just repeal it already?

 

[dusty88]

No one is being harmed or interfered with. Not one person.

There is direct harm and there is indirect harm. Direct harm (hitting someone in the face) is government's job to prevent. It is also government's job to treat everyone equally under the law.

By defining the terms of who could marry, government is not treating everyone equally under the law. If government needs to define "marriage" or "civil contracts" so that we have a package of inheritance rights, visitation rights, etc, than any adults should be able to sign up.

It's not government's job to prevent indirect harm, or to make sure everyone gets offered every life opportunity that someone else has (as long as government isn't funding it).

There ARE people being harmed by marriage laws. They are (for example) prevented from visiting their dying partner in the hospital because the government gives rights to their parents instead of their chosen life partner.

And they are receiving indirect harm (or will call it emotional harm if you like) by being told that their choice of life partner is against someone's beliefs and therefore they cannot obtain the same services as someone else. It's not government's job to fix that but it's OUR job as members of society to treat each other with dignity.

 

[miguel]

So now the bill has no teeth thanks to the clarification. Why don't we just repeal it already?

BINGO! I would prefer that over "clarification".

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Edit: nevermind, may have been satirical.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

There is direct harm and there is indirect harm. Direct harm (hitting someone in the face) is government's job to prevent. It is also government's job to treat everyone equally under the law.

By defining the terms of who could marry, government is not treating everyone equally under the law. If government needs to define "marriage" or "civil contracts" so that we have a package of inheritance rights, visitation rights, etc, than any adults should be able to sign up.

It's not government's job to prevent indirect harm, or to make sure everyone gets offered every life opportunity that someone else has (as long as government isn't funding it).

There ARE people being harmed by marriage laws. They are (for example) prevented from visiting their dying partner in the hospital because the government gives rights to their parents instead of their chosen life partner.

And they are receiving indirect harm (or will call it emotional harm if you like) by being told that their choice of life partner is against someone's beliefs and therefore they cannot obtain the same services as someone else. It's not government's job to fix that but it's OUR job as members of society to treat each other with dignity.

​Outstanding Sir!! Rep incoming.

 

[miguel]

By defining the terms of who could marry, government is not treating everyone equally under the law. If government needs to define "marriage" or "civil contracts" so that we have a package of inheritance rights, visitation rights, etc, than any adults should be able to sign up.

Here, here. I resent the fact I had to provide my church with a GOVERNMENT marriage license before they would do the ceremony. Get government out of marriage, period. If your church will marry you, I support you, even if my church wouldn't and I think you are wrong. THAT IS FREEDOM OF RELIGION!

 

[rob63]

Although almost of all the other business have gotten behind the changes, however, Angie's List has rejected the changes as not going far enough and have called off their expansion. At least there is one good thing to come out of this!

http://www.indystar.com/story/money...-freedom-law-fix-calls-insufficient/70824960/

FWIW, I think George Will said it all pretty well: "There are two important principles at stake here. One is the government should rarely, and only at extreme difficulty, compel people to take actions contrary to their consciences. The other is that when you open your doors to commerce you open them to everybody."

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/g...do-business-in-homophobic-saudi-arabia-video/

 

[Doug]

Your entire answer and post was very well composed. This sentence stuck out to me though. Is this really what you want? Do you think it is what most Christians want? If this were the case (and likely should be today anyway) if any religion is willing to accept the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, how would the state be appropriate in banning the practice?

It would be granting preference to one religion and their beliefs over another.. would it not?

I would be fine with letting the State grant civil unions to any two or more people and not granting marriages to anyone.
People who wanted to be married could do so at the institution of their choice; it would have no legal effect until registered with the state. All current "marriages" would be converted to civil unions in the eyes of the state.
This would get the state out of the marriage business; civil unions would be a legally binding civil contract. Any two or more people capable of entering into a civil contract could form a civil union. Additions to that union would be possible with the expressed approval of all members. Dissolution or members leaving the union would be handled the same as other contractual agreements are handled now.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

BINGO! I would prefer that over "clarification".[/QUOTE

The repubs can't repeal it. They crowed about it too much and then Pence ran all around the media lying about it.

Their only choice is what they did: pass another law making the first one unenforceable and hope the hue and cry dies down.

 

[MisterChester]

There is direct harm and there is indirect harm. Direct harm (hitting someone in the face) is government's job to prevent. It is also government's job to treat everyone equally under the law.

By defining the terms of who could marry, government is not treating everyone equally under the law. If government needs to define "marriage" or "civil contracts" so that we have a package of inheritance rights, visitation rights, etc, than any adults should be able to sign up.

It's not government's job to prevent indirect harm, or to make sure everyone gets offered every life opportunity that someone else has (as long as government isn't funding it).

There ARE people being harmed by marriage laws. They are (for example) prevented from visiting their dying partner in the hospital because the government gives rights to their parents instead of their chosen life partner.

And they are receiving indirect harm (or will call it emotional harm if you like) by being told that their choice of life partner is against someone's beliefs and therefore they cannot obtain the same services as someone else. It's not government's job to fix that but it's OUR job as members of society to treat each other with dignity.

Good points. Although I still don't understand why they are anti-gay marriage. Who cares? It doesn't effect you. Why even have government involved? "teh gay is bad" just has no logical base to it at all.

 

[brotherbill3]

I *believe* this is the same thing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1699997-read-the-updated-indiana-religious-freedom.html

Appears so ... discussion going on now for Conf. Committtee ... ON WRTV 6 ... sorta listening.

 

[miguel]

The repubs can't repeal it. They crowed about it too much and then Pence ran all around the media lying about it.

Their only choice is what they did: pass another law making the first one unenforceable and hope the hue and cry dies down.

Fair points.

If Pence wanted to make up his lost ground, he'd call a presser and say, "Folks, I'm going to treat this law like Obama treats immigration and drug (mary jane) laws. I just won't enforce the ****ing things. Thanks for coming today..."

But nobody would have the balls to do that.