Third Party & Independents Archives

Tipping the Scales of Morality

Is the “least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest” forcing a devout Christian to bake a cake? While the comparisons - like those outlined by Garrett Epps in the Atlantic - to the days of segregation in the South seem overblown if not theatrical and hysterical to say the least, it is almost inevitable that this furor would erupt. That it centers on Christianity directly and pits it against Civil Liberties, or equality of freedoms if you will, is also inevitable. America itself is a balance between the faith that has helped make it truly a promised land, and the enlightenment rights and freedoms that its Founding Fathers wove into the very fabric of it’s laws. And it is inevitable that Indiana’s RRFA will be tested and likely modified in the courts.


The history of the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act, involved the sponsorship of Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy back in 1993 and invoked the "strict scrutiny" test to see whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment would be violated. And to ensure that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." After being restricted to only the federal government, individual States enacted their versions and now Indiana's new law is causing a furor because of a clause that allows private business to invoke religious freedom in the absence of any participation by government. That means using it in a civil suit filed, for example, by a same sex couple who were refused a wedding cake by a devout Christian baker.

Ted Carney is right when he describes Indiana's RRFA as a conservative attempt to grab onto the icy Left slope and merely stop sliding in the cultural wars that are clearly being won by the secular and defiantly diverse Left. But that may not be enough to enable a legally successful defense of Indiana's RRFA in court. Even with this moderately conservative SCOTUS. Perhaps there will be a Hobby Lobby style ruling, although it is hard to see how the Justices would craft such a ruling. But in the retreating march of Christian faith, as understood by a faithful if not literal reading of the Bible, the writing on the wall seems not to offer promise of victory. Gay marriage is enshrined in law, and it is almost inevitable that as Epps writes, "being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business ..." and that the bakery owner will be forced to bake that cake by the courts and the government. The fact that running a business is a right and not a privilege, and that it is not a case of disliking, but a case of deeply held beliefs, are ignored by Epps, a law professor by trade. Epps goes on to say "the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer ... " The faithful would disagree with Epps tipping of the scales of morality, if not of justice.

Posted by AllardK at April 1, 2015 9:17 PM
Comments
Comment #390949

Good article, and well written.

Times change. People change. Even morality changes. Just ten years ago, this situation with IA’s Act would have been unimaginable. Who would ever have thought WalMart- WalMart!- would lead the way in AK towards demanding equality for all in the marketplace. And yet, here we are today, and there has been a countrywide recognition that civil rights apply equally to all of us. We are a better country for this.

Religious freedom is still every bit as strong as it was before this happened. But there is a widespread recognition that baking a cake for profit or making a pizza for profit is not a religious exercise, and once out in the marketplace, civil rights laws apply for all.

Posted by: phx8 at April 2, 2015 4:31 PM
Comment #390951

Well according to Sen. Cotton gays have it much better here than in Iran where they have the religious freedom to persecute gays. But then they also persecute Christians which once again is their religious right according to those that support the act. But why would we want to emulate Iran and their brand of religious persecution here in this country? What does Cotton know that we don’t?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 3, 2015 9:50 AM
Comment #390958

‘Freedom of religion’ has been replaced with ‘Freedom from religion.’ Been that way for a while now.
Might as well amend the 1st Amendment to reflect that.

Might as well change the definition of marriage while we are at it. Instead of marriage being between one man and one woman, it should read marriage as being between any consenting adults.

Then we can get serious about getting rid of the 2nd and 10th Amendments, installing a 70+% tax rate for providing everybody with free health care, government jobs, retirement, housing, mass transit etc…

If we’re going to throw it all away and be just another European democracy, we might as get serious about it.

Posted by: kctim at April 3, 2015 12:24 PM
Comment #391018

j2t2,

So, let me ask this question…

If a KKK member goes into a cake shop and asks for them to bake a KKK memorial cake for their upcoming anniversary celebration, are they required to make the cake for them? Since, you know, their ethical beliefs cannot be used as a reason for denying services…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 3, 2015 7:05 PM
Comment #391019

Off subject: The Iranians are dancing in the street over the deal obama/kerry made. Please show me the videos of Americans dancing in the street too.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 3, 2015 7:10 PM
Comment #391020
Might as well change the definition of marriage while we are at it. Instead of marriage being between one man and one woman, it should read marriage as being between any consenting adults.

From Webster Dictionary:

“any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities”

I don’t know, kctim, you are still holding on to this notion that marriage is ‘between a man and a woman’… It is whatever the people who write the laws say it is. Simple as that. It always has been and always will be. Marriage used to be between a man and several women…

When you have a situation where a partner of another is denied the ability to have a say in how they are treated in a hospital, or even being able to see their partner because they are not ‘family’, it is clear the old definition is no longer valid. Please, accept this and move on with the rest of us…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 3, 2015 7:10 PM
Comment #391021
If a KKK member goes into a cake shop and asks for them to bake a KKK memorial cake

Rhinehold, did you mean a Jewish cake shop? Or better yet a devout Christian goes into a Gay bake shop and asks for a wedding cake. SO what does Cotton know that we don’t?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 4, 2015 9:31 AM
Comment #391022

Just kidding, the answer to your question shouldn’t be another question, right? Even though the answer to my question was another question.

Which is kinda like the examples we see here. If the basic tenet is non discrimination then the consumer, IMHO in the cases above, could sue without being told the religious beliefs of the owner of the business take priority. The problem comes in when the KKK guy wants a nazi sign on the cake from the Jewish bake shop and the Christian wants a “I object to homosexual marriage” sign on their cake from the gay cake shop.

Once again IMHO the intent of the law in question is reactionary and intended to discriminate, hence the problem. The Federal law was written without intent to discriminate and not a problem, as it actually serves to protect religious freedom. Perhaps the answer is three fold, one the law for the different states could be modeled upon the federal law and two the Jewish baker, the gay baker and the Christin baker could ease up and realize business is business, and third the Nazi, the Christian and the Gay customer could lighten up and not attempt to make a political statement on the backs of the business owners if the business owner turns the work down.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 4, 2015 9:47 AM
Comment #391023

When I was young it seems many businesses had signs posted reading “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. Since when should a private business be forced to do business with someone they simply choose not to?

This isn’t about discrimination, it is about forcing people to accept something they that offends them, or they disagree with through force of law. Why would you want to force someone to do business with you when there are plenty of others that would be more than happy to have your business? IMO to get even for “not accepting me”.

I think the problem lies in the giving of a reason for refusal of service that can be used as a legal bludgeon. It would be best to say I choose not to serve you, end of story. I don’t have to have a reason.

It would seem forcing someone to do business with you who is obviously hostile towards you for whatever reason is the epitome of narcissism.

Posted by: dbs at April 4, 2015 8:44 PM
Comment #391024
This isn’t about discrimination,

Then why not enact the federal version of the law? I think it is about discrimination dbs as it doesn’t have a thing to do with religious freedom.

it is about forcing people to accept something they that offends them,

Just like demanding businesses getting rid of the “no coloreds allowed” signs were forcing people to accept something that offends them?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 4, 2015 9:18 PM
Comment #391025

If you walk into my business and I don’t want to serve you, I don’t serve you. I don’t have to give you a reason. If I do then that could be considered discrimination, thus the old sign ” we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. Have you ever seen one of those signs posted? Posting a no coloreds, or no gays sign is discriminatory. There is a difference.

Posted by: dbs at April 4, 2015 10:16 PM
Comment #391029

It seems to me that we all take ourselves way too seriously, and we are all far too easily offended.

dbs,

The signs went away because they are a terrible business model. The one thing a small business depends on more than anything is word of mouth.
You tell me my money isn’t good enough for you and you can depend on it that I will make sure that 10 of my friends know I was refused service.
1 becomes 10, 10 becomes 100, and so on. I don’t need a protest outside your doors.

Pretty soon you’ll literally be having a bake sale to keep your doors open.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 5, 2015 5:41 PM
Comment #391034

Rocky

Thanks for making my point for me. I agree 100% turning away a customer for the wrong reason in the end will be its own form of justice. We shouldn’t use PC force of law to put someone out of business.

Posted by: dbs at April 6, 2015 5:33 AM
Comment #391037

Rhinehold

I hold no notion whatsoever that marriage is only to between one man and one woman. My argument is, and always has been, that marriage is defined by the people.

The problems we face today are that the people are being ignored and their rights, actual rights, are being violated by those wishing to change the definition of marriage.

For me to move on, I would need to being willing to infringe on the rights of one individual in order to satisfy the desires of another, and that’s not ever going to happen.

Posted by: kctim at April 6, 2015 9:25 AM
Comment #391038

dbs,

The point is I am not gay, and I personally have no point to make.

Gays have been put upon forever. They’ve been beat up, degraded, discriminated against and pushed aside, and they’ve taken it in relative silence.

That ain’t happening any more. It’s time for society to grow up.

The fact that you’re offended is your problem.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 6, 2015 9:59 AM
Comment #391040

Christians are put on forever to Rocky, they have been beat up, killed, degraded all in silence. Should a Christian go against his beliefs to provide a service to a group or person knowing that service will go against their principles? I don’t believe in discriminating against anyone but I do believe that a person has the right to refuse a service without repercussions if that service does in fact go against their principles.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 6, 2015 11:52 AM
Comment #391042

Wow, how so many people get this wrong because of their own prejudices is amazing to me. It’s what happens when we live in a society where people believe that they have the right to use the law to force others to live and act as they want them to…

I wish I had the time to write the article that has been floating around in my head about this. Maybe later this week. Of course, by them most will have moved on and the damage has already been done, no one is going to listen to any kind of reason at this point.

But I’ll make a few quick points.

1) Business owners should not be prevented from running their businesses the way they want to when matching their own ethical beliefs. Forcing caterers to take on gay weddings, forcing cake makers to make cakes for the KKK events, forcing florists to deliver flowers to neo-Nazi rallies, these are all abuses of individual business owner’s rights. Even Democrats understood this once. If I saw that a business was denying services to gay weddings, I for one would never use those businesses, but I wouldn’t think of sending the sheriff over to them and making them do it… Who would want a business that doesn’t want to service you being forced to do so? Would you think they would do a ‘good job’?

2) Attacking Indianapolis (or even Indiana) for the law is damaging the efforts to change the hearts and minds of those who support the law. First, Indianapolis is the most liberal location in Indiana and the majority in Indianapolis are against this law, so by attacking the one city who is most on your side of the issue is asinine to say the least. Indianapolis has a large gay culture within in and this law would never have been much of an issue since the vast majority of business owners in Indianapolis had no desire to deny those services to gay weddings. The fact that most of the opponents have zero knowledge about Indianapolis just furthers the point that we shouldn’t be making laws across such a large area at the national level because people who know nothing about an area are the least equipped to make laws for them.

3) Further, attacks as we have seen do nothing more than galvanize those who are in opposition to your view to dig then heels in more and fight against any changes to the law. It basically just gives them ammunition to close their minds to logical rebuttals of their views. It has actually made it harder for those of us who are trying to change people’s views on the matter to be able to use reason and logic to get through to them… Thanks a lot.

4) The negative attacks and death threats against the pizza shop (who wasn’t actually doing that great of a businesses to begin with) just made them hugely popular to a percentage of people who supported the law, which will eventually bolster their business and make them a martyr/cause celeb among that group. Simply ignoring them would have been the better approach, avoid their services as is your right and they would have failed and gone out of business. The attacks have actually backfired and done the opposite of what the attackers wanted. It’s a problem with emotion is considered more important than logic, but that has been the direction of this society since the age of enlightenment that pushed us to create this country in the first place was abandoned in favor of emotive know-it-alls.

5) Acting like spoiled brats who want everything their way, especially when you are winning, does nothing but make people want to root against you and pick the other side in their views just because they don’t want to be associated with petulant 2 year olds. I’m speaking, of course, to the celebrities and talking heads who made this an issue without using a single brain cell in thinking about how their actions are perceived and actually make their money by pitting people against each other in sensionalized hysteria.

Anyway, everyone thinks that these things are simple, because they only see the world their way and everyone should just live their lives as they do, or they think that they should (but rarely do, hypocrisy abounds). It’s one of the more frustrating things I’ve seen on how our society works these days and will eventually lead us to another civil war if we don’t get our act together.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 6, 2015 12:01 PM
Comment #391049
Christians are put on forever to Rocky, they have been beat up, killed, degraded all in silence.

Can you point to a few examples of Christians being beat up and killed for their beliefs in this country in the past say 3 decades or so KAP?

I don’t believe in discriminating against anyone but I do believe that a person has the right to refuse a service without repercussions if that service does in fact go against their principles.

Seems to me you do favor discrimination KAP when it benefits you as the law was intended to discriminate. Using a principle to discriminate against others says something is wrong with your principles or your view of your principles. If your principle tells you that providing a business service to a gay guy would make you gay seems to me to make your principle wrong. I mean no one is saying you should violate your beliefs by suggesting the gay guy and you do the do but to serve him a pizza in your pizza shop is quite a bit different IMHO.

As Rhinehold says ” Acting like spoiled brats who want everything their way,” is a two way street. Both sides of this issue have acted like brats for some time with this back and forth bickering. But to allow a law that intentionally discriminates to be signed into law seems to me to be the height of “spoiled brat”.

forcing cake makers to make cakes for the KKK events, forcing florists to deliver flowers to neo-Nazi rallies,

The difference between gays and KKK members is one is a choice one makes, such as ” I want to belong to the KKK” or “I want to be a Christian as opposed to being an atheist” where as gays are gay due to body chemistry or genetics or something other than a choice one makes.
I know I know some of the more extreme Christian have claimed other wise but for the most part, most gays not all, it isn’t a choice as they would have us believe.

Business owners should not be prevented from running their businesses the way they want to when matching their own ethical beliefs.

Are you suggesting certain types of businesses say a sole proprietor should be allowed to discriminate but a corporation with shareholders should not? Or the shareholders should follow the lead of the CEO’s religious beliefs at the expense of the value of the shares of the company?

The fact that most of the opponents have zero knowledge about Indianapolis just furthers the point that we shouldn’t be making laws across such a large area at the national level because people who know nothing about an area are the least equipped to make laws for them.

Wow speaking of their own prejudices,(is this one of yours Rhinehold) The State of Indiana chose a law that discriminated against certain people in order to give another group of people the right to discriminate using religion as the reasoning to do so. The law could have followed the federal law and the problem wouldn’t exist since the federal law has been around since the ‘90’s.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 6, 2015 1:54 PM
Comment #391057
The difference between gays and KKK members is one is a choice one makes, such as ” I want to belong to the KKK” or “I want to be a Christian as opposed to being an atheist” where as gays are gay due to body chemistry or genetics or something other than a choice one makes. I know I know some of the more extreme Christian have claimed other wise but for the most part, most gays not all, it isn’t a choice as they would have us believe.

And you make the mistake of equating being something with doing something.

Being gay is not a choice, participating in a gay marriage is. The law was supposed to allow people who ethically disagree with gay weddings (not being gay) from having to provide services for those activities. No one was to be allowed to say ‘you’re gay, you can’t have a cake birthday cake, or a retirement cake, etc’, only that they wouldn’t be forced by law to provide services to an activity they disagreed with.

Are you suggesting certain types of businesses say a sole proprietor should be allowed to discriminate but a corporation with shareholders should not? Or the shareholders should follow the lead of the CEO’s religious beliefs at the expense of the value of the shares of the company?

No, I’m saying that ANY business should be allowed to run their business in accordance with the ethics that have been decided upon. The company I work for has an ethic that they give a large chunk of money each year to charity. As a shareholder of that company, I can disagree (we would have a higher profit if we didn’t) but if I am outvoted then the business would run as the shareholders decide, if I don’t want to go along I can sell my shares.

I sometimes wonder how many people don’t really know how public companies are run… It is always the shareholders who have the final say. They choose the board, who chooses the CEO…

The State of Indiana chose a law that discriminated against certain people in order to give another group of people the right to discriminate using religion as the reasoning to do so. The law could have followed the federal law and the problem wouldn’t exist since the federal law has been around since the ‘90’s.

So you, who doesn’t live in Indiana, say… And you think you have some right to push your views onto those who live in the state…

It’s a shame you didn’t seem to read what I wrote, bashing Indianapolis for something the state did against the will of the city itself was a huge issue, creating a further uphill battle for those of us here championing lgbt rights… Your ‘help’ is very much not appreciated.

Had the Indiana law followed the federal law, it would have run into the same ambiguities that have caused problems because of that law. Indiana law included actions between private citizens, not just governmental agencies. Oh mY! And why did it? I know you have your beliefs based on what you have been told, but the fact is that the fringe of the LGBT community has been suing people based on these issues for years now, trying to get it codified into law. That someone in Indiana wanted to protect Indiana businesses for that seems to be a reason for NATIONAL outrage because they think it ‘could’ be a problem…

Seems that a lot of people outside of Indiana think they know what is best for Hoosiers on this topic.

The sad part is that during the Final Four celebrations certain ‘celebrities’ who know absolutely zero about the legislation, other than what they have been told to think, got up and bashed Indianapolis who, as I stated, was against the law AND have been a friend to the LGBT community for decades. Others have threatened to not attend Gencon this year because of the ruling, again ignoring that fact that they are hurting those own friends in doing so. To make a political point. One that will change no one’s mind and instead embolden their opponents to not listen to those of us who are trying to change it…

But what? No one is making people make cakes against their beliefs, are they? Indiana’s law was designed to stop those lawsuits…

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/oregon_baker_denies_lesbian_couple_a_wedding_cake/

BTW, read something interesting in that story…

“In 2012, Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, found that refusing to bake for a gay couple’s wedding was a boon to his business. After the incident, “We had about twice as much business as normal” Phillips told KDVR. “There are people coming in to support us.””

All it did was give them MORE business, galvanize people against the rights of the LGBT community and give them ammunition to fuel that ignorant hatred…

That’s the problem that people aren’t getting… They are just making things worse in this state for trying to get discrimination out of the rural areas (It doesn’t exist in any real way in any of the large cities).

Again, thank you all for making our job that much harder… We really appreciate it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 6, 2015 3:34 PM
Comment #391063

j2, Why didn’t you add degraded to the mix? Is it because you know Christians are being degraded in this country. I also glad that you added “in this country” because it is a rare happening but it has happened. You say I discriminate, Why because I favor a person running his/her business as he sees fit? It is you j2 who discriminates in trying forcing others to do things against their ethics or religious beliefs.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 6, 2015 4:32 PM
Comment #391066
And you make the mistake of equating being something with doing something.

Am I Rhinehold? Is providing a cake or flowers or pizza the same as participating in the wedding? You seem to be equating the bridesmaid with baker, which seems to be a stretch. The preacher performing the ceremony participates, the church where the ceremony is held participates and that I can understand. The baker bakes a cake that someone picks up and takes to the reception afterwards, same as the pizza.

So you, who doesn’t live in Indiana, say… And you think you have some right to push your views onto those who live in the state…

Isn’t Indiana in the United States or have they seceded? I guess you also believe all that 800k that went to the pizza place came from Indiana as well and only the one side had people outside of Indiana postulating, man what next… are you guys gonna build a wall around Indians and not let us foreigners in!

Had the Indiana law followed the federal law, it would have run into the same ambiguities that have caused problems because of that law.

Ambiguities is it! The new framing for discrimination is to cover ambiguities in the law?

All it did was give them MORE business, galvanize people against the rights of the LGBT community and give them ammunition to fuel that ignorant hatred…

So if the LBGT community would only keep quiet and accept it all would be ok? That’s up to them as for me I just don’t like representatives of the people passing laws that discriminate against minorities and using religion as the scapegoat for the discrimination.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 6, 2015 5:12 PM
Comment #391074

How about comments on these business situations.

Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “God Hates Fags” cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?

Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?

Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?

Should a progressive environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?

Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event – rife with nudity and public sex – simply because the customers identify as gay?

Should a “gay married” lesbian hotel owner – a card-carrying member of GLAAD – be required, under threat of incarceration, to host and cater a fundraiser for the “National Organization for Marriage,” a group that opposes “marriage equality”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 6, 2015 6:00 PM
Comment #391086
Am I Rhinehold?

Yes, you are.

Is providing a cake or flowers or pizza the same as participating in the wedding?

Yes, it is. And you never really answered the question I posed before…

Do you think it is discriminatory for a cake maker to decline to make a cake for a KKK event? And now, is that participating in the event if they are asked to make one? Or are they just providing a cake that happens to have symbols of something they ethically disagree with? You say that it is not participating, in which case you are saying that the cake shop should be sued if they deny making the KKK cake. What is the difference?

Isn’t Indiana in the United States or have they seceded?

Do you know anything about Indiana? Do you know which cities and which counties are progressive and which ones are conservative? Who the leaders in the LBGT community are, who the blockers behind the bill are, who to talk to to get things changed?

Hell, why do we have states at all?! Let’s get rid of them… that way someone from Arizona can make decisions on how you run your life. That you even go down that road tells me a lot, j2t2… Why stop at the US? Why not just tell Canada, or Iran, or everyone in the world how they should live? Where does your thirst for authoritarianism end?

How is this any different than the Republicans wanting to be the world’s police? How are you any different or better than them?

I guess you also believe all that 800k that went to the pizza place came from Indiana as well

That pizza place wouldn’t have gotten that money if they weren’t attacked by people outside of the state, j2t2. You don’t see the repercussions of your attempt to force everyone to think like you do. You sit and lecture Republicans about the repercussions of their actions and ignore the ones caused by your own party and support them…

Ambiguities is it! The new framing for discrimination is to cover ambiguities in the law?

So the myriad of lawsuits and applications of the law aren’t a problem to you? Interesting… I guess we could just ignore the history of the last 20 years since the Democrats instituted a federal ban on gay marriage, including the fact that the Democratic party wasn’t even supportive of protecting gay marriage until 2012! The party I belong to has been advocating for gay marriage equality since it was started in 1972, so yeah, I guess you have the moral high ground here to know what the hell you’re talking about it, coming to the party so late and all.

So if the LBGT community would only keep quiet and accept it all would be ok?

No, had the LBGT community OUTSIDE of Indiana not make stupid and ignorant statements about what is going on Inside of Indiana, it would have made it easier for us within the state to alter and possibly get rid of this thing, knowing that it would have affected probably tens of people at most. Had the LBGT community understood that it takes time and work to change people’s hearts, using the big hammer of lawsuits and hatred (yes, they are displaying hatred, a lot of it) and accepted that some people are just going to be ignorant until they die out and their children who are going to be more tolerant take over, as has been shown over the past 50 years, they wouldn’t have just taken a huge step backwards… And they wouldn’t have created reasons for younger people who would have ignored them to now have reason to hate them. (They did this to may family, to may parents, fined us and put us out of business so now I can’t go to college, etc).

Instead, we now are greatly hampered in our efforts in this state to deal with this issue because it is ‘them against us’ in many people’s eyes now.

That you can’t see how reactionary actions like have occurred that will harm this state, especially the very people who were trying to fight this thing, are a problem, then by all means, keep making things harder for the people you say you are trying to help.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 6, 2015 7:56 PM
Comment #391090
Yes, you are.
Yes, it is.

IMHO Rhinehold that is an extremist viewpoint. It seems to me the the baker didn’t get dressed up and bring a gift nor did the pizza guy that made food for the reception after the wedding. Seems to me they are a bit sensitive and I wonder if they apply their religious beliefs equally by not “participating” in drinking alcohol by serving pizza to someone that does. Or any wedding that has a band and or music for dancing for those faiths that think these actions violate their religious beliefs. I think they are very selective, is my point, in relying upon their religious beliefs to protect them from their prejudices.


And you never really answered the question I posed before…

Well this happened in Colorado so I don’t really want to share it with you cause well we are foreigners and all but here is what we think and why.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/azucar-bakery-did-not-discriminate-by-refusing-to-115703680320.html

Do you know anything about Indiana?

Really, Are you guys really that different Rhinehold, that those of us from the other states in this country shouldn’t voice our opinion on the subject?

Hell, why do we have states at all?! Let’s get rid of them… that way someone from Arizona can make decisions on how you run your life. That you even go down that road tells me a lot, j2t2… Why stop at the US? Why not just tell Canada, or Iran, or everyone in the world how they should live? Where does your thirst for authoritarianism end?

Wow Rhinehold such a rant I’m an authoritarian because …. you do know the constitution was ratified right, we aren’t living under the articles of confederation any longer. Anyway I’m an authoritarian because I suggest the federal law could be used, the federal law that allowed native Americans their religious rights, the rights that were actually being violated, to solve the problem in Indiana. If you guys are so much smarter in Indiana why does the law your representatives passed need brought back to the table to be “clarified” when so many other states didn’t have that problem?


How is this any different than the Republicans wanting to be the world’s police? How are you any different or better than them?

Jeez are you sensitive Rhinehold. But lets deal with this strawman in another thread. Perhaps you can write something that actually pertains why I am different than repubs. Oh hell … “pushing” my views on to those from Indiana, taking exception to an outright lie perpetrated by representative of the people of the state somehow makes me an authoritarian repub! Get a grip Rhinehold.

That pizza place wouldn’t have gotten that money if they weren’t attacked by people outside of the state, j2t2.

Well I bet they are glad they got out front of it then and had all those people from all over the country send them money. Good for them, perhaps they can stay in business for a few more years.

You don’t see the repercussions of your attempt to force everyone to think like you do.

Rhinehold I used no force you have me mistaken for someone else. I don’t care how these pizza owners think as long as they don’t hide behind their religious beliefs whilst discriminating against minorities. Suggesting the fed law isn’t forcing anything Rhinehold that, once again, is extremist.

I guess you have the moral high ground here to know what the hell you’re talking about it, coming to the party so late and all.

I don’t do parties Rhinehold, political parties or most other parties for that matter, other than an occasional birthday party for the grand kids. I have the moral high ground here Rhinehold because I don’t have to engage in tripe such as hiding behind religious principles to discriminate. I just discriminate because I think it makes me feel better as a person even if it is wrong;)
Seriously I just don’t like discrimination and I think it lowers those that use their religion to do so. Been that way for years just as I am not a dem and never have been.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 6, 2015 9:13 PM
Comment #391092
Well this happened in Colorado so I don’t really want to share it with you cause well we are foreigners and all but here is what we think and why.

No, it just avoids it and says ‘well, I agree with this business refusing service based on their ethical grounds but disagree with the other one because I agree with one and disagree with the other’.

You know, hypocrisy…

The problem is that it is the people not in the majority who need the protections, not those in the majority. Now that the majority supports homosexual marriage, we should be making sure not to step on the rights of those who disagree with it, but apparently that is a hard concept for many.

I think they are very selective, is my point, in relying upon their religious beliefs to protect them from their prejudices.

And I disagree wholeheartedly with their prejudices, and would never purchase a cake from them if they make their prejudices public. But they still have the right to deny service for activities that they disagree with ethically. Just because I disagree with their ethics doesn’t mean I have the right to force them to abandon them just to make a living and provide for their families.

You are basically telling these people that they have to choose between their religion and providing food for their families. Do you really think that is a good side to be on?

Really, Are you guys really that different Rhinehold, that those of us from the other states in this country shouldn’t voice our opinion on the subject?

Yes and no. There is a difference between voicing an opinion and basically destroying a city that, since you don’t live here, don’t know that they support gay marriage and the whole gay community. That is what is going on with the boycotts of Indianapolis based events like the Final Four, GenCon, etc. Fact is, without having knowledge of what is going on in this city, people have ended up hurting the people that they are supposedly trying to help and put the movement to further gay rights back years…

I know that people in a city have different needs and desires than people in a rural area, I know that people in Indiana have different views and needs than people in California or Arizona. How different they are are up to debate, but that wasn’t my point and you can’t seem to get it… If you don’t know the political landscape of the state, how do you think you can effectively manipulate the politics of that state? I know that many in California and Arizona and New Mexico would rather that people in the eastern or Midwest states stay out of how it deals with illegal immigration, and don’t pretend to know enough about the local politics on the issue there to demand that we boycott a state for how it handles it, but again others think they have that right… It’s a mindset that is pitting us against each other instead of having us work in concert with each other for a more unified and compassionate outcome.

The problem is the hate and knee-jerk I know better than them reactions about a state that they know nothing of on their politics.

An example, I play a game called H1Z1. The CEO recently tweeted that he was now going to not going to GenCon because of the law. He doesn’t know anything about Indiana or Indianapolis or he would know just how his actions are actually harming the people he says he supports. GenCon and Indianapolis are above and beyond many places in the country in supporting the LBGT community, now he is taking food our of the mouths of those very people he says he is trying to support. That’s the myopic mindset at work when we talk and act without knowing the whole story or thinking about what the repercussions of what those actions will mean.

Wow Rhinehold such a rant I’m an authoritarian because …. you do know the constitution was ratified right, we aren’t living under the articles of confederation any longer.

I’ve been made aware… I also know the constitution still had states and had them for a reason, it wasn’t until the authoritarian progressive movement of the early 20th century that we started blurring those lines and effectively ignoring them (and the constitution) to get their policies enacted…

Anyway I’m an authoritarian because I suggest the federal law could be used

No, you are an authoritarian because you think you have a right to tell another state how to operate it’s state’s business… I thought I made that pretty clear, not sure where I let you down in explaining that.

If you guys are so much smarter in Indiana why does the law your representatives passed need brought back to the table to be “clarified” when so many other states didn’t have that problem?

You keep saying that other states ‘didn’t have that problem’ yet I seem to see a lot of lawsuits in states that adopted the 1993 law without carving out what to do in the case of private business interactions… Meaning, they didn’t actually do a good job, did they? Leaving holes and ambiguity that the courts have had to deal with ever since.

And the outside interest got their way and made the state ‘modify’ it’s law, so now we get to have the very same problem within our court system, having to deal with stuff that they were trying to deal with ahead of time. Yippiee.

Seriously I just don’t like discrimination and I think it lowers those that use their religion to do so.

And I feel the exact same way, which I’ve explained many times. Only, I don’t go to the law to force people choose between their right to do business and live within their religious beliefs.

Tell me, j2t2, what was the exact difference between the federal law and the Indiana law? You say that one was discriminatory and the other not, please explain (without going to a website to look it up, you should have already done that if you are going to state it so assuredly)…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 6, 2015 9:41 PM
Comment #391096
….I agree with one and disagree with the other’. You know, hypocrisy…

Oh…umm…err….well….. it must have been all those foreigners from Indiana and them other states forcing themselves onto us. Or possible we just don’t fall for that religious grounds argument when it isn’t the case. This doesn’t mean there aren’t boundaries Rhinehold of what people have to do at their bakery if they feel they don’t want to. This lady felt comfortable with making the cake just not the hateful decorations the customer wanted.


The problem is that it is the people not in the majority who need the protections, not those in the majority. Now that the majority supports homosexual marriage, we should be making sure not to step on the rights of those who disagree with it, but apparently that is a hard concept for many.

Seriously your point is actually the Christians are now a minority! Homosexuals are the majority as are blacks and Muslims in this scenario and you want to have a serious discussion with this! Really? Such a shining example of the perpetrator as victim Rhinehold, outstanding propaganda my friend hats off for this one.

Just because I disagree with their ethics doesn’t mean I have the right to force them to abandon them just to make a living and provide for their families.

Of course not but they want to discriminate against gays Rhinehold. We can blather all we want about those that use their religious beliefs for hateful purposes but the fact is it is a smoke screen. They aren’t participating they are providing a cake or some such. They use double standards and they used the same tactics to exclude blacks earlier why do we have to continue to buy into the lies?

There is a difference between voicing an opinion and basically destroying a city that, since you don’t live here,

Sure is, in this case the drama of the city basically destroyed isn’t that just a wee tiny little bit of an exaggeration considering the game is going on as we point fingers and blame each other? BTW are you boycotting the game? after all they destroyed the city right!

No, you are an authoritarian because you think you have a right to tell another state how to operate it’s state’s business…

I do have a right to voice my opinion Rhinehold it seems to me your denial of this basic universal human right is much more authoritarian in nature, especially when you accuse me of forcing anything.

you keep saying that other states ‘didn’t have that problem’ yet I seem to see a lot of lawsuits in states that adopted the 1993 law without carving out what to do in the case of private business interactions…

Yet with all these other states having these problems your boys in the Indiana statehouse still managed to get their discrimination thing into the law, what on earth are they thinking? That they are above the law, they are a nation on their own? Such victims how sad the Indiana perpetrators have been victimized by the big bad invisible hand that voiced their opinions.

And the outside interest got their way and made the state ‘modify’ it’s law, so now we get to have the very same problem within our court system, having to deal with stuff that they were trying to deal with ahead of time.

Right forced under duress, seems to me your governor said the intent was to be clarified which would be the only change right? I mean according to you the intent wasn’t to allow any type of discrimination based upon the perpetrators religious beliefs so clarifying that shouldn’t be to much of a problem right?

Only, I don’t go to the law to force people choose between their right to do business and live within their religious beliefs.

Neither do I so we must both assume the invisible hand or some such will just do it over time right and well that worked so well for so many over the years but at least they didn’t call us authoritarians for having a law protecting the minorities right?

what was the exact difference between the federal law and the Indiana law?

Court tested and intent Rhinehold.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 6, 2015 11:33 PM
Comment #391098
This lady felt comfortable with making the cake just not the hateful decorations the customer wanted.

Right, she chose, due to her own ethical standards, to deny service to a person who wanted to quote a bible verse on their cake. She determined it was hateful (and you agree, as do I) but that’s her opinion, her ethical view. It is only different than denying making a cake with two men on the top because the majority shares the ethical beliefs of one and doesn’t share the ethical beliefs of the other…

So the minority, in this case, is the one having their ethical views stepped on.

Seriously your point is actually the Christians are now a minority!

No, my point is that Christians who oppose homosexual marriage is a minority. You can see that in the fact that homosexual marriage is winning in elections all across the country. And their number is decreasing every year. Disagree?

Of course not but they want to discriminate against gays Rhinehold

They want to not participate in gay weddings. Most of them have resigned themselves to the fact that gay weddings are going to happen, but then to make them provide services for those events as well?

Just like the woman who was denying to make the cake with the bible scriptures on it because she felt it was hateful, or another who would not make one with KKK symbols on them, they are not discriminating against the person, but the actions that that person is performing AND being asked to be a part of it. In fact, she stated much of the same that those who want to not be forced to participate in gay weddings, that she would serve anyone, but wanted to retain the right to deny her services to actions or statements that she disagreed with. The pizza place, for example, stated quite clearly that they serve gay people pizza all of the time, they just didn’t want to be forced to cater a gay wedding. You can’t seem to separate the two things…

Sure is, in this case the drama of the city basically destroyed isn’t that just a wee tiny little bit of an exaggeration considering the game is going on as we point fingers and blame each other

With a smaller turnout than it should have been, not to mention the NCAA threatening to pull their headquarters and future games from the city. Apparently you still don’t have much of a clue about the city and what economic benefits it gets from these things. Gencon, for example, is one of the largest conventions in the country. If it were to lose just 15% of the attendance it usually gets, that potentially millions of dollars taken out of our economy…

Your stunning example of how little you seem to know about the issue just keeps making my point for me.

I do have a right to voice my opinion Rhinehold

And where did I say you didn’t?

Yet with all these other states having these problems your boys in the Indiana statehouse still managed to get their discrimination thing into the law, what on earth are they thinking?

I see you don’t really know the issue at hand then… As I see in your later comment where I’ll address this.

Court tested and intent Rhinehold.

No, simply not the case…

The federal law only dealt with interaction with government, not private industry. The result was that LBGT activists started suing all over the country challenging the right of business owners to choose who they service. Lawsuit after lawsuit and it has been very murky ever since. So the Indiana law included a provision that said that not only did the business have a right to deny service when government agencies were involved, it also retained that right in private-private interactions.

THAT is what got everyone up in arms, suggesting that by doing so they were legalizing discrimination. By extending a right from the private-government realm to private-private realm. The intent was to protect private businesses from the lawsuits that would result, and have been on going, ever since the 1993 federal law. The LBGT community didn’t want to allow that, especially after the success they have been having in making others, through the courts, financially ruin anyone who ran their business based on their own ethical beliefs.

No one was saying ‘we don’t serve gays’. They were saying ‘we don’t provide services to gay weddings’. How exactly is that different than ‘I serve Christians, but I won’t make a cake that has Christian bible verses on them’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 12:25 AM
Comment #391099

BTW, here is the difference between the 1993 law and the Indiana law…

Garrett Epps, a contributing editor for The Atlantic, points out that the Indiana law differs from other state and federal RFRAs in two fundamental ways.

Indiana’s law explicitly permits for-profit businesses to assert the right to “the free exercise of religion,” and a religious person may assert that his or her rights have been violated “regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

That’s it.

And the damage that you say isn’t happening?

Some companies have canceled, halted or reconsidered their business endeavors in light of RFRA. This poses a major problem for Pence, who, as governor, is expected to attract businesses to create jobs in Indiana, rather than drive them away.

The Indianapolis-based NCAA, for instance, released a statement expressing concern over how the RFRA might affect student athletes and employees.

“Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill, and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said.

Apple CEO Tim Cook, the likely Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Indiana University, the Indiana Pacers, as well as Fever, Yelp and many others, have also protested the decision.

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray went as far as to ban the use of city funds for Seattle employees to travel to Indiana for work.

And that is just a few, I’ve seen others and talked about a few of them…

That’s the sad part… The people in Indiana are, with rare exception, the kindest and most helpful people you will ever meet. Not that you or others would probably know that, after all Indiana is in the Midwest and we are all just backward hilljacks living in a flyover state to many. But the reputation of Hoosiers being friendly has been part of our history for decades. Unfortunately, because others think that this is about discriminating against gay people, and being homophobic, because a very small minority of people may want to not be forced to provide services for gay weddings, people now have a distorted and, frankly, ignorant view of the people of Indiana…

There is a small city here that I live by named Spencer. It is roughly 2300 people living in it. Every year there is a gay pride festival that has never had a single issue, at the end of the show they put on a drag competition and young children enjoy the performances without issue. The gay pride weekend in Indianapolis is a huge deal, traffic has to be rerouted and several sections of downtown cordoned off for the celebration. The several gay bars do very good business and some of the performers get some good national recognition. There’s a restaurant that is visited after the nightly shows that stays open 24 hours (and have some of the BEST food in town I might add, it is to die for) that is packed with patrons from several of the bars where everyone gets together and has a very good time. This is the case in most cities around the state…

A list of the top 7 lgbt events in Indiana this year:

http://www.indystar.com/story/life/2015/04/04/top-pro-lgbt-events-indiana/25286281/

A video showing highlights from last year’s Indy Pride event… Look at that homophobic city! They could only get a few unknown companies to march in the parade no one has ever heard of, like Lilly and Cummins…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=83&v=LHjSHdgF1ZY

The result now is that the outside people who think they know what is going on in this state have tarnished that because they assume things that just aren’t true, attack people who are actually trying to do good things and want to damage the economic livelihood of people who are on their side… This law is for a VERY SMALL minority of religious business owners who simply don’t want to be forced by lawsuit, as others have in other states, to choose between their lively hood and their religious beliefs.

Not happening? Just take a look:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-gerard/hoosier-hostility-not-the_b_7004324.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/30/1374348/-Funeral-for-Hoosier-Hospitality

If people would take 5 minutes and try to see things from the other side’s point of view things might be different… But that’s not the society we live in now, is it? It’s just reactionary blowhard knowitallism based on nothing but what you are told to think, just as you don’t even really know what the differences between the 1993 law and what Indiana passed were and why it was the way it was. And you will probably get your way and we’ll have to deal with the inevitable lawsuits and further clashing by activists with an agenda and people who just want to not have to be forced through economic threat to choose between providing for their family and their religious beliefs. And we’ll get by, it just makes it harder for those of us who have to actually live here and try to fix the mess that those who know nothing about the environment they attacked helped create.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 1:06 AM
Comment #391100

BTW, something has happened in all of this that displays more hypocrisy…

Remember the NY Times railing against Citizens United?

“If we the people allow corporations to use “their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding,” the Times declared, democracy itself will be imperiled.”

But, what did the same editorial board say in response to Indiana’s RFRA?

“Big corporations like Walmart, Apple, Salesforce.com and General Electric and their executives have done the right thing by calling on officials in Indiana and Arkansas to reject “religious freedom” laws designed to give businesses and religious groups legal cover should they deny service to gay couples.”

They went on to call on those companies to spend money to get opponents of the law elected…

Well, I guess it’s only a danger to democracy when they support things you disagree with…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 1:31 AM
Comment #391101

Oh, and that Pizza company? Seems that in their zeal to paint Hoosiers as homophobic gay haters, the reporter took a page out of Rolling Stone’s playbook…

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/02/was-memories-pizza-a-victim-of-irrespons

Stripped down to the actual facts, there wasn’t much of a story here in the first place, writes PJ Media’s Scott Ott:

If I were forced to mark out a story line, it would be this: A nice lady in a small town tries to be helpful and polite to a lovely young reporter from “the big city.”

In other words, Memories Pizza didn’t blast out a news release. They didn’t contact the media, nor make a stink on Twitter or Facebook. They didn’t even post a sign in the window rejecting gay-wedding catering jobs. They merely answered questions from a novice reporter who strolled into their restaurant one day – who was sent on a mission by an irresponsible news organization.

As I said yesterday, I don’t agree with the policy the O’Connors articulated, though I would defend their right to practice it—in both theory and actuality. I would also defend the right of people to criticize it, though I would question the wisdom, necessity, and productivity of doing so in such a harsh and stridently condemning manner. The death threats are another matter; no one has the right to threaten violence against someone else.

The people who made those threats are at fault, but so are the journalists who erroneously reported on this story—who made a merely unfriendly policy seem like a declaration of pending discrimination against the next gay person to walk through the front door of Memories Pizza.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 1:36 AM
Comment #391102

And once again, Penn Jillette (who is against the RFRA, though he has internal angst about it as a libertarian) puts this in perspective that people seem to have lost…

Penn hits on an inarguable truth too:
I mean, the free market should be able to take care of this faster than anything.

That much is not open for debate in at least two important ways. First, in all the accounts I’ve read about businesses turning away customers who wanted something related to a same-sex wedding, the businesses expressly and without issue served gay customers in other contexts. So they were not refusing to serve gays per se. Second, in each instance, there were plenty of other businesses to which customers could turn for service. The market has indeed generated businesses that are very happy to cater to gay and lesbian couples.

Penn also drops this knowledge which I also find inarguable (though surely controversial). When asked why these issues are capturing the public imagination, he says:

I don’t know. It just seems that maybe it’s a bunch of people who realize they’ve lost a battle that’s very important to them. Anyone under 30 is OK with gay rights. The whole thing is ancient history. All we need is a little bit of time and this will simply be a joke. And sometimes when people feel their point of view is being lost and they’re becoming an anachronism, when they clutch at what they used to believe, sometimes it’s not very pretty and it’s often embarrassing.


Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 1:43 AM
Comment #391103

Rocky


“The fact that you’re offended is your problem.”

Or their problem depending on how you look at it. Either way no private business should be forced to do business with someone they choose not to.

Posted by: d at April 7, 2015 5:33 AM
Comment #391105

Jeezus Rhinehold get some rest my friend. I don’t have time to respond to all of this and I pretty much have addressed most of these points already so please allow me to cherry pick a bit.

Comment #391100

Illogical Rhinehold. The corporations funneling money to elected representatives to buy influence and the same corporations not wanting to do business in certain states has no logical ties it is a smokescreen.

BTW, here is the difference between the 1993 law and the Indiana law…

Rhinehold, the ‘93 law has been vested it has had challenges and revisions to the law. Further the law was bipartisan and not intended to discriminate. Both of these things make it different from the Indiana law. I understand your point but lets not forget intention goes a long way.

The people in Indiana are, with rare exception, the kindest and most helpful people you will ever meet. Not that you or others would probably know that, after all Indiana is in the Midwest and we are all just backward hilljacks living in a flyover state to many.

OH stop with the flyover crap when talking to me, I live in Colorado, have relatives in Indiana and Michigan, go there occasionally. That being said well here lets lets Comedy Central put and end to this victimization of the poor poor people from Indiana.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/jon-stewart-absolutely-destroys-bigots/

More later…

Posted by: j2t2 at April 7, 2015 10:26 AM
Comment #391106
Rhinehold, the ‘93 law has been vested it has had challenges and revisions to the law. Further the law was bipartisan and not intended to discriminate. Both of these things make it different from the Indiana law. I understand your point but lets not forget intention goes a long way.

And here is the problem. You make the assumption that the intention is to discriminate. Why? Because that is what you were told. Even though the governor states differently, even though the facts state differently (in all cases the people who mention wanting to not serve gay weddings have no trouble serving gay patrons for any other reason).

“in all the accounts I’ve read about businesses turning away customers who wanted something related to a same-sex wedding, the businesses expressly and without issue served gay customers in other contexts. So they were not refusing to serve gays”

Oh nO! Jon Stewart is saying something… *rolls eyes* He gets so much wrong in his ‘argument’ (as usual with a populist view) that he completely fails to understand the term hypocrisy… he has to in order to maintain his views. It’s sad. NO ONE is saying that being gay and being a KKK members is an equivalence, suggesting they are is a straw man argument. Again, fallacies are also not Stewart’s strong suit.

The corporations funneling money to elected representatives to buy influence and the same corporations not wanting to do business in certain states has no logical ties it is a smokescreen.

And again, you completely miss what is being said…

The NY Times said that corporate money in politics would ruin our democracy, and then when an issue came up that they were against, they called on corporations to put money into politics to fight for their viewpoint…

It wasn’t that they said ‘don’t do business in those states’, that’s one thing. It was when they urged those corporations to funnel money to elected officials to get influence on that view. Blind yourself all you want…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 10:41 AM
Comment #391107

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police

“The term “Thought Police,” by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness”

“had much to do with Orwell’s own “power of facing unpleasant facts,” as he called it, and his willingness to criticize prevailing ideas which brought him into conflict with others and their “smelly little orthodoxies”.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 10:47 AM
Comment #391108

j2t2, Jon Stewart’s argument is basically this..

“You have no right to have a different set of ethics than I do.” That’s some good populism right there…

As I’ve always said, defending someone’s rights that you agree with is easy. Defending someone’s rights you disagree with is harder… People don’t like to do harder apparently.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 10:54 AM
Comment #391109

BTW, j2t2, let me explain one thing that you might be missing…

I don’t LIKE the law. I hate it. I wish no one would deny anyone service for a same sex wedding and I would do what the appropriate response is, not frequent those businesses. BUT I also know that compromising and allowing a small number (VERY SMALL) number of businesses opt out of servicing those ceremonies due to their deeply held religious beliefs (which I disagree with) would have helped further the acceptance of same sex marriage in Indiana. It would most likely have tipped it over the edge, it was one of the main sticking points that opponents had. And there are a multitude of bakers, florists, caterers, etc who are very willing to service those events, so no one would be prevented from having their ceremonies serviced.

That’s the part that those outside of Indiana don’t get… we are trying to further the acceptance of same sex marriages here, the backlash that was created by mostly people who don’t live here and don’t know the political environment has pushed that effort back and given the opponents a rallying touchstone to further block those efforts.

Liberals like Stephen talk all day about compromise and getting things done, but the second that it goes against what they believe or want? That gets all thrown out the window. This law was trumped in most places by anti-discrimination laws on the books, it was a very small percentage of businesses that would have been covered by this and once we had movement on the same sex marriage efforts, we could have moved forward on furthering a better atmosphere…

Yes, the courts are going to ensure that same sex marriages are legal in the state (as they should), but further acceptance was the goal, the acknowledgement to those people that we weren’t trying to infringe on someone’s religious views in supporting same sex marriage was what we were trying to convey. That’s all lost now, of course.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 12:07 PM
Comment #391111
You make the assumption that the intention is to discriminate. Why? Because that is what you were told.

Why is there a need to clarify if there was no intent to discriminate?

I would also defend the right of people to criticize it, though I would question the wisdom, necessity, and productivity of doing so in such a harsh and stridently condemning manner. The death threats are another matter; no one has the right to threaten violence against someone else.

Agreed.

So they were not refusing to serve gays”

Which makes their religious freedom stance that much more ridiculous. Seems to me its about control or cover up Rhinehold. I’ll let it go at that for now.

But maybe someone who feels their religious rights are violated because they provided pizza at a wedding reception but serve the same gays at the pizza parlor can explain the logic here.

Oh nO! Jon Stewart is saying something…

So its the messenger right? Has to be hypocrisy because it’s the comedian ?


Penn hits on an inarguable truth too:

I mean, the free market should be able to take care of this faster than anything.

Yet when the NY Times ask the invisible hand to do so you, Rhinehold, get all illogical. I agree with most of Jillettes comment BTW.

No, my point is that Christians who oppose homosexual marriage is a minority. You can see that in the fact that homosexual marriage is winning in elections all across the country. And their number is decreasing every year. Disagree?

So the pizza place gets crowdfunded to the tune of 800k in a few hours whilst the gay group fighting the law raises 20k and the “victims” are the minority! Right.

And again, you completely miss what is being said…

Isn’t this what they said?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/opinion/big-businesss-critical-role-on-anti-gay-laws.html

Ill try to catch up later.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 7, 2015 1:17 PM
Comment #391115
Why is there a need to clarify if there was no intent to discriminate?

Because people with agendas and hate towards those that don’t agree with their thinking have made a career or misrepresenting what people they disagree with think and intend in order to further their political agenda?

Are you trying to say that this isn’t happening on both sides?

Which makes their religious freedom stance that much more ridiculous.

I’m glad you are here to be the arbiter of their religious beliefs, where would they be without it?

maybe someone who feels their religious rights are violated because they provided pizza at a wedding reception but serve the same gays at the pizza parlor can explain the logic here.

Because they understand that being gay is not something that someone can do something about but getting married is a choice that people make?

And to further clarify, many who are against same sex marriage are hung up on the term marriage being used. They usually don’t care about same sex partnerships, civil unions, etc. They just belief that ‘marriage’ is a religious rite, and that religion is clear on that… I think that they are myopic and wrong, but being wrong in my eyes doesn’t mean you lose your right to be wrong… I don’t pretend to be as omniscient as some on the left are about that…

So its the messenger right? Has to be hypocrisy because it’s the comedian ?

A, I didn’t say he was being hypcrotical, I pointed out that he was fallacious. Those are two different things.

B, It’s not Jon Stewart I have the problem with, it is when people use him as some sort of all-knowing political genius when he gets a lot of things wrong just to make a comedic or populist point.

Yet when the NY Times ask the invisible hand to do so you, Rhinehold, get all illogical.

No, again as I pointed out it wasn’t the calling for business to boycott (which is in itself usually a ridiculous and ineffective action. I mean, calling on Salesforce to boycott Indiana for civil rights violations when they have offices in China? That’s a bit off the mark, don’t you think).

Let’s take the link and point out what I was referring to since you missed it.

Another thing businesses can do is to make clear that they want lawmakers in all states to pass anti-discrimination protections for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people.

Using their for profit influence to get lawmakers to enact laws… ? I was SURE I had read somewhere that the NY Times was agin’ that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 4:27 PM
Comment #391116

Would Jesus Bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding?

Here’s is an interesting discussion of the headline that many may enjoy.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/10990/would-jesus-bake-a-cake-for-a-gay-wedding-part-1/#XYL5BZox0zr0zrl0.99

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 7, 2015 5:13 PM
Comment #391117

Can a man be forced to support an event against his will, and still claim to be free?

No.

Posted by: kctim at April 7, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #391118

Should an Anti-Semetic baker have the right to refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah?

Should a racist baker have the right to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding?

I believe the answers to both of these questions is no. Ever since the civil rights act was passed 50 years, we have used the government to compel private businesses such as Heart of Atlanta Motel or a Woolworth lunch counter to serve all their patrons equally.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 7, 2015 5:50 PM
Comment #391119

Warren, I don’t perceive the religious objection in either of your questions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 7, 2015 6:02 PM
Comment #391120

Warren…

Instead of asking ‘should’, try asking ‘do we have the right to compel them through force’…

Personally, no I don’t think we have that right. Just because we have done something doesn’t mean we have the right to. Obviously we disagree. Now where do we go?

Do we have the right to compel a christian cake maker to make a ‘congratulations on your abortion’ cake?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 7:23 PM
Comment #391121
Because people with agendas and hate towards those that don’t agree with their thinking have made a career or misrepresenting what people they disagree with think and intend in order to further their political agenda?

And the representatives of the people of Indiana just fall to their knees and claim they will rush to clarify the law isn’t about discrimination. I say they passed the law knowing it would open up the can or worms because they knew ahead of time, based upon legal advice from Indiana University and the Columbia law school. So they knew it would allow for civil rights violations based upon faulty thinking by those that conceived the law.

I’m glad you are here to be the arbiter of their religious beliefs, where would they be without it?

Rhinehold you are wearing me out with all the nonsense. I haven’t claimed to be an arbiter of religious beliefs, in fact I have asked for someone whose beliefs would allow for serving the gays in the pizza place but not sending out a pizza to a wedding reception to explain the logic involved. I would just love to hear the logic behind that.

Because they understand that being gay is not something that someone can do something about

Are you sure this is settled amongst the religious right?

but getting married is a choice that people make?

So is traditional marriage Rhinehold so if you provide pizza at the wedding reception for traditional marriage then it would figure you would do the same for the gay marriage, or it would be discriminating against these guys based upon their sexual orientation.

It’s not Jon Stewart I have the problem with, it is when people use him as some sort of all-knowing political genius

Who does that? He may be more accurate than fox news and all but that still doesn’t make him a political genius.

Let’s take the link and point out what I was referring to since you missed it.

So that is the comment that makes them hypocritical in the eyes of the conservative propaganda machine! Let me get this straight they were against the ruling that opened the flood gates for bribing elected officials but it went against them, right? It is the law of the land, right? So they suggest a use for the influence these guys have bought and that makes them hypocritical? I think this may be exaggerated just a bit, well a big bit Rhinehold. To think that these guys with the influence comes out and say they are against discrimination and the NYT suggests how these same guys can use their influence just seems logical are you sure your not a closet conservative Rhinehold;)


Posted by: j2t2 at April 7, 2015 7:29 PM
Comment #391122
Personally, no I don’t think we have that right. Just because we have done something doesn’t mean we have the right to. Obviously we disagree. Now where do we go?

Do you think the SCOTUS’ made a mistake in Heart of Atlanta vs. United States?

Do we have the right to compel a christian cake maker to make a ‘congratulations on your abortion’ cake?
I think there is a difference between compelling someone to bake a cake and compelling someone to inscribe a particular message on said cake. Otherwise, I do not think it is worth protecting a right to refuse to bake a cake just because you have moral objections regarding the intended recipient.
Warren, I don’t perceive the religious objection in either of your questions.
The Torah explicitly prohibits marriage between Jews and Non-Jews. Bob Jones University cited religious objections towards interracial dating up until just 15 years ago.

As for antisemitism, it would be unwise for you to ignore the centuries-long relationship between Christianity and Antisemitic beliefs: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007170

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 7, 2015 8:23 PM
Comment #391123
And the representatives of the people of Indiana just fall to their knees and claim they will rush to clarify the law isn’t about discrimination.

Not sure what you are watching but it took them over a week and they are still, to this day, dumbfounded. But hey, you know what they are thinking already since you have peeked into their soul and know it is about discrimination, so I suppose I should trust you on that one, hmmm?

So is traditional marriage Rhinehold so if you provide pizza at the wedding reception for traditional marriage then it would figure you would do the same for the gay marriage, or it would be discriminating against these guys based upon their sexual orientation.

The fact that you used the term ‘traditional marriage’ belies your incredulity there, j2t2… I explained it quite well, whether you think it is valid or not I suppose is your choice. But you are asking what THEIR view is… Are they not allowed to have that view and live their lives with that view? Not allowed to provide for their families because they see things a little different than you?

When I stated: “And to further clarify, many who are against same sex marriage are hung up on the term marriage being used. They usually don’t care about same sex partnerships, civil unions, etc. They just belief that ‘marriage’ is a religious rite, and that religion is clear on that…” it was clear that they are hung up on the term, the ‘religious rite’ that they feel should be as it is says in the bible. The LGBT community wanted marriage and wasn’t content with a different name (and I don’t actually blame them) but in doing that you are pushing the religious people’s nose in it. They are, as Penn put it, holding on to their views… Giving them a small out by allowing them the dignity of not having to serve those very ceremonies that they feel shouldn’t be as they see it a religious rite is not that costly. It really affects no one since there are WAY more businesses willing to server those events… But that little bit of dignity isn’t worthy of them apparently. No, the hate displayed is apparently to anyone willing to see it.

He may be more accurate than fox news and all but that still doesn’t make him a political genius.

LOL, that’s hilarious… I like Jon and think the Daily Show was funny, but to make the ridiculous accusation that he is ‘more accurate’ than Fox News is just numb thinking…

So they suggest a use for the influence these guys have bought and that makes them hypocritical?

Yes. I know, it’s hard because the left has been doing this since Obama was elected, doing all the things they railed against the right for doing but saying ‘well they did it’… But it’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy j2t2, I’m not sure how better to explain that term than with what they just did.

are you sure your not a closet conservative Rhinehold

Yep, 100%. Even suggesting such a thing is, again, a display that you don’t really understand the topics or what makes up people from different political views…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 8:34 PM
Comment #391124
Do you think the SCOTUS’ made a mistake in Heart of Atlanta vs. United States?

No. But that case has zero to do with this one. So I don’t know why you bring it up…

I think there is a difference between compelling someone to bake a cake and compelling someone to inscribe a particular message on said cake.

Why? What is the difference there, Warren? What about what they put on TOP of the cake (you know, two men or two women or a man and a woman)?

I do not think it is worth protecting a right to refuse to bake a cake just because you have moral objections regarding the intended recipient.

So, a cake going to a KKK celebration is something that the courts should force bakers to do if they ethically disagree?

How about this… An owner of a hotel is a member of the National Organization of Women. A group called ‘He Man Woman Haters Club’ wants to have a party at the hotel. Does the owner have a right to refuse their service?

Or, the owner of the hotel is a Muslim. A group wants to have a catered event and serve haram food. The owner decides to turn down the event based on his religious beliefs… Should he be FORCED to have the event even though he believes that serving haram food is against his religion?

If a jewish baker chose not to make a cake for a jew/gentile wedding, should he be forced to?

Where is the line, Warren? How do you, in your mind, choose when to send in the police and when do you not?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 8:42 PM
Comment #391126
The fact that you used the term ‘traditional marriage’ belies your incredulity there, j2t2…

Rhinehold, really! I just didn’t want to type out “a marriage between a man and a women” when two words work.

Are they not allowed to have that view and live their lives with that view? Not allowed to provide for their families because they see things a little different than you?

Sure they are but when they act out by discriminating against others I just don’t think they have a right to do that. They have religious freedom Rhinehold they are asking for an additional right that given them would allow for any type of civil right violations by anybody based upon some interpretation of what ever they want. Hell any religion could decide they need to take their heads off as they do in other countries all based upon religious freedom. We need to rememeber it is just Christians in this country… well …. unless they get their way.

LOL, that’s hilarious… I like Jon and think the Daily Show was funny, but to make the ridiculous accusation that he is ‘more accurate’ than Fox News is just numb thinking…

Well they are neck and neck so considering it is Comedy Central and he is a comedian it does say something. I guess I should have said Rush Limbaugh, Stewart wins hands down.

http://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/table/overall/

Now as far as the rest of theses scenarios used to confuse the issue the answer is: if it discriminates based upon someones sexual orientation it could be considered to be discrimination. Leaving the law in Indiana as it was causes conflict with other laws.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 7, 2015 9:22 PM
Comment #391127

Whether they are accurate and whether they are considered trustworthy by others is not the same thing… Again, just not really clear on the topic…

The fact that both Rush and the Daily Show are both entertainment vehicles, that ANYONE gets their news from either is an indictment on our society.

Though… that could explain why you keep getting things wrong…

Sure they are but when they act out by discriminating against others I just don’t think they have a right to do that. … Hell any religion could decide they need to take their heads off as they do in other countries all based upon religious freedom.

They are discriminating against actions, not people. They still serve gay people… There are already anti-discrimination laws on the books in Indiana that they can’t violate even with this law. Since you apparently can’t tell the difference between the two, I guess there is little more for us to talk about. :/

We need to rememeber it is just Christians in this country… well …. unless they get their way.

You know, I am reminded of a conversation or two we had in the past about constitutional issues and I made it clear that if you ignore part of the constitution you invalidate the whole thing and eventually you may end up with a situation where Christians could start abusing their majority and making people go to church… And I was scoffed at. Yet, it seems like you are here now warning of just that possibility.

I wonder if you have had a change of heart about allowing the people you agree with to violate the constitution and what that could end up meaning?

Nah… doubt it.

if it discriminates based upon someones sexual orientation it could be considered to be discrimination. Leaving the law in Indiana as it was causes conflict with other laws.

No, not really… as it stated, the law couldn’t supersede any discrimination laws on the books… There was no ‘conflict’ due to that. In fact, it wouldn’t have been applicable for those very situations in many cities in Indiana… Something that those who didn’t bother to fully understand what was going on never realized. *shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 11:05 PM
Comment #391128
Now as far as the rest of theses scenarios used to confuse the issue the answer is

I didn’t realize that logical consistency was a ‘confusion’ to some people. Trying to make people think about their positions and re-examine the logic of their positions is now confusing…

It’s like asking someone who is religiously against homosexuality because of Leviticus if they follow the rest of the chapter that the verse is found in… That would be ‘confusing’ to them and might shake their beliefs…

Can’t be having that now, can we?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 7, 2015 11:07 PM
Comment #391129
The fact that both Rush and the Daily Show are both entertainment vehicles, that ANYONE gets their news from either is an indictment on our society.

Agreed.

Though… that could explain why you keep getting things wrong…

You are quite the comedian yourself Rhinehold, Whilst I may be wrong in your opinion that doesn’t make me wrong Rhinehold.

They are discriminating against actions, not people.

So serving a newly married gay couple and their entourage in the pizza place their pizza for their wedding reception doesn’t violate their religious beliefs but having them pick it up to take to their wedding reception does?

They still serve gay people… There are already anti-discrimination laws on the books in Indiana that they can’t violate even with this law.

Prior to the uproar from all the foreigners that wasn’t the case had the new law not been clarified. For particulars go to this site:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/indiana-religious-freedom-law-what-you-need-know-n332491

and click on “differs from the federal law” link and get a legal opinion.

Since you apparently can’t tell the difference between the two, I guess there is little more for us to talk about. :/

As you wish but it seems I have previously stated the difference, you just disagreed with it.

You know, I am reminded of a conversation or two we had in the past

Certainly you can be a bit more specific Rhinehold. Its kinda vague and I must rely upon your interpretation of the Constitution and such but it sounds like a good topic for another thread IMHO.

No, not really… as it stated, the law couldn’t supersede any discrimination laws on the books… There was no ‘conflict’ due to that.

Not according o those with legal expertise on the issue, go to the link I suggested and see for yourself. And you say we have nothing to talk about *shrug*

I didn’t realize that logical consistency was a ‘confusion’ to some people.

Comparing apples and oranges isn’t logical consistency Rhinehold. The issue is discrimination base upon sexual orientation. Is the he man club being discriminated against due to sexual orientation? The Muslim? The Jew? That is the question, Otherwise we have a different issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 8, 2015 11:28 AM
Comment #391141

SSM acceptance is an inevitability. Certainly not by 100% of the population but enough to be able to consider it as another discrimination of the past much like other prejudicial behavior has become. All of the hoopla for or against will eventually come to quieten and the real Americans will stand with equality for all as has happened in this country’s history before and will continue to in the future. We cannot get there without the disagreements being brought out into the open. Religion, as it has in the past, will shed the mantle of this prejudice because by nature it seeks to include others.

I still chuckle at my son’s gay friend remark about how excited he will be with his gay marriage. It will match his gay car, gay house, the gay lunch that he had, his gay shoes and all of the other gay things in his life. But he always ends by saying it will really just be a marriage.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 8, 2015 4:16 PM
Post a comment