Gov. seeks to 'clarify' Indiana 'religious freedom' law

[JimG]

A guy goes into to muslim owned bakeries asking them to make him and his “husband” a gay wedding cake and guess what happens…

louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

Somehow I don’t think the gay/left wing mafia will go after the muslim businesses with quite the same zeal (or any zeal) as they go after Christian businesses. Amazing considering what happens to gays in muslim countries.

Ishii

In the video, the guy was turned down by several muslim bakers when he requested a specifically gay wedding cake. I have yet to see a case of a same sex couple suing a muslim baker for acting on his religious convictions. That says a lot about who the current target is.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I would like to see these kinds of laws written more narrowly - something like: “business owners and employees may elect not to provide services in support of same-sex weddings based on religiously held-beliefs and are exempt from criminal prosecution, administrative sanction, or civil lawsuit for any such conscience-based actions.”

It would make it harder to claim that such a law would allow business owners to indulge in blanket discrimination against gay individuals, as if there are hordes of restuarant owners who will refuse to provide service to a gay couples and landlord who plan to kick gay people out in the street.

 

[JimG]

Would the following businesses be discriminatory?

-A business with a sign reading: “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.”
-An upscale restaurant requiring men to wear a suit or jacket and tie.
-A women only spa.
-A women only gym.
-A women’s lingerie boutique with no dressing rooms for men.
-A Catholic bookstore which carries only Catholic books.
-A kosher deli.
-A photographer who only covers Jewish weddings, bar mitzvah’s and other Jewish events but no non-Jewish events.
-A photographer who handles only Catholic weddings and events (First Communion, Confirmation, etc.)
-A general photography business which refused to cover nudist events.
-A Muslim photographer who covered only Muslim weddings.
-A printer who refused to print racist leaflets on the basis of his religious belief.

 

[rossum]

I would like to see these kinds of laws written more narrowly - something like: “business owners and employees may elect not to provide services in support of same-sex weddings based on religiously held-beliefs and are exempt from criminal prosecution, administrative sanction, or civil lawsuit for any such conscience-based actions.”

It would make it harder to claim that such a law would allow business owners to indulge in blanket discrimination against gay individuals, as if there are hordes of restuarant owners who will refuse to provide service to a gay couples and landlord who plan to kick gay people out in the street.

I would add to that a requirement that if a business is going to refuse to serve a group of people, then it has to explicitly state the scope of its refusal on all its advertising, as well as in the shop window. “No hijab; no service,” or whatever. That way people will know in advance which businesses not to bother using.

Failure to advertise the intention to refuse service would render any legal protections offered void.

$0.02

rossum

 

[_Abyssinia]

I hope that Muslim bakery video gets a lot more publicity.

 

[exnihilo]

True.
The segregation laws seemed to be from the government though, from my understanding of the article anyways.

Yes. Segregation was both a private practice and a state enforced practice. What people fail to realize is that business were required to provide separate facilities. This does not mean that every business would not segregate without state coercion. But it did mean the law required them to. The problem is it swung the other way. The state shouldn’t have required people to segregate, but neither should it force people to integrate. Neither approach respects free association or private property.

 

[Thomas1981]

This video basically says it all: youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I would add to that a requirement that if a business is going to refuse to serve a group of people, then it has to explicitly state the scope of its refusal on all its advertising, as well as in the shop window. “No hijab; no service,” or whatever. That way people will know in advance which businesses not to bother using.

Failure to advertise the intention to refuse service would render any legal protections offered void.

$0.02

rossum

Why would that be necessary? If the law is restricted to a faith exception for same-sex marriages, those kind of deals are always conducted through some sort of negotiation. If the couple who are planning to get married bring up their plans, that is the time when the business owner can politely tell them that they don’t offer that service, and perhaps direct them towards those that do as a courtesy.

Requiring them to advertise that by putting a sign in their window would open them to harassment and smacks more than a little of the requirement to wear a yellow star on your clothes…no.

 

[Thomas1981]

What just kills me about the reaction to this law is the utter nonsense that it is. People don’t know what the law actually does, don’t care, insert their own false conclusions, and use their lies and distortions as a club to beat the other side over the head with. Try to correct them and they double down on the lies and distortions. There’s just no discussion to be had, it’s like talking to a cardboard box. What a sorry state of discourse. I blame twitter, the proliferation of click-bait outrage masquerading as news, social media where people can opine without being accountable, comments sections, etc. etc. for the general corruption of public discourse. This lays to bed any notion that liberals are the “reasonable ones” in America.

The best that could come out of this is if Christians finally find our voices and articulate our enlightened and rational position in a full-throated manner against the new McCarthyism of the liberal mainstream.

 

[J_Peterson]

But there’s nothing morally wrong about refusing business to sodomites, especially when doing business with or serving them furthers their agenda (e.g. making a wedding cake or floral bouquet for a same-sex “wedding”). Indeed, God properly requires that we do exactly that. Organizing a mass avoidance of a business to force a change in policy is de facto extortion. Big difference.

There are no more Sodomites, God destroyed that city and all within it.

Yes I’m being sarcastic but I really, really wish that term would go away. It’s not even Biblically accurate since nowhere in the Bible is it clear that the Sodomites were primarily homosexual (that term wouldn’t even make sense to those that were alive at the time).

 

[Thomas1981]

There are no more Sodomites, God destroyed that city and all within it.

Yes I’m being sarcastic but I really, really wish that term would go away. It’s not even Biblically accurate since nowhere in the Bible is it clear that the Sodomites were primarily homosexual (that term wouldn’t even make sense to those that were alive at the time).

I agree, conscientiously objecting to participation in sinful activities does not mean one has to be uncharitable towards sinners (as we all are sinners).

 

[Elizium23]

There are no more Sodomites, God destroyed that city and all within it.

Yes I’m being sarcastic but I really, really wish that term would go away. It’s not even Biblically accurate since nowhere in the Bible is it clear that the Sodomites were primarily homosexual (that term wouldn’t even make sense to those that were alive at the time).

“Sodomy” is the common, acceptable polite term for sterile sexual acts such as those committed by homosexuals. What other term would you prefer to describe those who commit sodomy?

 

[estesbob]

“Sodomy” is the common, acceptable polite term for sterile sexual acts such as those committed by homosexuals. What other term would you prefer to describe those who commit sodomy?

The problem is when used the word “sodomites” it derails the thread into a semantics argument. I don’t like to use either the word “gay” or the word “sodomite”.

 

[Darryl1958]

Yes. Segregation was both a private practice and a state enforced practice. What people fail to realize is that business were required to provide separate facilities. This does not mean that every business would not segregate without state coercion. But it did mean the law required them to. The problem is it swung the other way. The state shouldn’t have required people to segregate, but neither should it force people to integrate. Neither approach respects free association or private property.

I think it is an important point to clarify that it was the government that was behind the segregation. It certainly did reflect the social mores of the times, but it was the force of law that created segregation into the institution that it became, and not businesses.

If you look at the role that businesses play, the tendency is to go with the bottom line. If that means importing Chinese from the starvation of China at rock bottom wages, that is what businesses do, until the people protest and governments pass laws against further immigrants.

It is the bottom line that has made the Americas into the mixing bowls that they are today.

The thing about people at the individual level is that they integrate all on their own. Even if it is socially unacceptable to mix at one level, people in low places do mix, or the high and the mighty go slumming, and the end result is that integration happens and people have to deal with it. What government law does it to put up barriers,and set precedents that can be interpreted in a thousand and one different ways, and the law of unintended consequences kicks into effect.
The market and individual choice on a mass level has a way of sorting things out. Unfortunately, it is not the way of big government to trust in freedoms, and the laws that end up being made, either for segregation, or for integration, inevitably end up stifling the wisdom of the collective choices of individuals, who alone know best where their own interests lie.

 

[JimG]

Is Indiana Really Full of Christian Haters Eager to Hate Gays?

 

[J_Peterson]

“Sodomy” is the common, acceptable polite term for sterile sexual acts such as those committed by homosexuals. What other term would you prefer to describe those who commit sodomy?

Those that commit sodomy? Everybody can commit sodomy, it’s not only gay people. What’s wrong with using homosexual or gay? Sodomite is no longer considered polite and when it’s used it is almost always in a derogatory manner (I’ve seen it used ironically but that’s usually to make fun of those that still use the term).

Also, what estesbob says is true. It will derail a conversation (this post is a perfect example of that). When you use that term people will usually tune out the person that says it since experience has shown that when someone uses that term they are set in their ways and dialogue is impossible. Or you’ll have a smart-*%$ like me point out that the Bible is not clear that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Yes I know tradition says it was definitively homosexuality but I don’t buy it, especially considering the Jewish view it as having to do with something other than homosexuality.

 

[Thomas1981]

The market and individual choice on a mass level has a way of sorting things out. Unfortunately, it is not the way of big government to trust in freedoms, and the laws that end up being made, either for segregation, or for integration, inevitably end up stifling the wisdom of the collective choices of individuals, who alone know best where their own interests lie.

Spot on! Governments create the problems that they then have to fix, with guess what? More government regulations!

 

[exnihilo]

I think it is an important point to clarify that it was the government that was behind the segregation. It certainly did reflect the social mores of the times, but it was the force of law that created segregation into the institution that it became, and not businesses.

Indeed. Another point I meant to draw out was that before the Civil Rights Act you could legally deny service to anyone for any reason. Segregated businesses could have just not served Blacks, yet they did. Some might not have. But most businesses are in business to make money and they don’t care all that much from who.

 

[kozlosap]

Those that commit sodomy? Everybody can commit sodomy, it’s not only gay people. What’s wrong with using homosexual or gay? Sodomite is no longer considered polite and when it’s used it is almost always in a derogatory manner (I’ve seen it used ironically but that’s usually to make fun of those that still use the term).

Also, what estesbob says is true. It will derail a conversation (this post is a perfect example of that). When you use that term people will usually tune out the person that says it since experience has shown that when someone uses that term they are set in their ways and dialogue is impossible. Or you’ll have a smart-*%$ like me point out that the Bible is not clear that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Yes I know tradition says it was definitively homosexuality but I don’t buy it, especially considering the Jewish view it as having to do with something other than homosexuality.

Nice job!
If some here still refuse to stop using the derogatory term sodomite, then they need to recognize that people will not know that they are singling out gay people in their various arguments. If those using the term would just acknowledge that a majority of straight people should also be deemed sodomites then maybe they would change vocabulary. I’m sure they can can come up with another vile word to take it’s place.

 

[Thomas1981]

Want to defend the law, there is one, and only one argument you need to know, and written by some a bunch of “crazy religious bigots” back in 1787:

Article * (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,*** or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech***, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First amendment, first issue addressed in the Constitution.

That this is controversial in America is really something that should give us pause.*