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

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sallybutler said:
So is engaging in heterosexual behavior outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
So I would expect that if someone came into a bakery and asked to have a special cake celebrating his illicit affair, the baker could legally refuse on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs.
 
ReConverted said:
Oh, look! Another Dominionist calling a theocracy! Yet another Conservative looking for Washington to set things ‘right’. :rolleyes: (I thought you guys hated Washington for the most part…) Do you REALLY think that if you get a ‘Christian’ government that your Catholic faith will be safe? Most of the wingnuts who want us to become ‘America for Jesus’ are Evangelicals, you know, folks who believe our Church to be the whore of Babylon and who poach Catholics away from the Catholic faith on a regular basis. That’s one way they fill their churches! You think you have problems now? If these monsters gain power, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Jesus wept. - John 11:35
Click to expand...
I agree with you about Dominionism. Driven by the exact sort of evangelical Protestantism you describe, it would be even more injurious to Roman Catholicism than the watery secularism we are faced with now. Google “Oliver Cromwell” (or his uncle “Thomas Cromwell”) and “Puritanism” if you don’t believe me. The “caliphate of the cross” I’m advocating would have to be, must be Roman Catholic. Accept no substitutes.
 
sallybutler said:
So is engaging in heterosexual behavior outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And if someone approached a Baker asking them to make a cake for an event celebrating their adultery I would totally support their right to refuse to make it
 
estesbob said:
Nonsense. These laws have been in effect for over 20 years and have never been used in the manner homosexual apologist would lead us to believe . Of course, unlike race, one can overcome the stigma of being a homosexual by changing their behavior.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The evidence, although hardly conclusive as of yet, seems to indicate real differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals. See for example washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/22/AR2008062201994.html. Let’s face it, sexual preference is hardwired into every other living creature. There are certain cues that tell any creature, now matter how primitive or advanced, this is what it should be sexually attracted to (shape, color, sound, smell etc.); this is what it should court and try to mate with. It’s not determined by culture; only humans have a sophisticated, learned culture (a few higher primates have a primitive culture of sorts). Such preference is “hardwired” into the creatures brain. It is true, in my opinion, that human beings are essentially blank slates when born, and what we call human nature is essentially a social construct. But sexual preference is the one glaring exception. The business about a domineering mom and passive father causing homosexuality is a joke. In short, homosexuality is, in most cases, probably a birth defect. Maybe not determined entirely by genes; maybe exposure to something (hormones) in utero etc. But just because a birth defect precludes reproduction doesn’t mean it can’t be perpetuated. Cystic fibrosis has been passed down for thousands of years, and until recently kills its victims before childbearing age. Same thing with muscular dystrophy. Yet they’re still around. But it’s not the preference that’s the sin it’s the acting upon that preference that’s the sin.
 
-]/-]
LeafByNiggle said:
So I would expect that if someone came into a bakery and asked to have a special cake celebrating his illicit affair, the baker could legally refuse on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
I can imagine the list of questions.

What anniversary is this for? Being together. Cool. Have you engaged in any behavior I would consider illicit? Sorry, I can’t sell you a cake.

I don’t think any baker asks those questions, so I suspect the baker has a history of participating in activities they don’t approve of.
 
sallybutler said:
-]/-]

I can imagine the list of questions.

What anniversary is this for? Being together. Cool. Have you engaged in any behavior I would consider illicit? Sorry, I can’t sell you a cake.

I don’t think any baker asks those questions, so I suspect the baker has a history of participating in activities they don’t approve of.
Click to expand...
The intent of the law is not to ensure that no one ever contributes to activity of which they don’t approve. It is only when such participation is a clear act of support for that behavior that it becomes a problem. To carry the baker scenario a bit further, the baker need not ask if there has been illicit behavior. But if the customer explicitly asks that the cake be decorated with the words “To Our Illicit Adulterous Affair”, the baker, by writing those words, is supporting the behavior in a way that is different than if he just sold them the same cake without the words.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The intent of the law is not to ensure that no one ever contributes to activity of which they don’t approve. It is only when such participation is a clear act of support for that behavior that it becomes a problem. To carry the baker scenario a bit further, the baker need not ask if there has been illicit behavior. But if the customer explicitly asks that the cake be decorated with the words “To Our Illicit Adulterous Affair”, the baker, by writing those words, is supporting the behavior in a way that is different than if he just sold them the same cake without the words.
Click to expand...
Or if the baker rings the doorbell with the cake it tow, then realizes when the door opens he has changed his mind. I don’t see an issue in saying I changed my mind. Maybe a fine print on the bottom of the receipt with reference to the Catholic Church.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Or if the baker rings the doorbell with the cake it tow, then realizes when the door opens he has changed his mind. I don’t see an issue in saying I changed my mind. Maybe a fine print on the bottom of the receipt with reference to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I do see a problem with that, because in that case the baker is changing his mind based on who the cake is delivered to, not on how the cake was customized.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I do see a problem with that, because in that case the baker is changing his mind based on who the cake is delivered to, not on how the cake was customized.
Click to expand...
I didn’t suggest he bought a decorated cake. He would have objected at that point imho. He can also object at the door with a plain cake, or flowers or photography be it its against conscious- religion. I think this can be legally covered in advance by electronic signature which no-one reads the fine print on the receipt imho.
 
GaryTaylor said:
I didn’t suggest he bought a decorated cake. He would have objected at that point imho. He can also object at the door with a plain cake, or flowers or photography be it its against conscious- religion. I think this can be legally covered in advance by electronic signature which no-one reads the fine print on the receipt imho.
Click to expand...
Refusing on such grounds is just a small step away from refusing to serve your restaurant meal to someone in a Hari Krishna outfit because you don’t like his religion. (And fine print on the receipt is no excuse).
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Refusing on such grounds is just a small step away from refusing to serve your restaurant meal to someone in a Hari Krishna outfit because you don’t like his religion. (And fine print on the receipt is no excuse).
Click to expand...
I don’t see the comparison nor did I give a reason why I may reject by conscious religion according to Church definition. Not sure how you can make a comparison but by assumption and suggestive intent.

However, online or in person a receipt is a legal aspect which through consent will either lead to conversation by reading it to avoid any unforeseen issues. But its also not the religious duty to affirm religious freedom and their belief to all who call or walk through the door. So it seems to be a resolve to the issue.
 
Darryl1958 said:
You really don’t want to mess with the cook.

Luckily for the activists here, the cooks being messed with here are Christian. Activists are depending upon that, and have chosen their opponents well.
Click to expand...
It’s unchristian to bake a cake that’ll poison someone. It’s not necessarily unchristian to bake a cake that just ain’t good. 😃
 
sallybutler said:
-]/-]

I can imagine the list of questions.

What anniversary is this for? Being together. Cool. Have you engaged in any behavior I would consider illicit? Sorry, I can’t sell you a cake.

I don’t think any baker asks those questions, so I suspect the baker has a history of participating in activities they don’t approve of.
Click to expand...
If we let the free market work, all of those questions would be legitimate.

Also, why do defenders of so-called gay “rights” have to bring in all this extra baggage about other relationships?

Can’t gay “rights” and so-called gay “marriages” stand on their own merits?

And if it’s so great to be homosexually active, why does it need all this attention and defense?
 
sallybutler said:
Here are some cases of a business asking their some customers to adjust themselves because of other customers’ religious beliefs.

So whose religious beliefs should take precedance? The business owner, customer A, customer B, an employee?

nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/aboard-flights-conflicts-over-seat-assignments-and-religion.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Click to expand...
It’s very simple: let the business and the customer work it out themselves without the interference of government.

If the customer doesn’t like the terms, he/she may go elsewhere. That’s how business works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top