New Indiana law and is marriage a "civil right"?

[bibcat]

I would like to know when this blatant hatred of Christians developed within the gay community.

Gay activists and sympathizers have been whining about “tolerance” and acceptance for years. Now, with a great opportunity to demonstrate tolerance of the religious beliefs of others, these hypocrites go on a nationwide rampage insisting that society cater to their every whim.

Our Church tells us gays “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. And every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

This latest example of “in-your-face” intolerance by the gay community makes it pretty hard for some of us to comply with the teachings of our Church.

I’m willing to grant that homosexuality is–in most cases–a birth defect. How else do you explain someone who knew even at the age of 5 or so that they were “different” in that regard? Just the same, the homosexual act is still a depraved act, and a grave sin. This is something the Roman Catholic Church needs to put forth with the same force that it condemns abortion. Indeed, same-sex “marriage” is perhaps worse than abortion, as whereas abortion is private, same-sex “marriage” is a public affirmation of a meretricious lifestyle and a mockery of holy matrimony. Also by weakening Christianity, homosexuals and their camp-followers are laying the groundwork for a conquest of the West (including the USA) by Islam. And when that happens, they really will have gone from the frying pan to the fire (although they’re invariably headed towards The Fire in the afterlife).

 

[Bradski]

…these hypocrites go on a nationwide rampage insisting that society cater to their every whim.

Nah, just the same whims as you have.

 

[vsedriver]

You also said that . So if one has no children, why should they be allowed to get married? To me, this is the logical question to that statement.

because the state can only deal with potential, they can’t predict who will and who won’t have kids.

but it would be fine with me if the state got out of the marriage business altogether. It discriminates against single people.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Nah, just the same whims as you have.

Hardly!

 

[kozlosap]

I would like to know when this blatant hatred of Christians developed within the gay community.

Gay activists and sympathizers have been whining about “tolerance” and acceptance for years. Now, with a great opportunity to demonstrate tolerance of the religious beliefs of others, these hypocrites go on a nationwide rampage insisting that society cater to their every whim.

Our Church tells us gays “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. And every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

This latest example of “in-your-face” intolerance by the gay community makes it pretty hard for some of us to comply with the teachings of our Church.

Just think about the Westboro Church in regards to Christian attitudes towards LGBTQ people.

If businesses in Indiana just use the placards in their windows indicating that they serve people of all races and sexual orientation, then the problem is solved , once and for all.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Just think about the Westboro Church in regards to Christian attitudes towards LGBTQ people.

You think it is just because of a small fraction of wacko “Christians” ???

This idea that there is wanton, rampant, constant, omnivorous Christian bigotry and discrimination against gays in the marketplace is just hocus pocus. It is as big a manufactured lie as is “white cops are murdering young black kids every day in America”.

 

[Brendan]

So if one has no children, why should they be allowed to get married? To me, this is the logical question to that statement.

FYI, the correct order is to get married FIRST, and THEN have children

So, yes a person who does not yet have children is most certainly entitled to get married.

Just sayin’

Indeed, I too would like an answer to that issue.

See above…

 

[shockerfan]

Just think about the Westboro Church in regards to Christian attitudes towards LGBTQ people.

If businesses in Indiana just use the placards in their windows indicating that they serve people of all races and sexual orientation, then the problem is solved , once and for all.

Not exactly sure what you think might be happening with the law, but to get a feel for your positions, here are a few yes/no questions:

1. Should a devout Christian photographer be forced to take pictures at a gay wedding if it violates their conscience?
2. Should a devout Christian printer be forced to print brochures for Planned Parenthood?
3. Should a Fire Chief lose his job because he wrote a book explaining his religious beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman?
4. Should a devout Christian shirt printer be forced to make t-shirts endorsing something that violates their beliefs?
5. Should a Christian couple who owns a for-profit wedding chapel be forced to officiate a gay wedding?

 

[katy]

Just think about the Westboro Church in regards to Christian attitudes towards LGBTQ people.

If businesses in Indiana just use the placards in their windows indicating that they serve people of all races and sexual orientation, then the problem is solved , once and for all.

No, because most people don’t care except when they’re forced to PARTICIPATE in an action that violates their conscience. Selling a cake is one thing. Decorating the cake to eendorse a practice offensive to them is another. As would endorsing the Klan or some such.

 

[Rau]

Is there a succinct and accurate summary of this new Indiana Law anywhere online?

If the Law truly means that a supermarket, or restaurant or window cleaner is free to reject a customer because the customer is gay, that seems to be appalling.

If the Law says a Church (holding that SSM is immoral) may decline to marry a same sex couple, or provide their facilities for that purpose, that seems fine.

If the Law says a Photographer may decline to be engaged to cover a same sex wedding - because the wedding is “same sex” - then IMHO, that may be a reasonable accommodation of the photographer’s sense of morality. There is certainly a balance to be considered.

If the Law says that a restaurant may decline to provide its services for the post-ceremony reception associated with a Gay Wedding…that seems equivalent to the Photographer case.

But what does this Law actually say?

 

[katy]

It’s online, but the howling mob of the politically correct is already changing it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

IIf the Law truly means that a supermarket, or restaurant or window cleaner is free to reject a customer because the customer is gay, that seems to be appalling.

Also, not advisable.

If the Law says a Church (holding that SSM is immoral) may decline to marry a same sex couple, or provide their facilities for that purpose, that seems fine.

Check out what NPR had to say. They compared it to a seemingly similar federal law and made clear some other points. From NPR’s article:
NPR:

The federal law does not go so far as to define a “person.” Indiana’s law does. And a “person,” by its standard, is not what you might think.

Section 7 of the Indiana code includes people, churches and corporations in that definition:

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, “person” includes the following:
(1) And Individual
(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes.
(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated associated, or another entity that:
(A) may sue and be sued; and
(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:
(i) an individual; or
(ii) the individuals;
who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

As related to whether, why or who can sue, the federal law says:

(c)JUDICIAL RELIEF - A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

The Indiana law goes further. In Section 9, it states that “a person,” in this case meaning an individual, church, limited liability company, etc., “whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

So, in other words, while the federal law states that a person can sue the government for a grievance, Indiana makes a point of stating that it doesn’t matter if government is involved.

See More at Indiana Law: Sorting Fact From Fiction From Politics

 

[philipl]

I did wedding photography for about 10 years. Several times I had homosexual couples come to my studio and but they never signed a contact so I never had to deal with the issue. (But I always wondered why a homosexual couple would want a person to provide a service for their wedding knowing that person doesnt really want to do so?) I do think there are ways to avoid the issue without being in your face about it. You can politely refuse to do business such as photography, catering, or baking a cake without being rude.

My contract did state that for any reason if I was unable to fullfill my obligation I was only liable for the amount of money paid to me. Which was the deposit amount of 50% the price of the package. Several times I had to refund the deposit when a bride became unreasonable. Only once did I tell the bride that was the reason for me cancelling the contract. She had demanded that I lower my prices or she couldnt afford me as she had another photographer willing to do it much cheaper than me. When I didnt show up for the wedding she sued. She lost the case. She also didnt have another photographer!

 

[marymary1975]

I don’t want to comment on the topic of the Indiana Law because I have not read it yet. All I’ve seen is news about it (and secular news may not be accurate) or people that do not master the subject enough to give a proper opinion commenting on it. So I would defer to others that have read it on #1.

But as to hay marriage being a civil right, I heavily disagree with the idea that gay marriage is a civil right. In fact I disagree with the idea that marriage is a civil right and the reason is: when you have something that is a right you cannot go and place an entire list of restrictions over that right, because then it stops being a right. While is true that rights do have limits and no right is absolute you cannot go and make a bucket list of requirements to make that right valid. To give you an example, let’s grab right to liberty. Imagine if you were given the “right” to liberty but the law stated that in order to excersice that right: 1) you have to be over certain age. 2) you can only have it between 7 am and 7 pm. After 7 pm no one can get out of their house. 3) you have to be of sound mind. 4) you have to complete a series of tests to be qualified for liberty …and 5,6 and 7. Does that sound like a right to you?

When you start placing a bucket list in order to be able to do something that hardly can be considered a right, it starts becoming a privilege that the State grants you. Like a driver’s license. A license is not a right is a privilege because the state has the ability to restrict and to create conditions to get a license: you have to be over a certain age, you have to take a driving test, you cannot be color blind etc. All that bucket list takes driving out of the realm of being a civil right.

Marriage is an entity regulated by the State and States can place restictio s over marriage: you have to be over 18, you cannot marry someone withing the second grade of consanguinity or first of affinity (usually grades sometimes vary), many states require blood test, some States forbid it you suffer certain STDs, you cannot be married to two people at the same time, you cannot be married to more than a specific amount if people and you can’t XYZ. How is that marriage is a civil right if we have an entire list of restrictions over it?

Gay marriage was just one restriction out of an entire list of restrictions that States historically place over marriage. The problem of arguing that gay marriage is a right is that if it is a right…then why are we ONLY lifting one restriction? What about the rest? If gays have a right to marry why polygamist or polyamorists can’t marry? You cannot take a right and say OK thus right is only for this people - which is what gay marriage does is equal marriage but only for homosexuals that is it - what about the rest.

So if you are going to argue that marriage is indeed a right then you need to take all restrictions out and not allow the state to regulate it. Then you need to allow everyone to marry without restrictions which would be crazy and is the reason why historically have always placed regulations over it. Because. Of that no, I don’t agree that gay marriage is a right.

 

[marymary1975]

Is there a succinct and accurate summary of this new Indiana Law anywhere online?

If the Law truly means that a supermarket, or restaurant or window cleaner is free to reject a customer because the customer is gay, that seems to be appalling.

If the Law says a Church (holding that SSM is immoral) may decline to marry a same sex couple, or provide their facilities for that purpose, that seems fine.

If the Law says a Photographer may decline to be engaged to cover a same sex wedding - because the wedding is “same sex” - then IMHO, that may be a reasonable accommodation of the photographer’s sense of morality. There is certainly a balance to be considered.

If the Law says that a restaurant may decline to provide its services for the post-ceremony reception associated with a Gay Wedding…that seems equivalent to the Photographer case.

But what does this Law actually say?

This is exactly why I don’t want to comment on the law because I don’t know what the law exactly says. And as you very well says it does depend a lot of what it says. And besides that I pretty much agree with your four scenarios.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The uproar about Indiana’s law is political theater.

It is also a trap set by the Left, which Republicans risk falling into. It works this way: Find a Republican state (Gov. Pence is a Republican and the legislature is overwhelmingly Republican); pick an issue you can twist to your political advantage – and Republicans’ disadvantage; enlist the help of a gay-friendly media; threaten a boycott of the state by prominent individuals and businesses; use this issue in the next presidential campaign to brand Republicans as racists, bigots and homophobes.

In this theater of the absurd, any defense becomes indefensible. The die has been cast; the scarlet letter attached. … One potential good has emerged from this, however. Miley Cyrus has announced she won’t be ‘twerking’ in Indiana, which is bound to have a positive effect on the state’s moral climate.

 

[Rau]

Does anyone know what the law actually says that is found to be objectionable by so many?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This is the Indiana law after the legislators cave and re-write it…

 

[katy]

Does anyone know what the law actually says that is found to be objectionable by so many?

Nothing. That is why they don’t quote it. This is political theater,as was mentioned.

 

[Rau]

Nothing. That is why they don’t quote it. This is political theater,as was mentioned.

So in all the debate, the “anti” side do no more than arm-wave and refer to “discrimination”, and never point to the particular injustices that may arise?

And the “pro” (the law) side do no more than appeal to religious and personal freedoms, and stutter and fumble and back-peddle?

Sounds like a typical political debate so common in society nowadays.

PS: I’d be happy if someone pointed out what the law actually says, and why it is reasonable!