Indiana's new buesinnes freedom law

[NecCat]

Why do so many so-called religious individuals hate civil rights so much? Is it because they're really just bigots hiding behind the skirts of "religion" and using it as a shield to be judgmental assholes? Last I checked, Christianity (the largest religion in the US) had a thing about not judging others as that was the purview of the Lord and His alone... >_>

I can't tell if that was a general thought or a response to my point, so just to be clear... I don't actually have any personal religion I could claim to want rights to practise (or to use as a shield for any particular judgements). My position is more of, if this (religion) is a right than we have to grant it, if we don't want to grant it, we should stop claiming it is a right.

[Andara Bledin]

It's a right in as much as you are allowed to believe whatever you care to believe.

However, that right of belief does not trump anyone else's right to equal treatment.

This law is trying to do an end run around civil rights to use freedom of religion as a club to beat down those who are deemed unacceptable by those who would use it.

It's a step back to the days of Jim Crow only hiding behind a cloak of "freedom for mine, but not for thine."

Your rights stop as soon as they start affecting someone else.

** all "you"s in this are generic and used only for illustrative purposes

[jedimaster91]

As long as there is ostensibly freedom to practise religion I would have to support this law. Being allowed to practise your religion includes being allowed to refuse to do things that are against your religion.

Here's where I see the objections to the law being a bit one-sided. Most reasonable people wouldn't want a government entity to force a priest to perform a union that is against his deeply held religious beliefs. That's wrong. Or a business not having accommodations for Jews keeping kosher or Muslims keeping halal and failing to offer something at the company picnic besides bacon cheeseburgers and beer.

That said, there are going to be those who are using religion as a smokescreen for their prejudices. The reality of that is unavoidable and despicable.

Now, I haven't read the bill itself, but from what I'm gathering (from admittedly biased sources) is that the problem with Indiana's law is it reaches into disputes between private citizens and not just businesses like other laws of its kind. And the way I understand it (which could be totally wrong) is that neither is a free pass. You don't automatically win by claiming discrimination, nor do you automatically win by claiming religious objections. The law just gives businesses the right to argue religious objections.

Something else to keep in mind: this law was passed by the legislators, not the common people of Indiana. It does not necessarily reflect what your average Hoosier believes. I don't live in Indiana myself, but it's not far from me and I know plenty of people who do. They're good people. My own feelings on the law are mixed. On one hand, religious rights should be protected. On the other, this law is not endearing religious people to the rest of the world and is a very slippery slope. A goodwill gesture for business owners (ie florists, bakers and such) would be to recommend another business who does good work if you're not comfortable.

[mjr]

Let me toss this out as a "Devil's advocate" thing...

What if you're religious, and racism goes against your sincerely-held religious beliefs? Could you discriminate against the KKK, Skinheads, and other "supremacist" groups based on your religious beliefs?

I'd like to know who you can and can't refuse service to...does "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" no longer apply?

[s_stabeler]

the way I see it, you don't have the right to refuse service to somebody BECAUSE they belong to the protected class- in other words, if you would be happy to serve them if they were not a member of the protected class, then you still have to serve them. If you refuse to serve them because they are acting like a dick- in other words, their status as being part of a protected class is irrelevant- you can still refuse to serve them. It's why I partially disagree that a baker who refuses to put bigoted messages on a cake would be liable under religious freedom laws- they would refuse regardless of said religion. Same actually goes for a muslim butcher refusing to offer non-halal meat.(it's got nothing to do with the religion of the person buying the meat)

as for a priest refusing to marry a pair who offend their religion, I give that a pass on a couple different grounds. One is that marriage by a priest is explicitly a religious ceremony- and said union presumably offends said religion. If it was a civil marriage & a registrar, I would consider it a different matter.

[Andara Bledin]

Let me toss this out as a "Devil's advocate" thing...

What if you're religious, and racism goes against your sincerely-held religious beliefs? Could you discriminate against the KKK, Skinheads, and other "supremacist" groups based on your religious beliefs?

I'd like to know who you can and can't refuse service to...does "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" no longer apply?

It seems you don't quite understand the argument you're trying to reframe.

There is no "devil's advocate" in asking about discriminating against racist groups. None of those constitute a Protected Class.

As a business, one can choose to discriminate for a number of reasons, including lack of adequate attire, disruptive behavior, or even stupid shit like having dyed hair.

What you cannot do is refuse business based on a very short list of Class items. You can't not serve somebody because of race, religion, gender, age (officially, you can't discriminate against people because they're over 40), or sexuality.

One thing that seems confusing to a lot of people is that everybody is a part of every single class. It doesn't just protect certain types of a class, but all types of each class.

So, even if you are part of the majority, you cannot be refused service because you are white, or Christian, or male, or heterosexual any more (or any less) than if you're a black/Asian atheist genderqueer pansexual.

[wolfie]

Andara, on reading your post, my understanding of what you're saying is as follows:

- Gay couple comes into a bakery, baker refuses to sell them a cake for their wedding because "you didn't button your collar". So long as they also refuse to sell cakes to heterosexual couples where the groom has his collar unbuttoned, it's perfectly legal, since "people with unbuttoned collars" isn't a protected class.

- Any law making sexual orientation a protected class would not only ban Bible Thumper Bakery from refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because "we don't do business with deviants", but would also ban Rainbow Bakery from refusing to sell a cake to a straight couple because "we don't do business with Breeders".

[Canarr]

Andara, on reading your post, my understanding of what you're saying is as follows:

- Gay couple comes into a bakery, baker refuses to sell them a cake for their wedding because "you didn't button your collar". So long as they also refuse to sell cakes to heterosexual couples where the groom has his collar unbuttoned, it's perfectly legal, since "people with unbuttoned collars" isn't a protected class.

I'd say so, yeah. And, yes, of course that can be used to secretly discriminate against only select people - if the baker only enforces this policy with gay customers, it's discrimination. But requiring a certain dresscode to allow people to frequent one's establishment isn't discrimination.

- Any law making sexual orientation a protected class would not only ban Bible Thumper Bakery from refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because "we don't do business with deviants", but would also ban Rainbow Bakery from refusing to sell a cake to a straight couple because "we don't do business with Breeders".

Yes.

[s_stabeler]

Andara, on reading your post, my understanding of what you're saying is as follows:

- Gay couple comes into a bakery, baker refuses to sell them a cake for their wedding because "you didn't button your collar". So long as they also refuse to sell cakes to heterosexual couples where the groom has his collar unbuttoned, it's perfectly legal, since "people with unbuttoned collars" isn't a protected class.

- Any law making sexual orientation a protected class would not only ban Bible Thumper Bakery from refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because "we don't do business with deviants", but would also ban Rainbow Bakery from refusing to sell a cake to a straight couple because "we don't do business with Breeders".

fir the first, you say in the question that they also refuse to sell when it's a heterosexual couple, so yes, it's legal. In the second case, then yes, both situations are explicit prejudice, since it is discrimination based on membership of a protected class

[Aragarthiel]

Sadly, Georgia's trying to pass a similar law. What I really think is stupid about all this is, how does someone know the sexual orientation of another without being told? What if a man came in and asked for a three-tier chocolate cake with peanut butter buttercream (yum!), paid for it, and the caterers got to the wedding to find that it was actually two men getting married? Would they take the cake back? You can't always "look" a certain sexuality, and if one gay couple who didn't explicitly announce their relationship recommends a business to another gay couple, only to find out they're protected by the "Religious Freedom Act," why can the first couple be served but not the second? There are a lot of loopholes to most laws regarding sexual orientation because of this.

[MadMike]

What I really think is stupid about all this is, how does someone know the sexual orientation of another without being told? .

I'm sure they'll just "assume", and we all know what happens when you assume. Some guy I went to college with somehow got it in his head that I was gay. Imagine his surprise when he found out I was seeing his girlfriend behind his back.

[Barracuda]

You know, I keep hearing a lot of things in this debate about "Bible thumpers" and quite a bit of vitriol expressed towards Christianity. I am curious. What would the people in this debate on this board think about other religious views on gay marriage? Say, for example, a Muslim baker refused service to a gay couple. Would your reaction be different in that case?

[TheHuckster]

You know, I keep hearing a lot of things in this debate about "Bible thumpers" and quite a bit of vitriol expressed towards Christianity. I am curious. What would the people in this debate on this board think about other religious views on gay marriage? Say, for example, a Muslim baker refused service to a gay couple. Would your reaction be different in that case?

Of course not. That's a strawman. We're not talking about other religions refusing service because the people at the center of this whole fiasco are doing so from a Christian point of view. If someone who were any other religion were to refuse service to anyone based on a protected class, I can say with great confidence that everyone here (at least the regulars) would condemn it and treat it with just as much contempt as if the person were Christian.

Bible Thumper refers to a certain type of Christian that:

a.) Uses their religion to influence legislation that are based solely on their beliefs, and aim for a Christian-centric political system. Any attempts at making society friendlier to other religions (or atheists) are rejected as "secularism."

b.) Goes out of their way to preach to people about their beliefs, whether it was welcomed or not.

c.) When asked why they believe what they do, their only answer is "because The Bible says so."

Indeed there are many Christians (some on this very board, including myself) who do not identify with this group. Bible Thumper is not a synonym for Christian. It's a subset.

[Aragarthiel]

Bible Thumper refers to a certain type of Christian that:

a.) Uses their religion to influence legislation that are based solely on their beliefs, and aim for a Christian-centric political system. Any attempts at making society friendlier to other religions (or atheists) are rejected as "secularism."

b.) Goes out of their way to preach to people about their beliefs, whether it was welcomed or not.

c.) When asked why they believe what they do, their only answer is "because The Bible says so."

d.) Forgets that the Bible says nobody is supposed to force their beliefs upon others.

I've never actually read the Bible but I've attended church sermons that went over this, how it was shameful to hide your beliefs but it was also wrong to preach to people who didn't want it. There's a big difference between offering prayers for someone who's sick and going off on someone else who offered good thoughts instead because they're non-religious.

[NecCat]

the way I see it, you don't have the right to refuse service to somebody BECAUSE they belong to the protected class- in other words, if you would be happy to serve them if they were not a member of the protected class, then you still have to serve them.

Sadly, Georgia's trying to pass a similar law. What I really think is stupid about all this is, how does someone know the sexual orientation of another without being told? There are a lot of loopholes to most laws regarding sexual orientation because of this.

I'm sure they'll just "assume", and we all know what happens when you assume.

And: Here's a lovely article about a cowardly bigot who is happy to be a discriminatory asshole but not so proud as to actually give his name or the name of his business...

It seems to be the assumption that this law could be used to refuse service to gay people, for just existing while being gay. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any religion that is against being gay. That is, the act of existing while simultaneously being attracted to someone of the same sex as yourself. There are specific things some religions are against, for example, same sex marriage, same sex sexual activity (or sexual activity occurring outside of marriage - which isn't allowed for homosexual). I specifically chose an example of a baker decorating a cake for a same sex wedding, which would be against certain religions. I am not aware of any religion which is against gay people eating cake - or eating dinner, so the restaurant owner Andara Bledin referenced should have no reason to turn away customers, unless they are engaging in sex in the restaurant, which is in poor taste, so go ahead kick those ones out (of any configuration of gender, because...poor taste).

If there are religions that are against people existing while being homosexual, or eating dinner while being homosexual, or purchasing books while being homosexual or anything else that everyone does, I'll be happy to change my position, but as I understand the law, there are very few circumstances where a person of a protected class and person's religious values could collide, and on a case-by-case basis I would think we should at least consider giving support to a persons freedom of religion.

I also agree with whoever earlier who said a government appointed magistrate shouldn't have the right to refuse to jperform same sex marriage, the government does not have a religion, and if you wish to work for them than you are agreeing to do work for them as if you don't have a religion also.