View Full Version : Indiana RFRA Law
What is it about the Indiana law that's creating the current kerfuffle that's different from the other States' laws or the federal law? Is it different in substance or simply a change in the times?
i will be honest that i have not studied this. however there has always been the right to refuse service by private businesses, and there have been abuses of that (back in the day punks were refused service, but that was our choice to look like that). i had always understood this to primarily be for businesses that did not want to serve disruptive patrons or a 5 star restaurant that had a dress code. as a common citizen i felt the intent was that private businesses could refuse service for business reasons (and again there have been too many cases of prejudice and discrimination). As i see this law it is saying the the business can refuse service based on their own religious beliefs, not based on the business they are running or asked to do. So a florist may not want to do an arrangement for somebody who wants a zombie themed wedding and a high end restaurant may not want to serve a burger, those are business decisions. For me at least this seems to mean that a business will not serve someone in their regular business capacity because of the religious beliefs of the company owners.
Please correct me if i am wrong, i pretty much stay out of this area. kinda nervous about posting
The Indiana Governor is a Republican. The Federal RFRA and many of the other state's similar laws were introduced, sponsored and passed by Democratic legislators. That's the main difference.
May I direct you kids to my Pizza thread? Why can't we discuss this subject, and include Pizza, too?
Indiana's governor would have you believe that all identically named laws are the same. However, his state's is much broader than the others. The primary things being that not just individuals' religious beliefs are protected, but it specifically mentions businesses and corporations being protected. Secondly, it provides protection against private lawsuits. The federal law only protects against government forcing one to do something against their religious beliefs, and only mentions individuals.
It's also interesting to note that Georgia's very similar to Indiana RFRA law got derailed when a republican representative added an amendment clarifying that it was not the intention of the bill to give people the right to discriminate based on their religion. Once that amendment was there the bill was quickly tabled and is now not likely to get passed. Surely, if it's purpose wasn't to legalize discrimination, this shouldn't have mattered.
The shot of Governor Pence proudly posing with a gaggle of anti-gay legislators at the signing made me laugh--especially when the public came down on him like an angry avalanche. Now he's reaping the consequences. Actions have them, as we all know.
A lot of Christians use the Old Testament (Jesus never said a word about homosexuality) for their own purposes--like some fanciful interpretations of the story of Noah's sons explaining discrimination against people of color. And of course there are tales of incest, multiple marriage, slavery...Which of these are we supposed to honor, anyway? I wonder if Ms. O'Connor of principled pizza fame serves pork products or seafood at her restaurant, or if she wears blended fiber clothes.
The idea that religionists are more precious than the rest of us and need to be protected for what they believe is one that needs to die, IMO. I'm sure we all have beliefs we'd like to act on--I believe psilocybin is my sacrament :~)--but most of us have to abide by the law.
Should we criminalize all conscientious objection or is that time honored principle a danger to the state?
I believe conscientious objection is entirely independent of religious belief; if it's not, it should be.
People choose their religious belief, and can--and do--change. People don't choose their sexual orientation. At least no one I know did--gay, straight, or bi.
Indiana's governor would have you believe that all identically named laws are the same. However, his state's is much broader than the others. The primary things being that not just individuals' religious beliefs are protected, but it specifically mentions businesses and corporations being protected. Secondly, it provides protection against private lawsuits. The federal law only protects against government forcing one to do something against their religious beliefs, and only mentions individuals.
It's also interesting to note that Georgia's very similar to Indiana RFRA law got derailed when a republican representative added an amendment clarifying that it was not the intention of the bill to give people the right to discriminate based on their religion. Once that amendment was there the bill was quickly tabled and is now not likely to get passed. Surely, if it's purpose wasn't to legalize discrimination, this shouldn't have mattered.
So is it fair to say the federal and older state laws are just restatements of the establishment clause and therefore less objectionable? Is the Indiana law being attacked in so many quarters because it prevents legal action against businesses or individuals who refuse to participate in or support activities they find abhorrent on religious grounds?
Yes, photographers that are approached to photograph Wall Street banquets and photojournalists asked to go photograph crime scenes are worried that by being forced to participate they will be forced to support greed/selfishness and crime, activities that their religions may find abhorrent and objectionable.
The thing I don't get is how the people who claim biblical authority for their refusal to sell goods and services to gays, and want their rights to their lifestyle choices regarding religion to be protected, seem to be completely happy to sell to people who are fornicating, committing adultery, or divorced. The bible very clearly condemns all of these lifestyle choices. Do these religious objectors who find gay people abhorrent want the right to interrogate all would-be customers about their sexual behaviours before deciding whether or not to provide services ? Would a bridal store owner who wouldn't sell dresses to two women who are getting married to each other refuse to sell a dress to a non-virgin bride-to-be living with her male partner, or who is visibly pregnant - the latter being obvious proof of fornication? I've seen more than one bride with a huge baby bump walk down the aisle wearing a white dress and veil, sometimes with an already-born child or two in her procession! How about selling or renting a tuxedo to the bridegroom, also clearly a fornicator? Can a bakery now refuse, on the grounds that the bible says, on the authority of Jesus himself (who never said anything about gays), that "God hates divorce" to sell a wedding cake to a couple who admit to being second or third time arounders? Would a florist be permitted to refuse to sell flowers to a Sikh man who wants to give them to his wife - after all, Sikhs are not Christians, and they're idolaters to boot!
The Indiana law stinks of hypocrisy.
I think the religious belief angle is a red herring, ultimately.
As a private citizen, I should be allowed to discriminate in my voluntary dealings with competent other individuals according to my own will and beliefs. Doesn't matter whether my issue is religious, philosophical, or just because I'm a grumpy old cuss who doesn't like people from Kansas. That's liberty - free association and mutually-agreeable interactions.
This of course leads to bigots not serving people of various races/religions/political parties/genders/sexual preferences/... Liberty isn't always pretty.
So you have to decide how you want to balance individual liberty against unpleasant behavior. I tend to come down on the side of liberty. Using the force of government to compel desired civility is troublesome to me.
If we're going to write special laws giving religious beliefs some sort of special consideration (compared to other belief systems or just plain old preference) we're going down a foolish path - producing at best convoluted special-case law. I'd think thoughtful religious folks would be opposed to this approach, as it holds their beliefs up to ridicule and potentially involves the State in judging the merits/interpretations of someone's religious dogma.
If we *do* go this direction, I'll let you know now that my Church, the Second Reformed Brethren of Crom, requires me to carry a sword at all times and have a loaded handgun within reach, and I *demand* proper consideration of my beliefs.
The bible very clearly condemns all of these lifestyle choices.
The Bible also prohibits wearing fabrics made of mixed materials, yet from the tacky-shiny gleam of the suits on the people I see celebrating this law I suspect they've not read their own manual.
I think the religious belief angle is a red herring, ultimately. ...
... .
I agree.
And the time has come to rethink all the tax dodges and special dispensations we award to religious institutions.
I agree.
And the time has come to rethink all the tax dodges and special dispensations we award to religious institutions.
What are those dodges, exactly? I'm aware of the "churches are *automatically* considered non-profit organizations" one, and I'm not convinced religious organizations should be treated any differently than any other public service organization when determining their proper tax status and corporate form.
As a private citizen, I should be allowed to discriminate in my voluntary dealings with competent other individuals according to my own will and beliefs. Doesn't matter whether my issue is religious, philosophical, or just because I'm a grumpy old cuss who doesn't like people from Kansas. That's liberty - free association and mutually-agreeable interactions.
This of course leads to bigots not serving people of various races/religions/political parties/genders/sexual preferences/... Liberty isn't always pretty.
So you have to decide how you want to balance individual liberty against unpleasant behavior. I tend to come down on the side of liberty. Using the force of government to compel desired civility is troublesome to me.
While the results would be ugly at times, I'm inclined to agree with you. Our culture seems to be creating so many victim groups with special status and protections, we're having problems with competing claims. An actress talks about equal pay in her Oscar speech, and gets attacks for not mentioning other groups. They announce a black guy will host the Daily Show, and then get complaints because he's apparently not a feminist. Now we're seeing a conflict between religious people and gays.
The best thing I've read on this is “Competitive markets with free entry offer better and more certain protection against invidious discrimination than any anti-discrimination law.”
I'm all for prohibitions on governments discriminating, but in the private arena I think the best punishment for bigotry is that its a bad business model.
I'm all for prohibitions on governments discriminating, but in the private arena I think the best punishment for bigotry is that its a bad business model.
And with the capabilities and transparency provided by today's social media and reputation-voting systems, it is pretty easy to expose bigots to the cold harsh light of day, where there will be social consequences to their behavior.
For one thing, I understand ordinary non-profits have to file tax returns whereas churches do not, which precludes any kind of audit of church deductions or expenditures. There are those who argue giving liberal tax relief to religious organizations violates separation of church and state, especially where politically active congregations are concerned.
For one thing, I understand ordinary non-profits have to file tax returns whereas churches do not, which precludes any kind of audit of church deductions or expenditures.
Well, ick! You'd think they'd have to at least file a 990 like everyone else:
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Annual-Exempt-Organization-Return:-Who-Must-File
The best thing I've read on this is [/SIZE]“Competitive markets with free entry offer better and more certain protection against invidious discrimination than any anti-discrimination law.”
I'm all for prohibitions on governments discriminating, but in the private arena I think the best punishment for bigotry is that its a bad business model.
+1 In my world, if you're buying, I'm selling. No pre-qualification required.
That works fine for groups that have reached some level of acceptance. But I have o wonder if we'd still have segregated lunch counters without the civil rights acts from the 1960's. And what about less accepted groups currently. Would the pizza place be out of business if, instead of gay weddings, they decided to refuse to serve Muslims? Especially if they were smart enough not to announce it in the media.
What about the ADA? Should businesses open to the public be free to say "so sorry. It simply costs too much to install a handicap ramp/parking space, etc"?
gimmethesimplelife
4-2-15, 11:29pm
There was a time when I was much younger when I wanted to move to Indianapolis. Seriously. Does anyone remember Glenn Scarpeli, from Season 3 or so on One Day at A Time? He was a teenager that Ann Romano (Bonnie Franklin) took in for a season, I guess to mix things up with the show. He was my first crush. So I was really into that show for awhile. You'd turn it on, and then that cool theme song would start - such great life advice in that corny song - and then you'd see the skyline of Indianapolis and the faces of the cast one by one. So I was was predisposed to like Indianapolis.
Then when I was older, I found out that housing is not that expensive there which made it seem even more attractive. I ended out never setting foot there, however, and now that this law (which ex Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona sanely vetoed when a similar bill made headlines here) has passed I'm glad I didn't move there. The problem I see with a law like this - most people are going to take my money as a gay man as my money spends/saves/invests as good as any one else's money. Here are there there will be extremists, though, that will see such a law as validations of their extreme views and act accordingly. That is why I am against laws like this in Indiana and the one just hammered out in Arkansas. And I've read Georgia is in the process of something similar? Really great worldwide press these states are earning America on top of everything else. Rob
iris lilies
4-2-15, 11:39pm
There was a time when I was much younger when I wanted to move to Indianapolis. Seriously. Does anyone remember Glenn Scarpeli, from Season 3 or so on One Day at A Time? He was a teenager that Ann Romano (Bonnie Franklin) took in for a season, I guess to mix things up with the show. He was my first crush. So I was really into that show for awhile. You'd turn it on, and then that cool theme song would start - such great life advice in that corny song - and then you'd see the skyline of Indianapolis and the faces of the cast one by one. So I was was predisposed to like Indianapolis.
I forgot that show took place in Indianapolis.
I had a crush on David. DH had a crush on Mackenzie Phillips.
I'm having trouble understanding the difference between the bill that 30 other states supposedly have, versus the one that Indiana just changed/added to. I live in this state and I'm pretty sick of Pence. He's a teapartier and is always trying to push religion into the mix. I don't trust anything he says or does.
And then he acts like "Oh my heavens........I never thought this would cause such a reaction........People have totally misunderstood this bill". Yeah, right Mike. And now he says he's been praying a lot about it.
But this kind of conflict is going to happen more and more......the more every individual demands his or her own rights. It's all so complicated and convoluted.
And Rob........be glad you didn't come to Indy.........it's turning into another Detroit. There's killings every night, and the mayor and the police department can't seem to get on top of it. And what's the most important to the mayor is building huge "money-maker projects", while ignoring all the more basic things that need fixing. Like the underground utilities that just exploded again in the middle of town and blew off manhole covers and disrupted power; bad roads; high crime neighborhoods, etc., etc., etc.
I'm having trouble understanding the difference between the bill that 30 other states supposedly have, versus the one that Indiana just changed/added to.I don't know about all the laws but at first glance Indiana's version seems to mirror the Federal law in that both state that the government may not "substantially burden" a citizens free exercise of religion. What I really don't understand is how the heated opposition to such things takes wing since most of it has nothing to do with facts, only feelings. As an example, the Governor of Connecticut issued a travel ban to Indiana by state employees in order to send the message that intolerance will not be tolerated (a weird juxtaposition in itself), without seeming to realize (or care) that Connecticut's version of the law is even stricter in its protection of religious liberty, it left out the word "substantially", preferring the phrase "the government may not burden".
I'm thinking that he has either outed himself as an extreme hypocrite or any day now he'll ban his state employees from working in their own state to show they will not tolerate intolerance. I wonder which way he'll go?
I forgot that show took place in Indianapolis.
I had a crush on David. DH had a crush on Mackenzie Phillips.
I still have a thing for Valerie Bertinelli.
The difference is that Indiana's law isn't limited just to saying the government may not make rules against a person's (and only actual individual people, not the fiction of 'corporate' persons) religious convictions but instead says that neither the government nor individuals may do anything that goes against a person's (the definition of person also including businesses and corporations) religious convictions. These differences makes all the difference in the world.
Regarding CT's law, the whole reason no one's upset is because it only ties the hands of governments who might want to burden someone's religious beliefs. Again, all the difference in the world, and the fact that no one's upset about CT's law proves that point.
Whether you like it or not, the majority of society has made the decision that businesses that offer public accommodations are not allowed to discriminate. The reason people are upset about Indiana's law is because it allows them to do just that against anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.
Whether you like it or not, the majority of society has made the decision that businesses that offer public accommodations are not allowed to discriminate. The reason people are upset about Indiana's law is because it allows them to do just that against anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.
Since government theoretically represents the community at large, what should be done if a majority of the citizens in a given jurisdiction wish to go the other way and implement laws that appear counter to what some of us feel are noble concepts? The tyranny of the majority, as it were. I haven't heard a lot about how people in Indiana feel about this law. Really all I hear is how everyone except people in Indiana feel. Just curious...
Whether you like it or not, the majority of society has made the decision that businesses that offer public accommodations are not allowed to discriminate. The reason people are upset about Indiana's law is because it allows them to do just that against anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.
Is that where the line should be drawn? "Public accomodations" stopping short of personal services? Is it acceptable to force a business to sell common stock items for purposes the owners may object to, but not acceptable to force them to provide more personal services?
iris lilies
4-3-15, 10:05am
What about the ADA? Should businesses open to the public be free to say "so sorry. It simply costs too much to install a handicap ramp/parking space, etc"?
Yes.
Don't get me started on 'capper spots. You see 'em at the grocery--an Escalade parked in a 'capper spot; the portly owner waddles out, with a store employee pushing two carts of groceries piled HIGH with Frozen Pizza, Rotisserie Chicken, and other goodies. Prolly, the Esky owner went to their MD, complaining of "weakness in my legs". So, the MD validates their application for a 'capper sign to hang from their mirror. That way, they will be entitled to one of the many choice, reserved, vacant, front-row 'capper spots. Of course whenever I gripe about this online, people start flaming me to a crisp about "my ingratitude toward limbless, paralyzed wounded warriors who fought for my Freedom to even have jack squat". So, I meekly go back to hunting for a parkin' spot at the bike shop on a busy afternoon, when there are only 5 available spots in the whole lot--the unoccupied 'capper spots right up front. But still, I figure that if "they" are permanently disabled, "they" really can't do much except Live. Eat, sleep, and breathe--and go shopping. They don't NEED no preferential treatment in the form of a dozen spaces reserved close to the entrance, at the roller skating arena. Because, compared to people who have jobs, kids to look after, and lead an active, productive lifestyle--compared to them, the disabled (especially the obese ones with weak legs) have plenty of spare time to find a parkin' spot, get in and out of their vehicle, and so on. It would be therapeutic, and keep them busy & fill up their day. It will give them something to "do" besides sitting around, watching Tee-Vee, waiting to die, while developing theories about the origins of the Universe, like Stephen Hawkings. See? You don't? Well then--you should'na got me going on it! That'll teach you. Thankk Mee.
What are those dodges, exactly? I'm aware of the "churches are *automatically* considered non-profit organizations" one, and I'm not convinced religious organizations should be treated any differently than any other public service organization when determining their proper tax status and corporate form.
I totally agree with this. Some churches do perform good works, and others don't. I think each church, not the overall organization but each individual church should jump through all the hoops of any other non profit to prove their eligibility for non profit status.
edited for spelling...need more coffee
I find it really curious how baking a wedding cake somehow makes the baker celebrating/participating in the wedding, and making a floral arrangement forces the florist to participate in the ceremony, but selling a handgun isn't participating in the crime/suicide, whatever....
I totally agree with this. Some churches do perform good works, and others don't. I think each church, not the overall organization but each individual church should jump through all the hoops of any other non profit to prove their eligibility for non profit status.
I think it boils down more to a philosophical issue. If we assume the Establishment Clause was put into place to prevent the inter-mingling of Church & State, does it follow that the State may profit from the Church?
I find it really curious how baking a wedding cake somehow makes the baker celebrating/participating in the wedding, and making a floral arrangement forces the florist to participate in the ceremony, but selling a handgun isn't participating in the crime/suicide, whatever....So, if you believe that selling a handgun results in participation of a crime, does it follow that the act of selling a wedding cake or other service does indeed equal participation in an event? Just trying to understand the logic.
I might follow that reasoning if the person purchasing the handgun advertised the fact that the purchase was being made for the purpose of facilitating a crime and the seller allowed the transaction, but otherwise.....
Well, okay--in many jurisdictions, health-care workers are obliged to report injuries they may treat, such as gunshot wounds or those inflicted by domestic violence. If they don't, they may be guilty of committing a crime, in itself. I think it is based on the view that you are complicit, if you fail to take adverse action, i.e., report it, even though you had nothing to do with the actual incident. I was living at a motel in Dallas for awhile. One of the residents offered me $5 to drive him to a 'partment 'plex, and back. I helped him out once, but after I realized he was buying some illicit substance to redistribute back at the mo-tel, I declined to drive him over there the next time. See? Don't want to be a part of it. Or--did I violate his sivvvil rights, on account of his lifestyle/race? So, I can see how religionists might object to facilitating what they are taught by their religious authorities as "sin". Then, you have the conscientious objectors, who were exempted from going to war. See how that works? Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
ApatheticNoMore
4-3-15, 2:54pm
So, if you believe that selling a handgun results in participation of a crime, does it follow that the act of selling a wedding cake or other service does indeed equal participation in an event? Just trying to understand the logic.
it's moral participation in my view, or it contributes, but it's not illegal. So I'm sure there are people who would have nothing to do with selling guns. Like gays, don't like gays, it's one's prerogative, however people who seem to make objecting to gays the center of their morality with all that's wrong with the world, may arguably deserve some legal protection for it (but not corporations - sorry that's ridiculous), but deserve for their morality to be a complete laughingstock. Whether to participate in something that may lead to people's deaths is at least a serious question, whether to participate in a gay wedding as being a terribly important moral question ... at that point your morality is just a joke.
I think it boils down more to a philosophical issue. If we assume the Establishment Clause was put into place to prevent the inter-mingling of Church & State, does it follow that the State may profit from the Church?
The state profits from my income and your income. Why not the churches income. Exempting them from taxes you and I pay IS establishing religion (protected Class). The reason they were given a pass was because it was 'assumed' they would spend all their 'profit' on the community doing good deeds. Plus it was 'assumed' they would keep to their good deeds and not interfere/fiddle in politics. Well, that horse has left the barn hasn't it. And plenty of churches spend only on themselves enriching their preachers while supporting their narrow political agenda.
Frankly I am tired of looking the other way. Especially when they spend their time and money trying to push their agenda down my throat. If they had kept to their churches and their own flock no one would question this. They deserve to have this harsh light shown on them and their books. They deserve to loose the blanket non profit status.
Here's a handy chart to see if your religious liberties are being violated.:0!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2015/03/are-your-religious-liberties-being-violated.html
These Christian cake bakers who don't want to violate their religious beliefs by baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding....
So, can they bake a cake for a wedding for people of a different Christian denomination? Or for people who have been divorced? Or for...non-Christians? Why single out homosexual weddings, when there are so many other sorts of marriages that are likely disallowed by their specific sect.
I don't understand why the LGBT thing is such a hot button.
Especially when they spend their time and money trying to push their agenda down my throat. If they had kept to their churches and their own flock no one would question this. They deserve to have this harsh light shown on them and their books. They deserve to loose the blanket non profit status.
So you're saying that if you agree with the perceived mission of a particular church you're in favor of tax exempt status but if you disagree you're not?
Does that include activist non-profits as well?
I don't understand why the LGBT thing is such a hot button.Me neither. What exactly does Indiana's RFRA law have to do with "the LGBT thing"?
So, if you believe that selling a handgun results in participation of a crime, does it follow that the act of selling a wedding cake or other service does indeed equal participation in an event? Just trying to understand the logic.
I might follow that reasoning if the person purchasing the handgun advertised the fact that the purchase was being made for the purpose of facilitating a crime and the seller allowed the transaction, but otherwise.....
Well Alan, if you're willing to say that selling an unregistered private /gun show gun sale means you accept participation in any resulting accident/crime, then I'll concede that selling a cake is the same as being invited to the wedding.
And the second point, well, last I heard weddings aren't a crime. Even in Indiana...which is why he signed that law in the first place you know. Now if you really want to equate a gay wedding with a crime, well then you're back to that whole religious thing. The US isn't a theocracy, yet, and any business that wants to do business here must follow US laws. A bakery, or pizza parlor isn't a church. Religious freedom protection laws are to protect religions, or individuals practice of religion. Baking a pizza isn't a religious practice.
But, least we mourn for the poor put upon Christian pizza bakers who only want the freedom to deny others freedoms, I believe they have turned to the evil internet and crowd fund or some such to gain lots and lots of freeloading christian money. Praise be to god! If it's good enough for George Zimmerman, it's good enough for persecuted Christians (and it's probably the same people funding both), who really really only want the legal right to persecute others as their bible tells them to. Kind of the christian form of bullying isn't it. But then, in the free wheeling I can do whatever my conscience tells me world, bullying is OK, right?
These Christian cake bakers who don't want to violate their religious beliefs by baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding....
So, can they bake a cake for a wedding for people of a different Christian denomination? Or for people who have been divorced? Or for...non-Christians? Why single out homosexual weddings, when there are so many other sorts of marriages that are likely disallowed by their specific sect.
I don't understand why the LGBT thing is such a hot button.
+1
So, if you believe that selling a handgun results in participation of a crime, does it follow that the act of selling a wedding cake or other service does indeed equal participation in an event? Just trying to understand the logic.
I took peggy's quote as though she was pointing out the fallacy in the logic whereby supplying _________ qualifies you as a participant in ________s end use. Guessing most of us can agree that it doesn't.
So you're saying that if you agree with the perceived mission of a particular church you're in favor of tax exempt status but if you disagree you're not?
Does that include activist non-profits as well?
No, that's not what I said. I said EVERY church, activist or not, should jump through the hoops, file the paperwork, and prove that they should be non profit, just like the local art league, or historical society, or pet rescue. Or activist non profit although I don't see many of those as a stand alone entity. Whatever. They have to do it, churches should too.
I don't understand why the LGBT thing is such a hot button.
In my little corner of paradise fear is what pushes most hot buttons. Maybe things are different in Indiana.
I took peggy's quote as though she was pointing out the fallacy in the logic whereby supplying _________ qualifies you as a participant in ________s end use. Guessing most of us can agree that it doesn't.
+1
Me neither. What exactly does Indiana's RFRA law have to do with "the LGBT thing"?
I think bae meant among Christians, considering all the other 'sinning' they seem to endorse.:0!
Well Alan, if you're willing to say that selling an unregistered private /gun show gun sale means you accept participation in any resulting accident/crime, then I'll concede that selling a cake is the same as being invited to the wedding.
And the second point, well, last I heard weddings aren't a crime. Even in Indiana...which is why he signed that law in the first place you know. Now if you really want to equate a gay wedding with a crime, well then you're back to that whole religious thing. The US isn't a theocracy, yet, and any business that wants to do business here must follow US laws. A bakery, or pizza parlor isn't a church. Religious freedom protection laws are to protect religions, or individuals practice of religion. Baking a pizza isn't a religious practice.
But, least we mourn for the poor put upon Christian pizza bakers who only want the freedom to deny others freedoms, I believe they have turned to the evil internet and crowd fund or some such to gain lots and lots of freeloading christian money. Praise be to god! If it's good enough for George Zimmerman, it's good enough for persecuted Christians (and it's probably the same people funding both), who really really only want the legal right to persecute others as their bible tells them to. Kind of the christian form of bullying isn't it. But then, in the free wheeling I can do whatever my conscience tells me world, bullying is OK, right?Gosh Peg, there's no reason to throw up strawmen to confuse the issue. All I'm really asking (perhaps inartfully) is that if you believe that a person selling a gun is a party to whatever actions the buyer takes with the gun, would your argument be that the seller has a moral imperative to sell no guns? If so, would the same moral imperative apply to a business owner who believed same-sex marriage was a sin and therefore declined to participate?
I took peggy's quote as though she was pointing out the fallacy in the logic whereby supplying _________ qualifies you as a participant in ________s end use. Guessing most of us can agree that it doesn't.
That's not a simple black-and-white thing though. It depends on circumstance and context.
If you are against the death penalty, and the sole manufacturer of the drug commonly used to accomplish the task, you might decide there is a sufficient nexus between your sale of the drug to the state penal system and the execution to warrant you deciding to not sell the item to avoid participation in something you find morally repugnant.
If you are against high-risk sex offenders living in your remote and vulnerable community, you might reasonably choose not to rent them an apartment, or sell them food at the grocery store.
If you find BDSM offensive, and you work at REI, deciding not to sell rope to a random customer would seem absurd - no reasonable nexus.
In my little corner of paradise fear is what pushes most hot buttons. Maybe things are different in Indiana.
So where does the "fear" come in? What are they afraid of?
So where does the "fear" come in? What are they afraid of?
I believe they are afraid because people have told them to be afraid. Those who influence them, politicians or spiritual leaders, have told them that essentially the world will end if 'the gays' get to marry the person they love. Now ask that person if they hate/are against gay people and they will tell you completely straight faced and without recognizing the irony that, "No of course not, many of my friends are gay. They will just burn in the fires of hell forever and take all of us with them if they get married."
All this just makes me wonder if gay people sit around obsessing about the sex lives of Christians. Rob?
Gosh Peg, there's no reason to throw up strawmen to confuse the issue. All I'm really asking (perhaps inartfully) is that if you believe that a person selling a gun is a party to whatever actions the buyer takes with the gun, would your argument be that the seller has a moral imperative to sell no guns? If so, would the same moral imperative apply to a business owner who believed same-sex marriage was a sin and therefore declined to participate?
apples and oranges Alan. If the gun dealer had the moral imperative to not sell guns then he wouldn't be in business would he considering he sells only one thing. Guns. A gun dealer who had morals against guns wouldn't BE a gun dealer. And a pizza baker who has morals against baking pizzas shouldn't be in the pizza business. But they do sell pizzas, don't they. They just want to pick and choose who they sell to based not on their behavior in the pizza place,(where they DO have the right to kick people out) or on if they came in with 'no shoes/no shirt', or even on some dastardly use of the pizza (trying to think of a crime committed with a pizza pie but can't come up with one just now) but because AFTER they consume the pizza( the intended purpose of a pizza) they just might *****. And, they want the law to back them up on this. That is called discrimination. And the most ridiculous over reach of law, which is why Pence was called out on it. Rightly so.
I know gun store owners who will not sell to everyone who walks into the store. They have no moral issues with selling guns. They have issues selling guns to people they suspect will misuse them. I've observed customers being asked to leave even before the background check stage.
Now, could a Christian baker reasonably refuse to decorate a cake with "Hail, Our Lord Satan" on the icing?
Or a Moslem baker a cake with "Happy Treaty of Granada Day!"?
There is a Memories Pizza Company located here in Wisconsin that's been getting a fair amount of harassing calls and internet attacks. Apparently a lot of our bien pensant progressive community is geographically challenged.
."
All this just makes me wonder if gay people sit around obsessing about the sex lives of Christians. Rob?
I can't speak for all gay people, or even for Rob, but personally I try not to spend much time worrying about the sex lives of Christians. Or straight people. The hot gay couple that was on my train this morning. That's a different story. This weekend I may spend some time thinking about their sex life. At least for 12 minutes or so... But most people's sex lives. No thank you. That would be a dreadful, and unpleasant, use of my time.
gimmethesimplelife
4-3-15, 4:53pm
I believe they are afraid because people have told them to be afraid. Those who influence them, politicians or spiritual leaders, have told them that essentially the world will end if 'the gays' get to marry the person they love. Now ask that person if they hate/are against gay people and they will tell you completely straight faced and without recognizing the irony that, "No of course not, many of my friends are gay. They will just burn in the fires of hell forever and take all of us with them if they get married."
All this just makes me wonder if gay people sit around obsessing about the sex lives of Christians. Rob?Ummmmm.....No. I don't sit around and obsess about the sex lives of Christians. I have better things to do/more constructive ways to spend my time. Rob
apples and oranges Alan. I'm sorry, it was your example, I thought you might want to examine it from multiple angles.
iris lilies
4-3-15, 8:28pm
I can't speak for all gay people, or even for Rob, but personally I try not to spend much time worrying about the sex lives of Christians. Or straight people. The hot gay couple that was on my train this morning. That's a different story. This weekend I may spend some time thinking about their sex life. At least for 12 minutes or so... But most people's sex lives. No thank you. That would be a dreadful, and unpleasant, use of my time.
haha, I snorted.
. At least for 12 minutes or so....
:laff::laff::laff:
I know gun store owners who will not sell to everyone who walks into the store. They have no moral issues with selling guns. They have issues selling guns to people they suspect will misuse them. I've observed customers being asked to leave even before the background check stage.
And I agree with this. This is good judgement based on individuals and the gun owners personal 'gut feeling' if you will. I applaud these types of sellers. it's incredibly personal and direct.
Pizza parlor owner also have these rights, the right to refuse service to disruptive customers, naked customers, or anyone who interferes with their right to conduct business in a lawful, peaceful way that accommodates their other customers.
However, refusing business simply because you don't 'approve' of 'their type' whether gay, black, women with uncovered heads, whatever, is discrimination. Choosing to not sell to an individual because of gut feelings of danger are vastly different from refusing to sell to a 'group' because of who they are.
It is always reassuring to hear of responsible gun sellers who rely on their feelings/knowledge/experience to have the courage to refuse to sell to someone who shouldn't have a gun. I certainly have no problem with these folks. Good to know they are out there.
Now, could a Christian baker reasonably refuse to decorate a cake with "Hail, Our Lord Satan" on the icing?
Or a Moslem baker a cake with "Happy Treaty of Granada Day!"?
Yes, absolutely. That is, in fact, endorsing/participating in the event. That is certainly a case of freedom. You wouldn't necessarily have to be religious to object to that.
I don't believe the pizza parlor owners in question were asked to put a d*ldo on the pizza, or write anything endorsing on the pizza pies. Just cheese pizza. (and not even brie!);)
Yes, absolutely. That is, in fact, endorsing/participating in the event. That is certainly a case of freedom. You wouldn't necessarily have to be religious to object to that.
I don't believe the pizza parlor owners in question were asked to put a d*ldo on the pizza, or write anything endorsing on the pizza pies. Just cheese pizza. (and not even brie!);)
Actually, the pizza parlor owners in question never refused service to anyone, this was a case of a news reporter asking them if they would be willing to cater a same sex wedding, with the question being asked as part of a story on the RFRA legislation. I think it would have been interesting if the reporters had dug a little deeper and asked a Jewish business if they would be willing to cater a skinhead event or perhaps a minority owned business to cater a KKK rally. Would a polite refusal have garnered the same response?
Marriage isn't a hate-fueled event for most of us.
Actually, the pizza parlor owners in question never refused service to anyone, this was a case of a news reporter asking them if they would be willing to cater a same sex wedding, with the question being asked as part of a story on the RFRA legislation. I think it would have been interesting if the reporters had dug a little deeper and asked a Jewish business if they would be willing to cater a skinhead event or perhaps a minority owned business to cater a KKK rally. Would a polite refusal have garnered the same response?
So are you saying that a gay wedding is to a conservative christian the same as a skinhead event would be to a Jew or a KKK rally to a minority? If that's the perception that conservative christians have of gay weddings I guess we now understand the fear that bae was asking about earlier.
ApatheticNoMore
4-3-15, 11:32pm
I think the analogy was just supposed to be that they are both opposed to doing business in principle, but it didn't' occur that a minority might also have decent rational reason to have some fear for their physical safety with the KKK rally .... (guess that's why they call it privilege! not to even SEE the danger there). And the fear for one's physical safety from catering a gay wedding ... not so much so.
Anyway I never said I had absolutely certain conviction either way as to rights of small mom and pop type businesses, it's just that in this country that always goes slippery slope into granting such rights to corporations, which is no way to run a society. But regardless I do think we should stop paying much respect to those who make opposition to gays the center of their "morality". Crimney we live in a society where destruction of the world seems the price of participation (environmental destruction of the world), where everyone who pays taxes or truthfully uses the dollar is enabling aggressive and unnecessary war and many businesses much more directly help this out (the I.C. in MIC), where people often make choices they know are morally compromised out of the force of economic necessity (that's not prescriptive, merely descriptive), and what are some people concerned about keeping their precious little hands clean of: teh gay!
Anyone who thinks that 'the gays' are as likely to be anywhere near as aggressive and violent as skinheads or the KKK has clearly never actually met an out gay person in person, much less seen large numbers of us in any one place.
To make the comparison of gay people to skinheads or KKK is, frankly, as insulting as comparing us to pedophiles. Frankly the fear that bae asked about should be gay people's of anyone who would make that comparison, not of Christian's fear of gay people. Clearly someone who would make such a baseless comparison can't be trusted to behave rationally towards gay people because they have a very warped view of who we are and what threat we may represent to them.
ApatheticNoMore
4-4-15, 1:27am
I parsed it differently and figured the error of the analogy was underestimating the danger to minorities of hate groups rather than overestimating how dangerous gays are, which is no greater than the danger at any other wedding. Because while it's not super active out in the open at present I guess, KKK members have killed innocent people. They aren't just "a group with bad ideas" to oppose, but a group whose members have murdered people out of racial hate. Therefore a minority not wanting to be at a KKK rally isn't just "because of principles". A Democrat not wanting to cater the meeting of the local Republicans, see that might serve as a tolerable analogy of: "because of principles".
So are you saying that a gay wedding is to a conservative christian the same as a skinhead event would be to a Jew or a KKK rally to a minority? No, just thinking of the different ways principled resistance is viewed.
That's not a simple black-and-white thing though. It depends on circumstance and context.
True, there are very few, if any, black and white answers when constructing a viable and equitable society. It seems like the closer you get to the ends of the spectrum the grayer it gets. I suppose that's what makes our discussions here, and others like them, valuable.
So where does the "fear" come in? What are they afraid of?
My purely anecdotal evidence suggests that its mostly the fear of the reaction within your peer group if you break from their version of cultural norms. My staunch southern Baptist/rural/conservative mother and gay/agnostic/urban/liberal youngest brother have provided an ongoing case study for me. Maintaining the carefully cultivated image of my mom's life within her social circles takes precedence over just about anything that is not truly life and death. And even then she would have to weigh the options. The thought of the back stories being revealed is actually terrifying for her. (For example, my brother's partner of 16 or 17 years has never been to her house and likely never will be.) As sad as that all is, I don't think she is unique in that regard.
Actually, the pizza parlor owners in question never refused service to anyone, this was a case of a news reporter asking them if they would be willing to cater a same sex wedding, with the question being asked as part of a story on the RFRA legislation. I think it would have been interesting if the reporters had dug a little deeper and asked a Jewish business if they would be willing to cater a skinhead event or perhaps a minority owned business to cater a KKK rally. Would a polite refusal have garnered the same response?
A simple and polite reply along the lines of, "I'm not really comfortable with that, but thank you for asking" should be perfectly acceptable in any reasonable society. There is no need for insults or for anyone to lose their dignity in any way. The pizza people could continue on with their *morals* in tact. The same sex couple could avoid any stress and conflict that might come from working with someone who viewed what they are doing as wrong and could, in fact, find someone who would be supportive and joyful at their event. A little civility usually goes a long way.
Me neither. What exactly does Indiana's RFRA law have to do with "the LGBT thing"?
I wonder why too. But the fact is that when average people who supported this law are asked they are upset at how things are playing out they always talk about not wanting to sell their product or service to gay people. Like the florist interviewed in the video below. She's perfectly fine with selling flowers to adulterers who are getting married, but not to gays. For whatever reason, for a significant segment of the conservative christian population, being gay is by far the worst sin out there.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/04/01/ac-pkg-tuchman-georgia-florists-religious-freedom-bill.cnn
ApatheticNoMore
4-4-15, 3:08pm
perhaps because it's the only one they'd be certain not to commit. sex outside of marriage? yea that's everybody. adultery? not everybody but everyone may have committed "adultery in their heart" :) i think a lot of straight women may have at one time or other seen the appeal in a gay affair, but I don't think straight men do.
... i think a lot of straight women may have at one time or other seen the appeal in a gay affair, but I don't think straight men do.
"Straight" is such an odd concept...
"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. "
A simple and polite reply along the lines of, "I'm not really comfortable with that, but thank you for asking" should be perfectly acceptable in any reasonable society.
That would seem to me the ideal. But in this case we apparently have a clash of incompatible moral operating systems. On the one side, we have people wanting to "bear witness" to their beliefs at the cost of insulting a neighbor. On the other, we see a desire to quash a species of cultural dissent using the power of the state, with religious liberty being acceptable collateral damage. The whole thing strikes me more as a dispute over power than morality.
In a healthier, more pluralistic society people should be able to act as they see fit without being answerable for their motivations.
Funny. I see it similarly, yet not at all the same. One the one hand we've got a group of people that want cake and flowers. (no one invites the baker or florist to the wedding. They aren't being asked to bear witness to anything. Hopefully they've dropped off these things and left well before the ceremony starts.) On the other we've got people who seem to be cherry picking one sin that they deem to be so bad that they won't sell cake and flowers to the people who practice that one sin, but will happily sell to people who commit every other sin. The whole thing strikes me more as a dispute over power than morality.
Funny. I see it similarly, yet not at all the same. One the one hand we've got a group of people that want cake and flowers. (no one invites the baker or florist to the wedding. They aren't being asked to bear witness to anything. Hopefully they've dropped off these things and left well before the ceremony starts.) On the other we've got people who seem to be cherry picking one sin that they deem to be so bad that they won't sell cake and flowers to the people who practice that one sin, but will happily sell to people who commit every other sin. The whole thing strikes me more as a dispute over power than morality.
I’ve no doubt there’s an overabundance of cherry-picking and hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. But that only matters if you’re interested in legislating your particular form of morality. Why not leave government out of it and let the market (for values or for flowers) clear without interference?
iris lilies
4-6-15, 12:04pm
In real life, LBGT people wouldn't select a non gay vendor.
in real life, how hard is it to find a gay florist?
Stereotyping, Faux. Stereotyping. You know how there is Zero (0) Tolerance for stereotyping, here. You can get in DEEP trouble for it. But, what about male hairdressers? Or Male Lirrrarrans? Or Male Kindergarden Teachers? Or: Male Interior decorator? Any guy that holds a "traditionally female-dominated occupation" may be Stereotyped as possibly gay. My former neighbor, that I was friends with, had graduated from the local state U with a degree in "Hospitality Management /and Interior design" Sounds pretty gay, doesn't it? But, as far as I know, he sure wasn't. These days, I think he has a small remodeling contracting company, so his background prolly helps his business. How do you like that? Thankk Mee.
In real life, LBGT people wouldn't select a non gay vendor.
in real life, how hard is it to find a gay florist?
I was thinking that too. Who would want to use a baker/florist that they know doesn't approve of them? Word would get around fairly quickly and that would be that.
I think a lot of this is from very conservative "christians" and also from the "me" culture that we have. Everyone thinks that living in this country means that everyone should have what they want.......that they have a right to everything. I think it might be the natural (?) evolution of having a society based on certain rights. It soon turns into nobody thinking/feeling that they have to compromise anything.
Speaking of far-right christians.........my father was sort of one. He was a minister and a "born-again-christian". He wasn't a good person. Anyhow.......I can remember as a child, me asking him "So what if there's an African tribesman somewhere in the bush in Africa......if he isn't "saved", is his blood on my hands?" And he said "Yes!" This is how some of those people think.........that if they have anything at all to do with something that "God" says is wrong, then they will go to hell.
I understand not wanting to support something you don't believe in, to an extent. I'm not sure how I feel about all this. Freedom can lead to some real dilemmas.
In that cnn video I linked to all 5 of the florists in the town stated that they would not sell to gay couples getting married. Personally I'd rather not have flowers at my wedding before I'd buy from any of them. Other people might make a different decision.
If wanting to be able to buy flowers is an unreasonable expectation then maybe Tom Cotton is right. Gays should just shut up and be happy that we don't live in Iran.
The whole thing strikes me more as a dispute over power than morality.
I think that's most likely correct. As with many things in our country, following the trail of $$$ would probably be insightful, too.
Indiana is backward in many respects. I was really floored when I saw the public overhwhelming reaction to this. It made me happy to see Hoosiers finally taking a stand on something. Then I started thinking "why this battle? Why would people get so up in arms over this, rather than our problems with education, poverty, building ridiculous sports venues rather than fixing infrastructure, Then it hit me.........it's more about people losing money over this at their businesses (if the rest of the country boycotts Indiana).. Don't you think that's why it's getting so much attention?
As for power.........I think that's in the religious thinking too. There's power in thinking that you're directly connected to the master of the universe and are his/her/its spoke-person. To a very conservative religious right person, there IS NO COMPROMISE. Period.
Indiana is backward in many respects. I was really floored when I saw the public overhwhelming reaction to this. It made me happy to see Hoosiers finally taking a stand on something. Then I started thinking "why this battle? Why would people get so up in arms over this, rather than our problems with education, poverty, building ridiculous sports venues rather than fixing infrastructure, Then it hit me.........it's more about people losing money over this at their businesses (if the rest of the country boycotts Indiana).. Don't you think that's why it's getting so much attention?
As for power.........I think that's in the religious thinking too. There's power in thinking that you're directly connected to the master of the universe and are his/her/its spoke-person. To a very conservative religious right person, there IS NO COMPROMISE. Period.
I see it a little differently. I think there is an element of power involved, but it's the power of the government to force its citizens to violate conscience. You really don't need to be "a very conservative religious right person" to resist,
I see it a little differently. I think there is an element of power involved, but it's the power of the government to force its citizens to violate conscience. You really don't need to be "a very conservative religious right person" to resist,
I think that’s true. The discussion seems to be centering on the dangers presented by an unfettered Conservative Christian Cake Cartel largely because conservative Christians have long served as valuable stock villains in the progressive narrative. Nobody seems to be worried about what the Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs might get up to if allowed freedom of conscience.
ApatheticNoMore
4-6-15, 2:34pm
I think people who make opposition to gays the center of their morality have a rather warped definition of morality. But it's not the right-wing Christians (and please let's not pretend they have a monopoly on the whole religion) I worry about near so much as the corporations and granting them rights. That is the problem. Not the Christians but the corporations!
I think that’s true. The discussion seems to be centering on the dangers presented by an unfettered Conservative Christian Cake Cartel largely because conservative Christians have long served as valuable stock villains in the progressive narrative. Nobody seems to be worried about what the Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs might get up to if allowed freedom of conscience.
Wonder what happens if you wander into a Muslim bakery and ask them to make you a gay wedding cake?
Or a Jewish pastry shop, and ask for a Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler cake?
I'd be worried about what was put in the cake if the bakery was forced to make it.
ApatheticNoMore
4-6-15, 4:08pm
I just wonder if it's such a big deal and for some reason one needs that particular place to service one's wedding (though don't' ask me why), why not lie and say the flowers are for a straight wedding or the cake was? Then the place gets to not know who it's working for, problem solved.
I just wonder if it's such a big deal and for some reason one needs that particular place to service one's wedding (though don't' ask me why), why not lie and say the flowers are for a straight wedding or the cake was? Then the place gets to not know who it's working for, problem solved.
I know we have a tendency to personalize everything, but have you considered it's not so much a matter of 'who' but of 'what'? I'm not aware of anyone refusing service to a gay person, but rather refusing service to a particular celebration.
In a more market based solution the responsibilities would be more evenly split between consumer and supplier with the government operating only as needed for dispute resolution. Any supplier can easily name itself "Conservative Christian Cakes" (to stick with our tried and true example) and promote the fact that its products have that bias without violating any reasonable statutes. Any consumer who's beliefs run more liberally than that is free to, and arguably responsible to seek out a supplier like "Progressive Pastries". Of course our society thrives on conflict so rather than all of the above coexisting peacefully there will always be someone who feels the need to be offended by the most banal of concepts. At that point we can only hope we have reasonable minds in charge to determine what is a legitimate problem and what is simply a quest for something beyond a solution to a non-existent issue.
In a more market based solution the responsibilities would be more evenly split between consumer and supplier with the government operating only as needed for dispute resolution. Any supplier can easily name itself "Conservative Christian Cakes" (to stick with our tried and true example) and promote the fact that its products have that bias without violating any reasonable statutes. Any consumer who's beliefs run more liberally than that is free to, and arguably responsible to seek out a supplier like "Progressive Pastries". Of course our society thrives on conflict so rather than all of the above coexisting peacefully there will always be someone who feels the need to be offended by the most banal of concepts. At that point we can only hope we have reasonable minds in charge to determine what is a legitimate problem and what is simply a quest for something beyond a solution to a non-existent issue.
I like it. it moves the concept of fake activism out of the lapel ribbon/hashtag era to the next level.
I like it. it moves the concept of fake activism out of the lapel ribbon/hashtag era to the next level.
Question is whether or not we can recover from out addiction to soundbites and our total abdication of personal responsibility.
Question is whether or not we can recover from out addiction to soundbites and our total abdication of personal responsibility.
Several years ago, I read a book titled "Hard America, Soft America", that talked about the differences between the various segments of our society where performance was demanded and excuses not accepted (the military, public safety, etc.) and the segments that were more open to special pleading and victim ideology (academia, politics etc.). The two groups were becoming mutually unintelligible, and the author (I think it was Michael Barone) predicted it would get worse. I'm inclined to agree, based on recent history.
ApatheticNoMore
4-7-15, 12:04pm
In a more market based solution the responsibilities would be more evenly split between consumer and supplier with the government operating only as needed for dispute resolution. Any supplier can easily name itself "Conservative Christian Cakes" (to stick with our tried and true example) and promote the fact that its products have that bias without violating any reasonable statutes. Any consumer who's beliefs run more liberally than that is free to, and arguably responsible to seek out a supplier like "Progressive Pastries".
I question whether we want all businesses to be political rather than just businesses (that's a different question than should they be legally held to some social responsibility standards, which is of course). Sure people boycott and avoid certain businesses over their practices (out of values and sometimes values as politics), but when you want cake making to take a liberal/progressive split, well it would be a different world. I can't say a better world, but different.
Sounds like a great way to insure that different groups can forever keep themselves isolated into their own small little worlds and not have to associate with anyone who is "other". I suppose some people might think that sounds great, but personally that sounds kind of dreadful.
I'd be worried about what was put in the cake if the bakery was forced to make it.
Yeah, cause nothing says Jesus like poisoning people.:(
Wonder what happens if you wander into a Muslim bakery and ask them to make you a gay wedding cake?
Or a Jewish pastry shop, and ask for a Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler cake?
False equivalency. And what exactly IS a 'gay' wedding cake?
First of all, you don't write anything on a wedding cake. They weren't asked to draw d*ldos, or write "I love the gays" or anything. It was a fancy cake. Period.
(((sigh))) Again, for the umpteenth time, no one was asked to ENDORSE/celebrate/or bake ANYTHING they don't already do. If that Jewish bakery actually makes a 'Happy Birthday Hitler' cake, then yeah, it would be discrimination to say "You, you, you, not you/skin color wrong"
Yes yes we've all seen the idiot going into a bakery asking for an anti-gay cake with anti-gay messages on the cake. Of course they were refused. But I'm guessing if that moron had simply asked for a cake for his christian wedding, the Muslim baker wouldn't have had a bit of problem with it. Why don't we do that little experiment?
False equivalency.
No. It is nearly identical. Pizza for a wedding reception at a gay wedding is quite similar to a wedding cake baked for a gay wedding with a bride and bride placed lovingly atop the decoration of the cake. If no decoration, then it *is* identical to the pizza case, presuming no decorations were ordered atop the pizza.
And what exactly IS a 'gay' wedding cake?
A wedding cake. For a gay wedding.
iris lilies
4-7-15, 1:36pm
False equivalency. And what exactly IS a 'gay' wedding cake?...
It has two men as the topper. Are those normally in the stock of all bakeries? Should we legislate that that be so?
http://www.amazon.com/Romance-Gay-Wedding-Cake-Topper/dp/B00HRG8EB2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428428483&sr=8-1&keywords=Two+grooms+wedding+cake+topper
$33 at amazon. With Prime it'll be at the happy couple's house in 2 days. Now the bakery can just make a generic wedding cake. Problem solved.
iris lilies
4-7-15, 1:58pm
http://www.amazon.com/Romance-Gay-Wedding-Cake-Topper/dp/B00HRG8EB2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428428483&sr=8-1&keywords=Two+grooms+wedding+cake+topper
$33 at amazon. With Prime it'll be at the happy couple's house in 2 days. Now the bakery can just make a generic wedding cake. Problem solved.
ah! So you won't require the bakery to keep these in stock or to even provide an appropriate topper.
Agreed.
Yeah, cause nothing says Jesus like poisoning people.:(
LOL! Like I like to say to people who have made "christianity" into something it wasn't meant to be.........."That must have Jesus rolling over in his grave."
Sounds like a great way to insure that different groups can forever keep themselves isolated into their own small little worlds and not have to associate with anyone who is "other". I suppose some people might think that sounds great, but personally that sounds kind of dreadful.
What if I don't want to associate with anyone who is "other"? Shouldn't I have that right? Should anyone else be able to tell me I don't have that right? Through your lens (and mine), yes, it would be dreadful, but that doesn't make our way right for everyone and it certainly doesn't make forcing our way on others right for anyone. Or should we legislate every Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Italy, WASP-ville, etc. out of existence for being too homogenous? What about the Castro or Palm Springs or Provincetown?
I'm not one who thinks the free market will fix all our ills, but it would be very efficient in this case. In a business it makes sense to alienate as few potential customers as possible. Anyone with any business savvy probably considers that an axiom. One of the biggest trends of all is the acceptance by the younger generation(s) of people from outside their own tribe. As that mentality takes over there will be less and less opportunity for businesses that don't wish to cater to a wider variety of customers. This is one of the few cases in which keeping our fingers out of the pie will let the problem fix itself.
http://www.amazon.com/Romance-Gay-Wedding-Cake-Topper/dp/B00HRG8EB2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428428483&sr=8-1&keywords=Two+grooms+wedding+cake+topper
$33 at amazon. With Prime it'll be at the happy couple's house in 2 days. Now the bakery can just make a generic wedding cake. Problem solved.Yeah, but: I am sure that the Christian-Principled Bakeries have been a jump ahead of this. See, if you order a wedding cake---especially one with no hetero couple figurine already on it---what they will do is slyly insist upon seeing a marriage license, at the time the order is placed. If the names don't sound right--well, that's it. No cake for you! Remember The Soup Nazi on Seinfeld? He decided who got served, and who didn't. All there was to it. If he didn't like your behavior, you were out of there. And these days---Life Imitates Art. You People would be better off ordering Pizzas Catered, than dealing with an Activist Cake Bakery.
Obviously Johnny cash's boy named Sue will have an easier time surreptitiously buying a cake for his gay wedding...
What if I don't want to associate with anyone who is "other"? Shouldn't I have that right? Should anyone else be able to tell me I don't have that right? Through your lens (and mine), yes, it would be dreadful, but that doesn't make our way right for everyone and it certainly doesn't make forcing our way on others right for anyone. Or should we legislate every Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Italy, WASP-ville, etc. out of existence for being too homogenous? What about the Castro or Palm Springs or Provincetown?
I'm not one who thinks the free market will fix all our ills, but it would be very efficient in this case. In a business it makes sense to alienate as few potential customers as possible. Anyone with any business savvy probably considers that an axiom. One of the biggest trends of all is the acceptance by the younger generation(s) of people from outside their own tribe. As that mentality takes over there will be less and less opportunity for businesses that don't wish to cater to a wider variety of customers. This is one of the few cases in which keeping our fingers out of the pie will let the problem fix itself.
I agree that people should be free to choose where they live. And indeed some people who live in Chinatown or the Castro or wherever may live terribly insulated lives. (I had a friend in NYC whose parents had moved to NY Chinatown from China and literally never ventured more than a couple blocks from their apartment. They didn't speak any English and didn't want to learn. My friend was fully integrated into American life and thought her parents lived a ridiculously small, sad life.) But a lot of people who live in communities like Chinatown or the Castro don't. Most of my friends who live in the Castro hold jobs outside the Castro. The reality is that it costs a lot of money to live in the Castro and employment there is limited to service jobs, so many people leave it every day to go to corporate or tech jobs in other San Francisco neighborhoods or different cities in the bay area. And while most of the businesses there cater primarily to gay people I've not been to a bar or restaurant there that would turn away business from a straight person. I've actually brought straight friends to several places there without incident or even considering that there might be an incident. It's possible that I'm wrong but I'd imagine that even a florist in the Castro would be fine with selling flowers for a straight wedding because it's not that we don't think straights should marry, it's just that we think we should also be able to marry.
I also agree with you that as we all age this will become less of an issue. The younger generation, raised in an era where you can find people with shared interests via the internet, seem to be much less concerned with the idea that one needs to stick to their own physically nearby and similar community.
And I tend to agree that we've reached a point where the issue of businesses wanting to discriminate against certain groups of people will indeed take care of itself. We all saw how quick the response was to the pizza place in Indiana. Frankly I'm stunned at how quickly acceptance of gay people has happened. In just 30 years we've gone from it being perfectly acceptable for a presidential press secretary to laugh and joke when asked questions about an epidemic that was killing gay men to arguing over whether someone should be legally required to bake a cake for my wedding. In another ten years I suspect that all of this will be a total non-issue.
Well, the most frequent comment I see in online responses to "news" articles on this topic is not pro- or even con- , but the rhetorical question: "why IS this such an issue?"
Packy, apparently this guy (and me also) agrees with the commenters you cite.
Redneck News Reporter Looks for Evidence Gay Marriage is Destroying Alabama - Jeremy Todd Addaway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hJQFX0Wn58
And while most of the businesses there cater primarily to gay people I've not been to a bar or restaurant there that would turn away business from a straight person. I've actually brought straight friends to several places there without incident or even considering that there might be an incident. It's possible that I'm wrong but I'd imagine that even a florist in the Castro would be fine with selling flowers for a straight wedding because it's not that we don't think straights should marry, it's just that we think we should also be able to marry.
And I've been one of the straight guys that's gone to some of those gay slanted businesses in the Castro, WeHo and a few other homosexual hotspots and always had a fine time. On the other side of the coin I don't know a single florist in my too-conservative-even-for-me hamlet in the mid-west that wouldn't be thrilled to provide all the flowers a gay couple wanted for their wedding (if only it was legal for them to get married here). There might be one here, but if there is they are a super-minority and not in a position to court my business. Its wrong to accept almost any level of discrimination, but its just as wrong to legislate to resolve every single individual complaint. The answer needs to come from outside the government and, as roundaboutly stated above by both of us, its already happening at a pace a bloated government can't match anyway.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.