Indiana's Religious Freedom Act

[Pregame 291]

Has ND had any statements on this? I haven't seen anything.

 

The most frustrating thing about this is that the GOP has completely lost touch with anyone under the age of 60.

 

Also, I LOVE it that they are using "Religious Freedom" in order to legalize discrimination. Jesus was a pretty accepting dude last time I checked, bet he'd sit down with some gay people for a bite to eat.

[Donjuan 16]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html?nopager=1

[jbrown_9999 1,020]

For me, this is an example of the media being at fault for needlessly stirring the pot.

 

Please explain why there is no outcry about the same basic law already being passed in 19 other states as well at the federal level. I believe Obama voted to pass it in Illinois and Clinton signed a Democratically introduced law over 20 years ago.

 

For me, the issue is not that this law passed but that Indiana (and the US/other states) should have a non-discrimination statue that includes sexual orientation.

[Pregame 291]

For me, this is an example of the media being at fault for needlessly stirring the pot.

 

Please explain why there is no outcry about the same basic law already being passed in 19 other states as well at the federal level. I believe Obama voted to pass it in Illinois and Clinton signed a Democratically introduced law over 20 years ago.

 

For me, the issue is not that this law passed but that Indiana (and the US/other states) should have a non-discrimination statue that includes sexual orientation.

Because the law is different.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

[VCDomer 68]

This is an interesting debate for sure. The enlightenment of our society over the past 20 years (and I suspect to come in the next 20 years) will require inventive and crafty ways to write laws to protect those deemed needing the protection and removing/limiting the freedoms of those who are no longer afforded it for the "good of all". The real study will be to watch when the laws enacted for the "good of all" no longer apply to "the all" but instead exclusively to the newly established majority who were once the historical minority before enlightened laws were passed. This goes far beyond the rights of the gay and lesbian community.

Edited March 31, 2015 by VCDomer

[EddieAngel 508]

Putting aside my own religious beliefs, the idea of capitalism precludes the idea of being force to provide goods and/or services to anyone under compulsion. From a capitalist standpoint, it might be a bad idea to choose not to serve someone for moral reasons, but there is no reason it should be illegal.

 

If a group of KKK members walks into a restaurant should an African American server be compelled to wait on them? It seems like the vast majority of Americans are "enlightened" so who cares if a small number of private business owners choose not to provide services for moral reasons.

[nickman54 0]

So much butthurt.

[1qa 0]

Putting aside my own religious beliefs, the idea of capitalism precludes the idea of being force to provide goods and/or services to anyone under compulsion. From a capitalist standpoint, it might be a bad idea to choose not to serve someone for moral reasons, but there is no reason it should be illegal.

 

If a group of KKK members walks into a restaurant should an African American server be compelled to wait on them? It seems like the vast majority of Americans are "enlightened" so who cares if a small number of private business owners choose not to provide services for moral reasons.

 

Part of the issue for me is that rights are being afforded to business and organizations by a broad interpretation of "person." This goes back to the Hobby Lobby argument where a business is arguing to avoid paying for drugs that could be used as contraception because it offends its religious value.

 

A corporation is set up to limit liabilities to its executive officers and facilitate ownership... That's capitalism. All abide by the same rules. this law could be abused to evoke religious belief to avoid providing benefits or services to customers.

 

So to your example... The public business would be compelled to serve the KKK, but the at will employee could choose to avoid the service at risk of being fired for insubordination.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

Part of the issue for me is that rights are being afforded to business and organizations by a broad interpretation of "person." This goes back to the Hobby Lobby argument where a business is arguing to avoid paying for drugs that could be used as contraception because it offends its religious value.

 

A corporation is set up to limit liabilities to its executive officers and facilitate ownership... That's capitalism. All abide by the same rules. this law could be abused to evoke religious belief to avoid providing benefits or services to customers.

 

So to your example... The public business would be compelled to serve the KKK, but the at will employee could choose to avoid the service at risk of being fired for insubordination.

 

I am sorry, but I agreed with Hobby Lobby. The government should not be able to force a business to do something it does not agree with. If the employees want a business to supply them contraceptives, let them get a job with the 1,000,000 other options out there. I did not become a priest because I wanted to get married and have kids, different jobs have different pros and cons, different benefits.

 

Back on topic, I am still confused about the RFRA, conservatives say it is overblown, liberals are going crazy. I need an actual moderate website or person to explain the language in this thing before I have an opinion.

[1qa 0]

I am sorry, but I agreed with Hobby Lobby. The government should not be able to force a business to do something it does not agree with. If the employees want a business to supply them contraceptives, let them get a job with the 1,000,000 other options out there. I did not become a priest because I wanted to get married and have kids, different jobs have different pros and cons, different benefits.

 

Back on topic, I am still confused about the RFRA, conservatives say it is overblown, liberals are going crazy. I need an actual moderate website or person to explain the language in this thing before I have an opinion.

 

I think you'll find RFRA to be okay as you seem willing to extend personhood to corporations.

 

Liberals are up in arms as they feel that RFRA codifies the right of anyone and any organization to potentially discriminate against LGBT on religious grounds; I understand LGBT is not a protected status.

 

Personally, I always baffles me how someone would know someone else's sexual preference.

 

As for Hobby Lobby, I guess we will just have to disagree on that topic. Iirc, i believe hobby lobby had an inconsistent record about its medical plan offerings including contraception. And so it also appeared that they didn't want to comply to Obamacare provisions, using religion as an excuse - moral fail in my book.

[EddieAngel 508]

I am sorry, but I agreed with Hobby Lobby. The government should not be able to force a business to do something it does not agree with. If the employees want a business to supply them contraceptives, let them get a job with the 1,000,000 other options out there. I did not become a priest because I wanted to get married and have kids, different jobs have different pros and cons, different benefits.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/03/christian-bakers-face-government-wrath-for-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay/

Back on topic, I am still confused about the RFRA, conservatives say it is overblown, liberals are going crazy. I need an actual moderate website or person to explain the language in this thing before I have an opinion.

 

A lot of people don't understand that this law is pretty much designed to help protect people from being compelled to provide services that are contrary to their religious beliefs and a lot of it comes from the be gay marriage laws. Many Christian small businesses have been subjected o lawsuits for refusing o offer services to gay weddings.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/supreme-court-gay-marriage-new-mexico-photographer

 

So the whole hobby lobby thing really had nothing to do with this as it is about not being forced to provide services contrary to religious refused to build a gay dating website because i don't agree with t when there are a thousand other people who can and would do it. Why would you want to support a business that is opposed to your beliefs?

 

It makes me shake my head, everyone is SO freaking enlightened that the idea of someone holding to religious or moral code just won't do. Free thought? There is no longer a place in our society for people who have a rigid belief structure everything has to be great www have to consider the social implications and we can't hurt feelings.

 

It is okay to do whatever i want because i was born this way but if you disagree i will sue you. This is a super one sided media slam and anyone who dares to support religious freedom is clearly an ignorant savage.

 

In closing, the GOP is just fine, not everyone under 60 has managed to become so learned and tolerant i guess i am just a stupid inbred hillbilly. Also, do that you can stop dragging Jesus into a supporting role for this bullcrap please remember that the Bible clearly illustrates that he lives sinners but does not condone sin. Jesus probably would love i done with a gay couple but i really doubt he would attend a gay wedding.

 

Feel free to say what you want in response this is America and we still have free speech, at least for now.

[corysold 0]

A lot of people don't understand that this law is pretty much designed to help protect people from being compelled to provide services that are contrary to their religious beliefs and a lot of it comes from the be gay marriage laws. Many Christian small businesses have been subjected o lawsuits for refusing o offer services to gay weddings.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/supreme-court-gay-marriage-new-mexico-photographer

 

So the whole hobby lobby thing really had nothing to do with this as it is about not being forced to provide services contrary to religious refused to build a gay dating website because i don't agree with t when there are a thousand other people who can and would do it. Why would you want to support a business that is opposed to your beliefs?

 

It makes me shake my head, everyone is SO freaking enlightened that the idea of someone holding to religious or moral code just won't do. Free thought? There is no longer a place in our society for people who have a rigid belief structure everything has to be great www have to consider the social implications and we can't hurt feelings.

 

It is okay to do whatever i want because i was born this way but if you disagree i will sue you. This is a super one sided media slam and anyone who dares to support religious freedom is clearly an ignorant savage.

 

In closing, the GOP is just fine, not everyone under 60 has managed to become so learned and tolerant i guess i am just a stupid inbred hillbilly. Also, do that you can stop dragging Jesus into a supporting role for this bullcrap please remember that the Bible clearly illustrates that he lives sinners but does not condone sin. Jesus probably would love i done with a gay couple but i really doubt he would attend a gay wedding.

 

Feel free to say what you want in response this is America and we still have free speech, at least for now.

 

This is a fine post.

 

Freedom is what we all want, as long as you aren't free to offend me. I really don't see the issue. If a bakery doesn't want to make cakes for gay weddings, why should they have to? Word will get out and people will choose to visit the bakery or not. The people will speak. If a black store owner doesn't want to serve whites, who cares. If a Muslim owner won't serve Christians, who cares. Plenty of other places will.

 

It seems the minority has this idea that as long as they get what they want, freedom is great. Only when they are told no do issues arise.

 

We live in a free society. I'm free to do something within reason, you are free not to like it. Now obviously that has limits when you get to real discrimination, burning down houses, lynching, beatings etc. but not making a cake? Come on.

[TheRizz 5]

What is wrong with everyone having religious freedom?

 

The media had a lot of shoddy reporting on this and our society (and Pat Haden) drank the kool aid.

 

Should a gay business owner that owns a cake shop be forced to supply the needs of a Christian wedding?

Edited April 1, 2015 by TheRizz

[Rocketsan 768]

I for one applaud Pat Haden's choice to skip the meetings to support his son.

[VCDomer 68]

What is wrong with everyone having religious freedom?

 

The media had a lot of shoddy reporting on this and our society (and Pat Haden) drank the kool aid.

 

Should a gay business owner that owns a cake shop be forced to supply the needs of a Christian wedding?

 

Pat Haden is media savy. He is putting a shiny glow on his program. Don't kid yourself.

[EddieAngel 508]

I for one applaud Pat Haden's choice to skip the meetings to support his son.

 

As do I, I am glad he had the courage to match his convictions, even if he is all that i deplore about SC.

[Rocketsan 768]

Pat Haden is media savy. He is putting a shiny glow on his program. Don't kid yourself.

 

He's supporting his son...who wouldn't?

[Donjuan 16]

 

He's supporting his son...who wouldn't?

 

So why didn't Pat stay out of Texas? Or Connecticut? Or Arizona?? Or the other 17 states with near identical legislation?? Will he NOT be attending the ND game this year to support his son? Will he protest the Alabama game in Texas the following year? How about Washington? Why did he go there and Arizona recently knowing they have the same legislation?? Seems like grandstanding to me. Not to mention, the small fact about this simply being about 'your rights shouldn't infringe on my rights' type of thing. Oh well. Some will see it as they see fit no matter what. Go sports!

[VCDomer 68]

So why didn't Pat stay out of Texas? Or Connecticut? Or Arizona?? Or the other 17 states with near identical legislation?? Will he NOT be attending the ND game this year to support his son? Will he protest the Alabama game in Texas the following year? How about Washington? Why did he go there and Arizona recently knowing they have the same legislation?? Seems like grandstanding to me. Not to mention, the small fact about this simply being about 'your rights shouldn't infringe on my rights' type of thing. Oh well. Some will see it as they see fit no matter what. Go sports!

 

Thank you for stating his hipocrisy so eloquently. Also, isn't the athletic gear that they wear Nike? Where is most of this made? China? Do they have a stellar record on human rights and anti discrimination? Pure grandstanding.

[Pregame 291]

This is a fine post.

 

Freedom is what we all want, as long as you aren't free to offend me. I really don't see the issue. If a bakery doesn't want to make cakes for gay weddings, why should they have to? Word will get out and people will choose to visit the bakery or not. The people will speak. If a black store owner doesn't want to serve whites, who cares. If a Muslim owner won't serve Christians, who cares. Plenty of other places will.

 

It seems the minority has this idea that as long as they get what they want, freedom is great. Only when they are told no do issues arise.

 

We live in a free society. I'm free to do something within reason, you are free not to like it. Now obviously that has limits when you get to real discrimination, burning down houses, lynching, beatings etc. but not making a cake? Come on.

The major concern is that this law could be used for major discrimination like denying people jobs and housing based on sexual orientation. Sure, it's not a big deal if some MANLY CHRISTIAN MANS MAN doesn't want his bakery (pretty gay profession, btw) to cater a gay wedding.

 

But, if you're a small town in Indiana that has businesses refusing a gay guy a job and that gay guy can't get housing either, that's systematic discrimination. Also, under this law, that is completely legal. So now we have some gay guy in rural Indiana who is poor and homeless because somehow everyone is a better Christian by pushing this guy into destitution.