Indiana's Religious Freedom Act

[EddieAngel 508]

Do your own research, but this is all you need to know about how people feel about the way this has been handled. Tolerance must be a one way street....Death threats are a nice touch for the sheep that live their life on Facebook getting enlightened.

 

http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

 

Proof positive democracy doesn't work. The voters take their principles to the polls, but what the majority chooses is easily offset by whining. Granted, I am minimizing it by calling it whining since it is a major issue, but if the shoe was on the other foot and the bill was stricken down by the majority, the opponents would be thumping the bill of rights about democracy and majority voting.

 

Democracy only works when it is convenient for the squeaky wheel.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

Proof positive democracy doesn't work. The voters take their principles to the polls, but what the majority chooses is easily offset by whining. Granted, I am minimizing it by calling it whining since it is a major issue, but if the shoe was on the other foot and the bill was stricken down by the majority, the opponents would be thumping the bill of rights about democracy and majority voting.

 

Democracy only works when it is convenient for the squeaky wheel.

 

The vocal minority always seems to have more power than the content majority. This happens a lot in today's society... A whole lot.

[Pregame 291]

Proof positive democracy doesn't work. The voters take their principles to the polls, but what the majority chooses is easily offset by whining. Granted, I am minimizing it by calling it whining since it is a major issue, but if the shoe was on the other foot and the bill was stricken down by the majority, the opponents would be thumping the bill of rights about democracy and majority voting.

 

Democracy only works when it is convenient for the squeaky wheel.

I'd attribute the pressure they felt from corporations to the law change way moreso than the whining/protest/complaining/arguments made by the general public. As always, follow the money trail in politics.

 

Democracy, or constitutional republic in the case of the US, also has a much better shot at working when people actually turn up to vote. Indiana had a voter turnout of 29-35% in November (IndyStar). Yikes that's low.

 

My home state illinois only had 36% with only 13% of voters aged 18-29.

 

No matter what you believe, get out there and vote for it. But voter turnout is a horse of a whole different color.

[roarcity269 0]

The vocal minority always seems to have more power than the content majority. This happens a lot in today's society... A whole lot.

 

Simplest, most well stated post of the year.

[EddieAngel 508]

I'd attribute the pressure they felt from corporations to the law change way moreso than the whining/protest/complaining/arguments made by the general public. As always, follow the money trail in politics.

 

Democracy, or constitutional republic in the case of the US, also has a much better shot at working when people actually turn up to vote. Indiana had a voter turnout of 29-35% in November (IndyStar). Yikes that's low.

 

My home state illinois only had 36% with only 13% of voters aged 18-29.

 

No matter what you believe, get out there and vote for it. But voter turnout is a horse of a whole different color.

 

That kind of voter turnout comes from a wait and see reactive culture that seems to be gaining a lot of ground in this country. There is no need to vote for something because if we don't like it we can get it thrown out later.

 

Or the even scarier idea that people are just ok with other people making critical decisions for them. Maybe your statistics are a better argument for the wheels having fallen off democracy than mine. Amazing to see how people died 200 years ago for the right to vote and now people can't be bothered to voice an opinion.

[stdntDrvr 12]

Amazing to see how people died 200 years ago for the right to vote and now people can't be bothered to voice an opinion.

 

duh, that's what twitter, facebook, etc, etc, etc are for...why get off your *** to vote when you can make a larger impact via social media

 

kids these days...

[EddieAngel 508]

duh, that's what twitter, facebook, etc, etc, etc are for...why get off your *** to vote when you can make a larger impact via social media

 

kids these days...

 

LOL. Well said.

[corysold 0]

That kind of voter turnout comes from a wait and see reactive culture that seems to be gaining a lot of ground in this country. There is no need to vote for something because if we don't like it we can get it thrown out later.

 

Or the even scarier idea that people are just ok with other people making critical decisions for them. Maybe your statistics are a better argument for the wheels having fallen off democracy than mine. Amazing to see how people died 200 years ago for the right to vote and now people can't be bothered to voice an opinion.

 

They died 200 years ago to have their voices heard.

 

Today, unless you are rich, poor or a minority, politicians (the other issue, they used to vote for representatives, now we vote for politicians) don't seem to care about you.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

They died 200 years ago to have their voices heard.

 

Today, unless you are rich, poor or a minority, politicians (the other issue, they used to vote for representatives, now we vote for politicians) don't seem to care about you.

 

That means about 60% of the country does not have an opinion worthwhile to politicians. I agree with ya.

[NicePost 0]

As long as a business is privately owned I feel the owners should have the right to do as they see fit with it so long as they are consistent across the board. Consumerism can adjust those issues. Don't buy from companies that don't function according to your own set of principals. The government doesn't need to get involved...

 

Very well stated. This is a true American principle, and the intention of the founding fathers. Although I have no belief in a god and support the rights of the Gay and Lesbian community, I fully support a privately owned business refusing business on religious principles. The Constitution doesn't guarantee that your feelings won't be hurt. Move on to an accommodating business that will provide the service in question. Let the free market decide. Again, good post.

[davislove 0]

Very well stated. This is a true American principle, and the intention of the founding fathers. Although I have no belief in a god and support the rights of the Gay and Lesbian community, I fully support a privately owned business refusing business on religious principles. The Constitution doesn't guarantee that your feelings won't be hurt. Move on to an accommodating business that will provide the service in question. Let the free market decide. Again, good post.

 

In a perfect world you are right, I'm a little more cynical. For every private owned business that wish to operate under their religious belief, there will be a ton of others businesses that will use that clause for their own personal gain or agenda outside of religion. So I do see where the Government has to try and balance this issue. Businesses can/do/should get sued for discrimination so you have to make sure your laws don't become a legal loophole or a way to circumvent being brought up on charges (of discrimination). That would suck for the religion to have these type of people sullying their faith as well.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

That would suck for the religion to have these type of people sullying their faith as well.

 

That literally happens every day, which is why there are anti-religion people here. I would like to see more people lose their ignorance and not just judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a few.

[indyirishdad 0]

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.

 

I just saw this thread and am getting in on it quite late. But, this law goes beyond cakes and weddings. If an employer decides to not hire/fire an employee based on these same examples, it is discrimination, period. This law would protect them.

 

There are currently laws in place to prevent discrimination such as the ADA in all states and some which protect people based on sexual preference in others.

 

There are many examples protected by this law. A doctor refusing to treat a patient, a landlord refusing to rent to a qualified potential tenant, etc. There are many more, but all protected by this law.

 

Furthermore, this law isn't only about the LGBT community. ANY person can be refused service for ANY reason outside religious convictions. Some churches actually teach black skin is a curse from God because Cain killed Abel. You get the point.

 

Religious zealotry should be the focus of conversation in America.

[NicePost 0]

Religious zealotry should be the focus of conversation in America.

 

 

...and its long overdue.

[EddieAngel 508]

I just saw this thread and am getting in on it quite late. But, this law goes beyond cakes and weddings. If an employer decides to not hire/fire an employee based on these same examples, it is discrimination, period. This law would protect them.

 

There are currently laws in place to prevent discrimination such as the ADA in all states and some which protect people based on sexual preference in others.

 

There are many examples protected by this law. A doctor refusing to treat a patient, a landlord refusing to rent to a qualified potential tenant, etc. There are many more, but all protected by this law.

 

Furthermore, this law isn't only about the LGBT community. ANY person can be refused service for ANY reason outside religious convictions. Some churches actually teach black skin is a curse from God because Cain killed Abel. You get the point.

 

Religious zealotry should be the focus of conversation in America.

 

Religious zealotry has been a topic of conversation in this and every other country pretty much since the beginning of recorded history. Do you think that Christians have been protected and get away with whatever they/we want? I can assure you that no group of people is more discriminated and infringed upon in America right now than right wing conservative evangelical Christians.

 

Everyone wants to be free to do what they want now and anyone that actually tries to frame things in the context of a higher moral obligation is met with scorn because my beliefs aren't convenient when two people want to do whatever the heck they want and have it called whatever they want to have it called.

 

Discrimination, racism, hate, do you think these things are based in or caused by religion? I would say that that view is ignorant. How many Atheist humanitarian organizations are out there helping the sick, the poor, the hungry? How many LGBT groups are out there trying to help the marginalized homeless, the persecuted and martyred church abroad? How many liberal anti-religious pat on the back "I'm enlightened" groups are out there making a difference anywhere but their own backyard?

 

The law has been all but struck down so the conversation is moot, but I would probably try to provide a little bit more content before I chalked up this law that was passed through the process of Democracy as religious zealotry. I am not a zealot because I wouldn't be interested in providing services to a gay wedding, I am a conscientious objector. And that is the same for millions of people across America. Blanket discrimination is practiced every single day in America against blacks, whites, gays, Christians, Jews, Catholics, red heads, blonds, freckled, etc...

 

The only time it seems to be an issue is when some ignorant Christian says something about gay marriage. And then suddenly they don't deserve to have that small business they built through smart management, financial sacrifice, customer service, capitalism. They are too ignorant.

 

*smh* The true ignorance in this country is truly astounding. Everyone has to fit into the socially acceptable box. It is ok for LGBTs to do what they want but when a Christian tries to invoke the protection of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights people come out of the woodwork handing out pitchforks and torches. How can you say that anyone should be free to marry anyone but Christians (Also Muslims, Jews, etc) shouldn't be free to refuse service to them? It just makes no sense to me.

[EddieAngel 508]

...and its long overdue.

 

Nice. Way to come in with a snarky signature line while hiding under someone's coat. It is ok to disagree, but do try to add something to the conversation as opposed to being passive aggressive, it is sad.

[davislove 0]

I can assure you that no group of people is more discriminated and infringed upon in America right now than right wing conservative evangelical Christians.

 

I might go with the middle class.

 

It's not infringing or discriminating just because you don't get your way. Feel free to be against gay marriage but you can't force your beliefs on the rest of the world.

 

 

Discrimination, racism, hate, do you think these things are based in or caused by religion? I would say that that view is ignorant. How many Atheist humanitarian organizations are out there helping the sick, the poor, the hungry?

 

Good point. But those meals come with a Bible. So is all the Humanitarian stuff good will or part of a way to lure people into their religion?

 

 

The only time it seems to be an issue is when some ignorant Christian says something about gay marriage. And then suddenly they don't deserve to have that small business they built through smart management, financial sacrifice, customer service, capitalism. They are too ignorant.

 

Owning and operating a business in this country is a privilege, not a right. To do so you need certain permits, license and certifications-- and you also can't discriminate. That's just the cost of doing business. It may seem unfair to people of certain beliefs but we have to look at the big picture and make sure we don't open Pandora's box.

 

*smh* The true ignorance in this country is truly astounding. Everyone has to fit into the socially acceptable box. It is ok for LGBTs to do what they want but when a Christian tries to invoke the protection of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights people come out of the woodwork handing out pitchforks and torches. How can you say that anyone should be free to marry anyone but Christians (Also Muslims, Jews, etc) shouldn't be free to refuse service to them? It just makes no sense to me.

 

Lets see, gay people want the right to get married. Christian Evangelicals want the right to decide who can marry. To be honest, I think the gay community is being more reasonable on this subject. Now I know the issue is much bigger then that but that's for another day i guess. When you bring out the Constitution and Bill of Rights, don't forget the Declaration of Independence and a little passage that reads:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[nickman54 0]

The gaystapo got in front of this news story and controlled the narrative. Plain and simple. The bill in its original form was not an offensive bill, it was written as a defensive bill to give some religious protections at the state level. It was a coup de tat by the gaystapo that wanted to bury mike pence. People acted as is you could discriminate freely with no recourse. Fact of the matter is you only had a right to defense in regards to a lawsuit. Stop watching network news and please educate yourselves on this.

[NicePost 0]

Nice. Way to come in with a snarky signature line while hiding under someone's coat. It is ok to disagree, but do try to add something to the conversation as opposed to being passive aggressive, it is sad.

 

Damn, buddy. And to think I complimented you just a few posts ago. As to snarky signature line, your problem is with Franklin and Jefferson, not me. Deal with it.

Edited April 22, 2015 by NicePost
Grammar police

[EddieAngel 508]

I might go with the middle class.

I agree, I was kind of lumping them together. Sorry.

 

It's not infringing or discriminating just because you don't get your way. Feel free to be against gay marriage but you can't force your beliefs on the rest of the world.

 

I am not forcing anything, I am not saying that you have to pretend gay marriage doesn't exist, I am just saying I am not interested in supporting it or endorsing it.

 

Good point. But those meals come with a Bible. So is all the Humanitarian stuff good will or part of a way to lure people into their religion?

 

No one has to read the Bible to earn their meal. It might be luring or bating, but it is not compulsion and people still have the right to say no, refuse to participate, etc...

 

Owning and operating a business in this country is a privilege, not a right. To do so you need certain permits, license and certifications-- and you also can't discriminate. That's just the cost of doing business. It may seem unfair to people of certain beliefs but we have to look at the big picture and make sure we don't open Pandora's box.

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I see owning a business as a right as it is equally accessible to all people. IF a business owner wants to run his business a certain way and he or she ends up failing as a result, that is business.

 

Lets see, gay people want the right to get married. Christian Evangelicals want the right to decide who can marry. To be honest, I think the gay community is being more reasonable on this subject.

 

I have no problem with a gay couple being afforded the same rights and restrictions as a heterosexual couple. The definition of marriage is the issue, and obviously something that was created as a RELIGIOUS institution has now simply become a contract.

 

Now I know the issue is much bigger then that but that's for another day i guess. When you bring out the Constitution and Bill of Rights, don't forget the Declaration of Independence and a little passage that reads:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

The Declaration of Independence says people are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, not guaranteed happiness. The pursuit of happiness doesn't mean everyone can just do anything and it is all ok. And let's not overlook the part of the passage that says all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator. Without a creator and creation, the rest becomes moot. If we are all evolved from tree climbing apes then we are entitled to nothing, and we are endowed with nothing.

 

But then, at the end of the day this is all my opinion. Take it and four bucks to Starbucks and you can get a cup of coffee.