Debate Now State Your Case! Is Indiana's "Religious Freedom" law discriminate against homosexuals?

[TemplarKormac]

As I have done before, I simply pose a challenge to you the reader to state your case, my opinion will come later. Does Indiana's RFRA law call for overt discrimination against homosexual individuals by religious business owners?

1. No religious attacks, no attacks on religion.
2. No ad hominem or mention of political parties.
3. Simple "yes" or "no" answers are not allowed. You must sufficiently state your case before the participants of this thread, and failure to comply means forfeiture of the point.

WARNING: Willful attempts to breach the first two rules will be actively reported to forum administrators.

 

[Nosmo King]

If merchants use this law as legal cover to discriminate, which it certainly will be, then obviously yes.

But merchants must show the harm to them. Merchants deal everyday with heterosexual customers. Do the merchants vet each of these customers? If merchants cite religion as a reason to deny homosexuals the exact same goods and services they provide to their hetero clients, the merchants should be required to investigate all their clients to prevent any other apostate from harming their souls.

But, in fact, these merchants seeking the shield of religion deal with all manner of sinners. Who knows what deviance lies in the heart. But merchants make sure the check clears, enter the transaction in the books and their immortal souls remain in tact.

And the very act of judging lest they not be judged and casting the first stone runs counter to the tenets of the faith they call on as legal protection.

They suffer no harm, monetary or otherwise. And we are talking about a business transaction, not a sacred rite or ritual. The merchants do not participate in the wedding (an argument that exceeds the mandate of wedding vendors). Merchants do not sanctify the ceremony, they are not members of the wedding party, they are not invited guests. The merchants are merely plying their trade, as they do at every other event they have been contracted for.

Baking a cake, catering an affair, arranging flowers are not liturgical tasks, not sacraments or rites.

 

[RoshanNair]

If it is just blatantly against homosexual people, regardless of the product/service, then it's wrong. But if it's product/service specific IE a wedding cake for a gay ceremony, then they have the prerogative to provide/deny the service IMO.

In regards to the latter, I don't even like Christian conservatives, but this is just nonsense on the part of liberal advocates. Unless the business/service has already received your money, thus implicitly promising to deliver, they are under no obligation to cater to your needs.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Our country already has religious freedom. The state does not dictate what Churches preach, does not determine which religions people can and cannot follow, and does not force people to adhere to any religion.

These sorts of superfluous laws are not about religious freedom at all, but about public accommodation and allowing people who have made a quite voluntary choice to believe in the tenets of their religion the ability to act in such a way as to restrict other people's access to the goods and services they offer based upon these freely chosen beliefs.

If a blind person requires a seeing eye dog to navigate in the public sphere, should we allow a Muslim shop owner the right to refuse them the same goods and services they offer others because of their chosen belief that dogs are unclean?

People are free to believe in our country. They are not necessarily free to act upon their beliefs when operating within secular society.

 

[RKMBrown]

Our country already has religious freedom. The state does not dictate what Churches preach, does not determine which religions people can and cannot follow, and does not force people to adhere to any religion.

These sorts of superfluous laws are not about religious freedom at all, but about public accommodation and allowing people who have made a quite voluntary choice to believe in the tenets of their religion the ability to act in such a way as to restrict other people's access to the goods and services they offer based upon these freely chosen beliefs.

If a blind person requires a seeing eye dog to navigate in the public sphere, should we allow a Muslim shop owner the right to refuse them the same goods and services they offer others because of their chosen belief that dogs are unclean?

People are free to believe in our country. They are not necessarily free to act upon their beliefs when operating within secular society.

AYUP... the problem is most people don't feel like they are harming others by refusing public access. It's the ole but we gave them access to a black water fountain, why isn't that good enough mantra...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Our country already has religious freedom. The state does not dictate what Churches preach, does not determine which religions people can and cannot follow, and does not force people to adhere to any religion.

These sorts of superfluous laws are not about religious freedom at all, but about public accommodation and allowing people who have made a quite voluntary choice to believe in the tenets of their religion the ability to act in such a way as to restrict other people's access to the goods and services they offer based upon these freely chosen beliefs.

If a blind person requires a seeing eye dog to navigate in the public sphere, should we allow a Muslim shop owner the right to refuse them the same goods and services they offer others because of their chosen belief that dogs are unclean?

People are free to believe in our country. They are not necessarily free to act upon their beliefs when operating within secular society.

AYUP... the problem is most people don't feel like they are harming others by refusing public access. It's the ole but we gave them access to a black water fountain, why isn't that good enough mantra...

Hmmmmmm.