What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different? Mostly TWO Provisions!

[PratchettFan]

No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.

So that means a restaurant can't put up a sign that says "no shirt, not shoes, no service"?

What about a place that charges $200 for a meal? Aren't they discriminating against poor people?

And i guess women's colleges shouldn't be allowed to exist, or black muslim mosques that deny membership to whites shouldn't exist either.

As long as everyone has to wear shirt and shoes, so long as everyone pays $200, no problem.

Churches constitute private clubs. You don't get to take communion in a Catholic church if you are not Catholic. As to women's colleges, pretty much a private club as well. No one is suggesting the KKK be required to accept African Americans as members.

As I have already said, this is not an all or nothing proposition. It is clearly established the state can prevent discrimination. That it can is settled. You may not think it should be able to, but that does not change the reality of it. The question is simply to what degree it should.

But the shirtless/shoeless coalition can claim discrimination, who are you to judge them!!!! And i guess discriminating against poor people is OK in your book as well. Good to Know!

and you are technically wrong about the communion thing:

"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).

Your logic in your previous post made it an all or nothing proposition, i.e., The government owns your ass, so BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE

I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.

As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.

There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

 

[PratchettFan]

Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.

Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?

Only if they are customers.

Really? So "customer" is now some superduper right enhancement if you belong to a "special" class?

No. If the government is the customer they can buy what they wish. If they wish to buy Idaho potatoes, either the business sells Idaho potatoes or they don't get the contract.

Actually most government contracts are required to allow "or equal" provisions, and avoid sole source procurement. So as long as the potato in question met the specs of an Idaho potato, they would have to allow it to be provided.

That would depend upon the state.

 

[martybegan]

So that means a restaurant can't put up a sign that says "no shirt, not shoes, no service"?

What about a place that charges $200 for a meal? Aren't they discriminating against poor people?

And i guess women's colleges shouldn't be allowed to exist, or black muslim mosques that deny membership to whites shouldn't exist either.

As long as everyone has to wear shirt and shoes, so long as everyone pays $200, no problem.

Churches constitute private clubs. You don't get to take communion in a Catholic church if you are not Catholic. As to women's colleges, pretty much a private club as well. No one is suggesting the KKK be required to accept African Americans as members.

As I have already said, this is not an all or nothing proposition. It is clearly established the state can prevent discrimination. That it can is settled. You may not think it should be able to, but that does not change the reality of it. The question is simply to what degree it should.

But the shirtless/shoeless coalition can claim discrimination, who are you to judge them!!!! And i guess discriminating against poor people is OK in your book as well. Good to Know!

and you are technically wrong about the communion thing:

"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).

Your logic in your previous post made it an all or nothing proposition, i.e., The government owns your ass, so BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE

I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.

As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.

There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

 

[orogenicman]

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.

The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom should know what they're talking about. Read their letter.

Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.

PHEEEEEEEEEEWWW!!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

How is purchasing a cake or a photograph imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout? Do you have any idea how bigoted your statement looks to others? I mean really?

and do you know how fascist your desire to use government to either force a person to comply or crush them makes you look?

Really? You accuse me of being right wing wrt to human rights? Now that's funny.

 

[orogenicman]

Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.

Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?

The issue here is not the product. The issue is the human rights of the parties conducting the business.

and in your book the weight of the government must be brought to suppress the religious convictions of a business owner, instead of the purchasers finding another supplier for a non-critical, easily obtainable item.

and lets be hones, you only care about the human rights of ONE party, to you the Christians in this situation should submit or fuck off.

At least be honest about that.

People have a right to their religious freedoms, but those rights do not extend to discriminating against others in matters of state commerce. Otherwise, a religious business owner could deny services to minorities based on religious "convictions". We saw that in the south for hundreds of years until the civil rights act put a stop to it. The state not only has a right, it has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against human rights violations.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

 

[orogenicman]

As long as everyone has to wear shirt and shoes, so long as everyone pays $200, no problem.

Churches constitute private clubs. You don't get to take communion in a Catholic church if you are not Catholic. As to women's colleges, pretty much a private club as well. No one is suggesting the KKK be required to accept African Americans as members.

As I have already said, this is not an all or nothing proposition. It is clearly established the state can prevent discrimination. That it can is settled. You may not think it should be able to, but that does not change the reality of it. The question is simply to what degree it should.

But the shirtless/shoeless coalition can claim discrimination, who are you to judge them!!!! And i guess discriminating against poor people is OK in your book as well. Good to Know!

and you are technically wrong about the communion thing:

"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).

Your logic in your previous post made it an all or nothing proposition, i.e., The government owns your ass, so BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE

I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.

As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.

There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So let me get this straight. It ruins people lives to sell a product to someone they don't like? They are compensated for the product just like any other business transaction. So where is the harm?

 

[martybegan]

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.

The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom should know what they're talking about. Read their letter.

Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.

PHEEEEEEEEEEWWW!!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

How is purchasing a cake or a photograph imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout? Do you have any idea how bigoted your statement looks to others? I mean really?

and do you know how fascist your desire to use government to either force a person to comply or crush them makes you look?

Really? You accuse me of being right wing wrt to human rights? Now that's funny.

Fascism is all about using the government to force people to do what "the betters" want them to do. If the left is now more fascist than the right, i'm not surprised.

 

[martybegan]

But the shirtless/shoeless coalition can claim discrimination, who are you to judge them!!!! And i guess discriminating against poor people is OK in your book as well. Good to Know!

and you are technically wrong about the communion thing:

Your logic in your previous post made it an all or nothing proposition, i.e., The government owns your ass, so BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE

I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.

As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.

There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So let me get this straight. It ruins people lives to sell a product to someone they don't like? They are compensated for the product just like any other business transaction. So where is the harm?

The harm is when government can fine the $15,000 a pop when they don't sell said product.

You don;t consider that harm?

 

[martybegan]

Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?

The issue here is not the product. The issue is the human rights of the parties conducting the business.

and in your book the weight of the government must be brought to suppress the religious convictions of a business owner, instead of the purchasers finding another supplier for a non-critical, easily obtainable item.

and lets be hones, you only care about the human rights of ONE party, to you the Christians in this situation should submit or fuck off.

At least be honest about that.

People have a right to their religious freedoms, but those rights do not extend to discriminating against others in matters of state commerce. Otherwise, a religious business owner could deny services to minorities based on religious "convictions". We saw that in the south for hundreds of years until the civil rights act put a stop to it. The state not only has a right, it has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against human rights violations.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

See, you a problem with that, I see people finally being honest with each other. The market can handle it, government has no business getting involved with something as petty as wedding cakes.

When it came to the South during Jim Crow, the discrimination was systemic, government enforced, and targeted at crucial business services and products used by a large number of people.

Two gays having to go to another baker for a cake, or another photographer for pictures does not elevate to that level.

 

[orogenicman]

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.

The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom should know what they're talking about. Read their letter.

Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.

PHEEEEEEEEEEWWW!!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

How is purchasing a cake or a photograph imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout? Do you have any idea how bigoted your statement looks to others? I mean really?

and do you know how fascist your desire to use government to either force a person to comply or crush them makes you look?

Really? You accuse me of being right wing wrt to human rights? Now that's funny.

Fascism is all about using the government to force people to do what "the betters" want them to do. If the left is now more fascist than the right, i'm not surprised.

You really ought to take a history class, because, damn.

 

[orogenicman]

I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.

As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.

There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So let me get this straight. It ruins people lives to sell a product to someone they don't like? They are compensated for the product just like any other business transaction. So where is the harm?

The harm is when government can fine the $15,000 a pop when they don't sell said product.

You don;t consider that harm?

People who discriminate against others based on their own bigotry deserve nothing less than a hefty fine.

 

[orogenicman]

The issue here is not the product. The issue is the human rights of the parties conducting the business.

and in your book the weight of the government must be brought to suppress the religious convictions of a business owner, instead of the purchasers finding another supplier for a non-critical, easily obtainable item.

and lets be hones, you only care about the human rights of ONE party, to you the Christians in this situation should submit or fuck off.

At least be honest about that.

People have a right to their religious freedoms, but those rights do not extend to discriminating against others in matters of state commerce. Otherwise, a religious business owner could deny services to minorities based on religious "convictions". We saw that in the south for hundreds of years until the civil rights act put a stop to it. The state not only has a right, it has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against human rights violations.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

See, you a problem with that, I see people finally being honest with each other. The market can handle it, government has no business getting involved with something as petty as wedding cakes.

When it came to the South during Jim Crow, the discrimination was systemic, government enforced, and targeted at crucial business services and products used by a large number of people.

Two gays having to go to another baker for a cake, or another photographer for pictures does not elevate to that level.

And with this ridiculous law, it will become systematic, government enforced, and targeted against anyone you religious bigots declare to be offensive to your faith. Wft is it with you people, anyway? Have you joined teams with ISIS, or what?

 

[Lakhota]

Enough to gag a maggot.

 

[PratchettFan]

As long as everyone has to wear shirt and shoes, so long as everyone pays $200, no problem.

Churches constitute private clubs. You don't get to take communion in a Catholic church if you are not Catholic. As to women's colleges, pretty much a private club as well. No one is suggesting the KKK be required to accept African Americans as members.

As I have already said, this is not an all or nothing proposition. It is clearly established the state can prevent discrimination. That it can is settled. You may not think it should be able to, but that does not change the reality of it. The question is simply to what degree it should.

But the shirtless/shoeless coalition can claim discrimination, who are you to judge them!!!! And i guess discriminating against poor people is OK in your book as well. Good to Know!

and you are technically wrong about the communion thing:

"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).

Your logic in your previous post made it an all or nothing proposition, i.e., The government owns your ass, so BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE

I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.

As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.

There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So you enjoy watching people be lynched?

 

[PratchettFan]

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.

The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom should know what they're talking about. Read their letter.

Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.

PHEEEEEEEEEEWWW!!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

How is purchasing a cake or a photograph imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout? Do you have any idea how bigoted your statement looks to others? I mean really?

and do you know how fascist your desire to use government to either force a person to comply or crush them makes you look?

Really? You accuse me of being right wing wrt to human rights? Now that's funny.

Fascism is all about using the government to force people to do what "the betters" want them to do. If the left is now more fascist than the right, i'm not surprised.

That is one of the silliest comments I have read here, and I have read some doozies.

 

[PratchettFan]

The issue here is not the product. The issue is the human rights of the parties conducting the business.

and in your book the weight of the government must be brought to suppress the religious convictions of a business owner, instead of the purchasers finding another supplier for a non-critical, easily obtainable item.

and lets be hones, you only care about the human rights of ONE party, to you the Christians in this situation should submit or fuck off.

At least be honest about that.

People have a right to their religious freedoms, but those rights do not extend to discriminating against others in matters of state commerce. Otherwise, a religious business owner could deny services to minorities based on religious "convictions". We saw that in the south for hundreds of years until the civil rights act put a stop to it. The state not only has a right, it has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against human rights violations.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

See, you a problem with that, I see people finally being honest with each other. The market can handle it, government has no business getting involved with something as petty as wedding cakes.

When it came to the South during Jim Crow, the discrimination was systemic, government enforced, and targeted at crucial business services and products used by a large number of people.

Two gays having to go to another baker for a cake, or another photographer for pictures does not elevate to that level.

Now, if only you would be honest. Your position isn't about bakers or photographers. You think grocery stores should be able to turn people away. You think neighborhoods should be segregated. You basically want a return to pre-1950 conditions. You want to allow wholesale discrimination of entire classes and call it freedom. Well, I live in those conditions and it wasn't freedom by any stretch. And if a baker has to bake a cake as a balance of not returning to them, then so be it. If that bugs you, I really don't care.

 

[PredFan]

You cannot only advocate for the rights and liberties that you approve of. The far right and the far left are both guilty of this absurdity.

You should have the liberty to marry anyone you choose, and you should have the right to conduct business with anyone you choose, or not.

I don't agree with that last bit. I think there is a compelling state interest to prevent people from being banned from obtaining goods and services just because of who they are. OTOH, I am not convinced this needs to be all encompassing. I can certainly see that a grocery store should not be allowed to discriminate, or an apartment complex..., but a flower arranger? There should be some rational line if you are going to decide one person's rights are more important than another person's rights. This is not a one sided issue.

A right or a Liberty doesn't depend on whether someone agrees or approves.

A private business should have the right to serve anyone they want to or not to serve them. They should have that right but they also have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That includes boycotts and loss of business. Certainly they should have the right to not be forced to operate in a manner that conflicts with their religion.

No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

 

[PratchettFan]

You cannot only advocate for the rights and liberties that you approve of. The far right and the far left are both guilty of this absurdity.

You should have the liberty to marry anyone you choose, and you should have the right to conduct business with anyone you choose, or not.

I don't agree with that last bit. I think there is a compelling state interest to prevent people from being banned from obtaining goods and services just because of who they are. OTOH, I am not convinced this needs to be all encompassing. I can certainly see that a grocery store should not be allowed to discriminate, or an apartment complex..., but a flower arranger? There should be some rational line if you are going to decide one person's rights are more important than another person's rights. This is not a one sided issue.

A right or a Liberty doesn't depend on whether someone agrees or approves.

A private business should have the right to serve anyone they want to or not to serve them. They should have that right but they also have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That includes boycotts and loss of business. Certainly they should have the right to not be forced to operate in a manner that conflicts with their religion.

No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Then I guess this is not a free country. You'll just have to live with the pain.

 

[PredFan]

By that logic Idaho can force everyone in the state to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes every week, or Wisconsin could mandate cheese purchases.

Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.

Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?

The issue here is not the product. The issue is the human rights of the parties conducting the business.

and in your book the weight of the government must be brought to suppress the religious convictions of a business owner, instead of the purchasers finding another supplier for a non-critical, easily obtainable item.

and lets be hones, you only care about the human rights of ONE party, to you the Christians in this situation should submit or fuck off.

At least be honest about that.

People have a right to their religious freedoms, but those rights do not extend to discriminating against others in matters of state commerce. Otherwise, a religious business owner could deny services to other minorities based on religious "convictions". We saw that in the south for hundreds of years until the civil rights act put a stop to it. The state not only has a right, it has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against human rights violations.

But that isn't what the Indiana law does. The law won't lead to that nor does it allow anyone to discriminate against anyone just because they want to.

 

[PredFan]

You cannot only advocate for the rights and liberties that you approve of. The far right and the far left are both guilty of this absurdity.

You should have the liberty to marry anyone you choose, and you should have the right to conduct business with anyone you choose, or not.

I don't agree with that last bit. I think there is a compelling state interest to prevent people from being banned from obtaining goods and services just because of who they are. OTOH, I am not convinced this needs to be all encompassing. I can certainly see that a grocery store should not be allowed to discriminate, or an apartment complex..., but a flower arranger? There should be some rational line if you are going to decide one person's rights are more important than another person's rights. This is not a one sided issue.

A right or a Liberty doesn't depend on whether someone agrees or approves.

A private business should have the right to serve anyone they want to or not to serve them. They should have that right but they also have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That includes boycotts and loss of business. Certainly they should have the right to not be forced to operate in a manner that conflicts with their religion.

No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Then I guess this is not a free country. You'll just have to live with the pain.

Yeah I'm sure YOU are fine with that but people and states like Indiana are trying to keep us from losing more freedoms.