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

[protectionist]

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.

Except in housing.

 

[protectionist]

Indiana’s Anti-Gay ‘Religious Freedom’ Law Ushers In First Church Of Cannabis

An enterprising Indiana marketing consultant has opened up the First Church Of Cannabis, thanks to anti-gay Hoosier lawmakers.

It's pretty clear that when anti-gay lawmakers and anti-gay lobbyists drafted and passed the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) they intended it to be used as a license to discriminate against the LGBT community. But the law, which GOP Governor Mike Pencesigned last Thursday, has already had at least one unintended consequence.

Because the language is so wide reaching and poorly-written, one Indiana libertarian marketing consultant has already filed for and received from the Indiana Secretary of State a license for the First Church Of Cannabis.

Bill Levin, whose Facebook page says he believes God "is A Good Thing," says he sees his attempts to legalize marijuana as a "crusade."

Levin is also the founder of the First Church Of Cannabis. On the Church's Facebook page, the announcement reads:

THE FIRST CHURCH OF CANNABIS INC. - Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana - "Congratulations your registration has been approved!"​

Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love,Understanding and Good Health.

The Raw Story reports that Indiana attorney and political commentator Abdul-Hakim Shabazz says at Indy Politics, "I would argue that under RFRA, as long as you can show that reefer is part of your religious practices, you got a pretty good shot of getting off scot-free."

More: Indiana's Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Law Ushers In First Church Of Cannabis - The New Civil Rights Movement

Another law of unintended consequences.

Yep, that's pretty much where these kinds of laws take us. Universal, individual rights are giving way to group privilege.

Business owners are a "group" too.

 

[MaryL]

Why...oh WHY, besides all the homosexual hysterics and whining, WHY is this even an ISSUE? Gays aren't being hurt in any way, and non essential businesses SHOULD be able to cater to, and discriminate. To anyone. Period. No harm done here...Business depends on income. If they don't want to sell to right handed heterosexual Christians, so be it. The market will determine whether or not they survive, not petty boycotts. Not fleeting public sentiment. Freedom. Not public temper tantrums and childish protests.

 

[2aguy]

so...they can't get one type of cake...one type...they can get everything else...everything, for every other event and occasion....and for that one type of cake they can get at any other bakery...they are willing to destroy that baker and burn their lives to the ground...take their livelihood, take their savings.....put them in jail.......

and this makes sense to you lefties.....over a right they have under the First Amemdment............

 

[2aguy]

Hobby Lobby case shows the distinction between for profit and non profit corporations is non existent on the question fo rights.
The Indiana law is substantially the same as all the others. Thus no fuss. A fauxrage episode from the Dums.

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.

Sigh... have you read the law? So many people have so many opinions about it but hardly any have actually read it.

This non issue is quickly becoming a duplicate case of the fairy tale of Michael Brown's "hands up don't shoot".

That was never the truth but the left ran with it.

This piece of legislation will not allow discrimination against anyone.

But the left will run with their lies that it will.

Lies are all they have..the truth, reason, reality...they are not the friends of the left....

 

[MaryL]

Gay rights doesn't trump basic economics. Besides all the hateful vitriol, nobody is being affixed a pink triangle and forced into a gas chamber. I challenge anyone to prove how gays are being harmed .The cake is a lie. How is this even a serious issue?

 

[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?

Very simple how it is imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout. They want the cake or photograph to be homosexual. Like with 2 guys shown on the top of the wedding cake, or 2 guys (Ugh!) kissing each other in the photograph. That is having the business person participate in the sick perversion.

As for how it looks, it looks perfectly correct and not bigoted in any way. It is merely a reflection of the normal meeting the abnormal. I mean really.

First of all, you have no right to determine what is normal and what is abnormal for the rest of us. Who the hell do you think you are?

Secondly, Two adults showing their love for one another is a perversion? No sir, it is not. What is a perversion is the utter hatred and bigotry expressed by people such as yourself who apparently believe an expression of love between two consenting adults should be shunned in society. What is a perversion is to support discrimination against someone different from you in the name of your religion. And you people call yourselves Christians? There is nothing Christian about your attitude towards others. It is an attitude of intolerance that belongs in the 14th century, not the 21st. I would expect this of ISIS, not of Christian Americans. And so the question becomes what is it with you fundamentalist "Christians" and sex? Not getting enough at home so you have to play the bully to those who do? Get over yourselves already.

 

[MaryL]

The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

 

[PratchettFan]

The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

If the state law calls it illegal, then it is illegal. That falls under state's rights. I personally don't think it should extend to luxuries, but where is the line? If a gay man marries another man, should the owner of the apartment building be able to throw them out on the street? Once it is accepted that there must be a limitation to discrimination, then it becomes a matter of the extent of the limitation. That is really a matter for the state to decide.

 

[MaryL]

It's amazing what people will accept under the guise of legality. Nobody can be deprived of essentials. Due process or basic utilities or housing. But frivolous shit like dresses, cakes or WHO CARES? If A business doesn't want to provide that service, for what ever reason, that is up to THEM. If they want to cater to a certain group, what is the big problem? isn't this all about freedom anyway? Not the dictates of what ever group, period. Get over it.

 

[dblack]

Indiana’s Anti-Gay ‘Religious Freedom’ Law Ushers In First Church Of Cannabis

An enterprising Indiana marketing consultant has opened up the First Church Of Cannabis, thanks to anti-gay Hoosier lawmakers.

It's pretty clear that when anti-gay lawmakers and anti-gay lobbyists drafted and passed the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) they intended it to be used as a license to discriminate against the LGBT community. But the law, which GOP Governor Mike Pencesigned last Thursday, has already had at least one unintended consequence.

Because the language is so wide reaching and poorly-written, one Indiana libertarian marketing consultant has already filed for and received from the Indiana Secretary of State a license for the First Church Of Cannabis.

Bill Levin, whose Facebook page says he believes God "is A Good Thing," says he sees his attempts to legalize marijuana as a "crusade."

Levin is also the founder of the First Church Of Cannabis. On the Church's Facebook page, the announcement reads:

THE FIRST CHURCH OF CANNABIS INC. - Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana - "Congratulations your registration has been approved!"​

Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love,Understanding and Good Health.

The Raw Story reports that Indiana attorney and political commentator Abdul-Hakim Shabazz says at Indy Politics, "I would argue that under RFRA, as long as you can show that reefer is part of your religious practices, you got a pretty good shot of getting off scot-free."

More: Indiana's Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Law Ushers In First Church Of Cannabis - The New Civil Rights Movement

Another law of unintended consequences.

Yep, that's pretty much where these kinds of laws take us. Universal, individual rights are giving way to group privilege.

Business owners are a "group" too.

You don't have a clue what I'm talking about, do you?

 

[dblack]

The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

Would you also be ok with legalizing discrimination based on religion?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[orogenicman]

The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

Interestingly, this is exactly the same argument made about blacks in the south60 years ago (those damned uppity "Ns"). 'They have their own water cooler, they don't need to drink from ours'. Sadly, bigots can't see themselves being bigots. But everyone else does. Does that make you happy?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

Interestingly, this is exactly the same argument made about blacks (those damned uppity "Ns"). 'They have their own water cooler, they don't need to drink from ours'. Sadly, bigots can't see themselves being bigots. But everyone else does. Does that make you happy?

What part of "this law does not discriminate" do you not understand?

 

[orogenicman]

The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

Interestingly, this is exactly the same argument made about blacks (those damned uppity "Ns"). 'They have their own water cooler, they don't need to drink from ours'. Sadly, bigots can't see themselves being bigots. But everyone else does. Does that make you happy?

What part of "this law does not discriminate" do you not understand?

It most certainly does. Sorry, you are wrong.

 

[PratchettFan]

It's amazing what people will accept under the guise of legality. Nobody can be deprived of essentials. Due process or basic utilities or housing. But frivolous shit like dresses, cakes or WHO CARES? If A business doesn't want to provide that service, for what ever reason, that is up to THEM. If they want to cater to a certain group, what is the big problem? isn't this all about freedom anyway? Not the dictates of what ever group, period. Get over it.

The only reason you can't be deprived of essentials is because it is against the law. So we have established you believe the state has the obligation to prevent discrimination and we are just talking about degree. Understand that I am not disagreeing with you. I consider this concept of "all or nothing" to be absurd. At some point we have to ask "where is the harm?" If there is none or minimal, then there is no compelling reason for the state to intercede.

 

[PratchettFan]

The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

Interestingly, this is exactly the same argument made about blacks (those damned uppity "Ns"). 'They have their own water cooler, they don't need to drink from ours'. Sadly, bigots can't see themselves being bigots. But everyone else does. Does that make you happy?

What part of "this law does not discriminate" do you not understand?

It most certainly does. Sorry, you are wrong.

How? Show it to me in the law itself. Not from a blog or a media report, but the law.

 

[dblack]

I hope this helps to make the differences clearer.

It does. Thanks for pointing them out.

 

[dblack]

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.

Exactly. I don't think that most of the supporters of these laws appreciate what is being sacrificed in taking this approach to religious freedom. The right to discriminate is a universal human right, not a special privilege set aside for state approved religious beliefs. By treating it as a perk for certain groups, they're conceding to the 'protected classes' game. It may win a battle, but it loses the war.