Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

[Jarhead]

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Unlikely scenario at Best.
Who would go to a kosher establishment asking for non kosher service?
A kosher establishment is obviously offering services that are based on religious practice.
None of the cases that have centered around this issue were religious based. A simple solution would be for a business to advertise as such if they are so value driven.

I explained why. He is the best in town.

Something being "not likely" does not mean it is not an example of why the law is necessary

Kosher is inherintly religious. I think the owner is well within his right to inform the patron that they only specialize in kosher foods. You can't go into a business and demand something they don't offer.
I think bakeries offer cake.

excellent response. Shoots my scenario down. Did not consider that part of it. Well done. (no sarcasm)

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Unlikely scenario at Best.
Who would go to a kosher establishment asking for non kosher service?
A kosher establishment is obviously offering services that are based on religious practice.
None of the cases that have centered around this issue were religious based. A simple solution would be for a business to advertise as such if they are so value driven.

He actually explained why it would be likely.
The fact that it is unlikely is irrelevant. IT could happen.

While unlikely ,Christians may actually emulate Christ at some point.

 

[Jarhead]

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Unlikely scenario at Best.
Who would go to a kosher establishment asking for non kosher service?
A kosher establishment is obviously offering services that are based on religious practice.
None of the cases that have centered around this issue were religious based. A simple solution would be for a business to advertise as such if they are so value driven.

I explained why. He is the best in town.

Something being "not likely" does not mean it is not an example of why the law is necessary

Kosher is inherintly religious. I think the owner is well within his right to inform the patron that they only specialize in kosher foods. You can't go into a business and demand something they don't offer.
I think bakeries offer cake.

what if the kosher caterer is approached by a Neo-Nazi organization to serve them? Is he discriminating when he refuses?

 

[Jarhead]

How about this....

A gay photographer was approached to photograph a heterosexual wedding at a church. The church has a Priest who is known for his "anti gay" position and sermons and she refuses to be exposed to it during the ceremony...so she declines.

Do you feel the heterosexual couple has the right to claim discrimination?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wow!
The point? Went right over your head after 60 some pages.

/fail.

Yes you have. My positions are clearly stated while you have nothing to say at all of the purpose or appplication of the law. I call it a pathway to legalized discrimination and you rant about stupid lefties

I have posted numerous times on applications of the law that have zero to do with gays or discrimination. You fail to comprehend any of them. Thus your psots are failures.

I will begrudgingly accept your surrender.

Hutch. I have seen some of your posts. You seem be a reasonable individual.
I have a question for you.....

if a Kosher man refuses to buy from a non kosher deli that is owned by a black man....is the Kosher man discriminating?

And if not.......how do you know?

You're in the weeds with this.
If the Kosher man is the customer he is free to buy from whom he wishes. Why would a kosher man buy non kosher? It's a choice not discrimination.
I don't go to a Chevy dealer to buy a Ford.
Buying a Ford is not discriminating against Chevy it's a preference.

 

[Jarhead]

/fail.

Yes you have. My positions are clearly stated while you have nothing to say at all of the purpose or appplication of the law. I call it a pathway to legalized discrimination and you rant about stupid lefties

I have posted numerous times on applications of the law that have zero to do with gays or discrimination. You fail to comprehend any of them. Thus your psots are failures.

I will begrudgingly accept your surrender.

Hutch. I have seen some of your posts. You seem be a reasonable individual.
I have a question for you.....

if a Kosher man refuses to buy from a non kosher deli that is owned by a black man....is the Kosher man discriminating?

And if not.......how do you know?

You're in the weeds with this.
If the Kosher man is the customer he is free to buy from whom he wishes. Why would a kosher man buy non kosher? It's a choice not discrimination.
I don't go to a Chevy dealer to buy a Ford.
Buying a Ford is not discriminating against Chevy it's a preference.

you missed the point of my question. I am not naïve.
I thought I was debating with someone that understood where I was going. You didn't. Instead you opted to take post and simply assume I am naïve.
Sorry to have bothered you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Unlikely scenario at Best.
Who would go to a kosher establishment asking for non kosher service?
A kosher establishment is obviously offering services that are based on religious practice.
None of the cases that have centered around this issue were religious based. A simple solution would be for a business to advertise as such if they are so value driven.

I explained why. He is the best in town.

Something being "not likely" does not mean it is not an example of why the law is necessary

Kosher is inherintly religious. I think the owner is well within his right to inform the patron that they only specialize in kosher foods. You can't go into a business and demand something they don't offer.
I think bakeries offer cake.

what if the kosher caterer is approached by a Neo-Nazi organization to serve them? Is he discriminating when he refuses?

It could be. I can't speak to how this case would be viewed.
It's commonly understood what a kosher establishment is and they are advertised as such. That should buy some sway.

A bakery sells cake. A photographer sells photos. A florist sells flowers. Maybe they should advertise as a Christian bakery. It may remove some confusion.

 

[Jarhead]

/fail.

Yes you have. My positions are clearly stated while you have nothing to say at all of the purpose or appplication of the law. I call it a pathway to legalized discrimination and you rant about stupid lefties

I have posted numerous times on applications of the law that have zero to do with gays or discrimination. You fail to comprehend any of them. Thus your psots are failures.

I will begrudgingly accept your surrender.

Hutch. I have seen some of your posts. You seem be a reasonable individual.
I have a question for you.....

if a Kosher man refuses to buy from a non kosher deli that is owned by a black man....is the Kosher man discriminating?

And if not.......how do you know?

You're in the weeds with this.
If the Kosher man is the customer he is free to buy from whom he wishes. Why would a kosher man buy non kosher? It's a choice not discrimination.
I don't go to a Chevy dealer to buy a Ford.
Buying a Ford is not discriminating against Chevy it's a preference.

By the way.....

In bold?

Its a choice BASED ON HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, not discrimination.

Which is why Pense made it clear that the law is not a license to discriminate. If it is found in a court of law that a business owner was acting based on his faith, he did not discriminate. He made a choice based on his religious beliefs.

THAT was the reason for my question.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes you have. My positions are clearly stated while you have nothing to say at all of the purpose or appplication of the law. I call it a pathway to legalized discrimination and you rant about stupid lefties

I have posted numerous times on applications of the law that have zero to do with gays or discrimination. You fail to comprehend any of them. Thus your psots are failures.

I will begrudgingly accept your surrender.

Hutch. I have seen some of your posts. You seem be a reasonable individual.
I have a question for you.....

if a Kosher man refuses to buy from a non kosher deli that is owned by a black man....is the Kosher man discriminating?

And if not.......how do you know?

You're in the weeds with this.
If the Kosher man is the customer he is free to buy from whom he wishes. Why would a kosher man buy non kosher? It's a choice not discrimination.
I don't go to a Chevy dealer to buy a Ford.
Buying a Ford is not discriminating against Chevy it's a preference.

you missed the point of my question. I am not naïve.
I thought I was debating with someone that understood where I was going. You didn't. Instead you opted to take post and simply assume I am naïve.
Sorry to have bothered you.

A customer is not compelled by law to buy anything. A business is however compelled to sell to anyone.
Not sure I see the relevant comparison.

 

[daws101]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

Why don't you want people to be able to use first amendment rights for defense?

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

You don't see word religion in there? What a moron. Here I'll bold it for you.

yes I do, what you fail to see is that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights as in discrimination.

Fail to see? WTF are you talking about? The very fact that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights, as is done by discrimination against others through hiring practices and public access, is and was my point. Not sure how you missed it.

The "religious freedom" bill is to protect the free exercise... not to protect said discrimination.

bullshit, besides that law is being shredded as we speak.

 

[Jarhead]

I have posted numerous times on applications of the law that have zero to do with gays or discrimination. You fail to comprehend any of them. Thus your psots are failures.

I will begrudgingly accept your surrender.

Hutch. I have seen some of your posts. You seem be a reasonable individual.
I have a question for you.....

if a Kosher man refuses to buy from a non kosher deli that is owned by a black man....is the Kosher man discriminating?

And if not.......how do you know?

You're in the weeds with this.
If the Kosher man is the customer he is free to buy from whom he wishes. Why would a kosher man buy non kosher? It's a choice not discrimination.
I don't go to a Chevy dealer to buy a Ford.
Buying a Ford is not discriminating against Chevy it's a preference.

you missed the point of my question. I am not naïve.
I thought I was debating with someone that understood where I was going. You didn't. Instead you opted to take post and simply assume I am naïve.
Sorry to have bothered you.

A customer is not compelled by law to buy anything. A business is however compelled to sell to anyone.
Not sure I see the relevant comparison.

you actually just answered the question of "why the law"
Why should a business owner not be allowed to have his faith dictate his business?

Are you aware that an Orthodox Jew can not earn money during the Sabbath? My wife used to work for an Orthodox attorney. One Saturday, without him knowing, she went into the office as she had something taking place on Monday and she needed to prepare for it. When the case was completed, he was reviewing the "billing hours" for invoice and noticed she had worked on that Saturday. According to his faith he could not bill for her time that day.....and when he spoke to his Rabbi, he was informed that he could not capitalize on anything that took place that day that was used for the case. In the end, he opted to charge the client nothing out of concern that anything he charged may be seen in the eyes of God as money that was partially earned during the Sabbath.

I bring this to your attention for a reason. You may not understand how people can be so strong to their religious convictions. Me? I don't get it either.
But they are. We need to understand and respect that.

 

[Jarhead]

Why don't you want people to be able to use first amendment rights for defense?

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

You don't see word religion in there? What a moron. Here I'll bold it for you.

yes I do, what you fail to see is that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights as in discrimination.

Fail to see? WTF are you talking about? The very fact that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights, as is done by discrimination against others through hiring practices and public access, is and was my point. Not sure how you missed it.

The "religious freedom" bill is to protect the free exercise... not to protect said discrimination.

bullshit, besides that law is being shredded as we speak.

No it isn't. You are poorly informed.
The law is being written in a way where no one can misconstrue its meaning and intentions (be it intentional or otherwise)...but Pense made it clear that the law will stand as it pertains to its mandate.

 

[koshergrl]

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

You don't see word religion in there? What a moron. Here I'll bold it for you.

yes I do, what you fail to see is that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights as in discrimination.

Fail to see? WTF are you talking about? The very fact that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights, as is done by discrimination against others through hiring practices and public access, is and was my point. Not sure how you missed it.

The "religious freedom" bill is to protect the free exercise... not to protect said discrimination.

bullshit, besides that law is being shredded as we speak.

No it isn't. You are poorly informed.
The law is being written in a way where no one can misconstrue its meaning and intentions (be it intentional or otherwise)...but Pense made it clear that the law will stand as it pertains to its mandate.

She's pooly informed, true..but she's also painfully stupid. Duhs is one of those (and there are many) who, although the information is out there and they see it, they STILL cling to propaganda memes.

Sheep.

 

[Lakhota]

Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

Yes, let's do:

1. Proven bigotry by religious bigots.

2. America won't stand for it.

 

[daws101]

that makes no sense...to understand something you must know the why and the how of it.
only in that way can you know if said conviction is to be respected or not.

 

[Lakhota]

Pence has a history of bigotry.

As A Congressman, Mike Pence Campaigned Against Adding LGBT Protections To Hate Crime Legislation

 

[daws101]

You don't see word religion in there? What a moron. Here I'll bold it for you.

yes I do, what you fail to see is that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights as in discrimination.

Fail to see? WTF are you talking about? The very fact that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights, as is done by discrimination against others through hiring practices and public access, is and was my point. Not sure how you missed it.

The "religious freedom" bill is to protect the free exercise... not to protect said discrimination.

bullshit, besides that law is being shredded as we speak.

No it isn't. You are poorly informed.
The law is being written in a way where no one can misconstrue its meaning and intentions (be it intentional or otherwise)...but Pense made it clear that the law will stand as it pertains to its mandate.

She's pooly informed, true..but she's also painfully stupid. Duhs is one of those (and there are many) who, although the information is out there and they see it, they STILL cling to propaganda memes.

Sheep.

kosher hag is having that daws is female hallucination again.
false the law is being changed substantially aka shredded..
someone is denying the obvious and that as usual is kosher hag.

 

[daws101]

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

You don't see word religion in there? What a moron. Here I'll bold it for you.

yes I do, what you fail to see is that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights as in discrimination.

Fail to see? WTF are you talking about? The very fact that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights, as is done by discrimination against others through hiring practices and public access, is and was my point. Not sure how you missed it.

The "religious freedom" bill is to protect the free exercise... not to protect said discrimination.

bullshit, besides that law is being shredded as we speak.

No it isn't. You are poorly informed.
The law is being written in a way where no one can misconstrue its meaning and intentions (be it intentional or otherwise)...but Pense made it clear that the law will stand as it pertains to its mandate.

like I said shredded ...your attempt a semantics is laughable..

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

Yes, let's do:

1. Proven bigotry by religious bigots.

2. America won't stand for it.

1. wrong....the law only provides standing for religious people to take their case to court and argue that they do not want to be forced to do something against their religious values....

2. America or the leftie press...?

 

[koshergrl]

Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

Yes, let's do:

1. Proven bigotry by religious bigots.

2. America won't stand for it.

You mean the religious bigots who think Christians should be forced to recant their faith, and participate in sacrilege?