Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  JeffT

  How is that in any way the same thing?

  It's the same thing because Washington State law requires companies serving the public to provide identical services to all customers and potential customers that seek to do business with them. You can't discriminate based on what you think of the customer.

  General comment, but particularly DJS needs to read this, since he apparently didn't pay attention to my post about my daughter. I am opposed to discrimination against lots of people, including, but not limited to people located anywhere on the gender spectrum, any religious belief or none, any race etc. I am not now a member of any religious group, nor have I been for at least six years.

  I just think a few people here would be well served by thinking through the possible results of actions they want taken. It seems that some of you are in such a rush to fence in a group you have made it obvious you don't like; that you can't see who else might get scooped up in your net.

  Maybe I should stop expecting you to think about any position but your own.
• 

  Viviane

  It's the same thing because Washington State law requires companies serving the public to provide identical services to all customers and potential customers that seek to do business with them. You can't discriminate based on what you think of the customer.

  What, specific law do you think talks about all customers and not people based on protected classes? What specific law says you can't refuse service for specific reasons that aren't part of any of the protected classes? I should tell you, before I wrote these questions, I looked up the law on the Washington State website and already know.

  It seems that some of you are in such a rush to fence in a group you have made it obvious you don't like; that you can't see who else might get scooped up in your net.

  No, I am not in any particular rush to drive out racial, bigoted, religious and homophobic negative behavior. Who do you imagine is getting scooped up in my net?

  Maybe I should stop expecting you to think about any position but your own.

  Or you could try understanding fully before you pretend to know what it is. OTOH, the irony of someone saying that people looking to stop anti-LGBT behavior is only thinking about our own positions. That's pretty funny because it's so, so wrong on every level.
• 

  Viviane

  Being a Justice of the peace isn’t like being a heart surgeon. Just like I have the choice who I pick, they should have the choice who they marry. In a free country you have the freedom to be an asshole if you want, right or wrong.

  So you think that civil servants should have the right to not follow the law based on personal preferences? The law they have sworn to uphold, I should mention.
• 

  JeffT

  The Washington State Attorney General seems to think the state's consumer protection laws protect against discrimination based on, among other things, religion. I would go with his opinion, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

  
  http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/24898674/wa-attorney-general-discusses-arlenes-flowers-discrimination-case

  I assume your second post is aimed at somebody else, but I'll comment anyway. The 14th amendment clearly applies to everybody. The choice available to civil servants is to not be civil servants. I also think this applies to any minister who signs marriage certificates. If they sign any, they needs to sign all of them.

  Let me make myself plain. I am opposed to discrimination at all levels, for whatever reason. I am also, frankly very terrified off putting too much power into the hands of the government to control "thought crime." It starts us down a very slippery slope.

  I don't think passing a law making bigotry illegal is the same thing as ending bigotry, people will just hide it. Twenty-five years ago, I believed that homosexuals deserved whatever they got. Now I'm paying for a lesbian wedding (which BTW I'm very glad is legal in the two States involved). Arriving at this change of opinion took a long time and a lot of soul searching. I'm quite sure the owner of Arlene's flowers will never change her mind on the subject, and certainly her treatment over the last two years will do nothing to encourage her to change her mind.

  As they say, its easier to catch flies with honey.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  • As I said, simply ask a question that makes sense and you'll get answer. It IS your problem that the question doesn't make sense.

    I don't care if you think the question asked makes no sense to you or makes perfect sense to you. I've asked a question and asked that you answer it for what it asks at face value. Are you so dense you don't understand that?

    The question remains. I don't need to keep repeating it. Either answer it or keep avoiding it.
• 

  DJS

  ""Frankly the lawsuit is unconstitutional. The constitution guarantees Americans the right to live and work in a manor that's consistent with their religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, Stutzman's lawyer."

  Ms. Waggoner can't find one case determined by regional or SCOTUS that supports the tripe she stated. Not one. Her comment sounds like something a person unfamiliar with the law would say based on their feelings.

  It is childish and immature to wish you could do what you want to do regardless of the reality.

  The Courts: You can't discriminate Ms. X-tian based on race or sexual orientation. You must serve these people with your for profit commercial business regardless of your religious beliefs.

  Ms. X-tian: But I want to. I should be able to. It's my business. I should be able to run it the way I want to. I want to. It's my business. I should be able to do what I want to.

  The Courts: I understand Ms. X-tian. Let me repeat back what I think you are saying. It's difficult to accurately hear you because of the pacifier in your mouth but I think what you are saying is: Wah… Wah…. Wah.

  THAT's what this conversation thread is about. The rationals continue to point to ethics, inclusiveness and fair mindedness, not to mention empirical data and the evidence (decades of court opinions in support of the US Constitution). The irrationals continue to whine about their feelings and what they want, not to mention how unethical, unfair and bigoted their behavior is. I have three things to say in response. Wah….. Wah….. Wah.

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  • You must serve these people with your for profit commercial business regardless of your religious beliefs.

    When we purchase a license to do business in a given state we are obliged to conduct that business as laws of that state require. The license is there for citizens to purchase, but it's the state's to govern and otherwise assign conditions to. It boils down to that.
• 

  Viviane

  The Washington State Attorney General seems to think the state's consumer protection laws protect against discrimination based on, among other things, religion. I would go with his opinion, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

  It's important to read what I asked you and understand it. I'll repost for your convenience... "What, specific law do you think talks about all customers and not people based on protected classes?"

  As an added question, the law lists several criteria. Discrimination IS legal, but not in all situations.

  The 14th amendment clearly applies to everybody. The choice available to civil servants is to not be civil servants. I also think this applies to any minister who signs marriage certificates. If they sign any, they needs to sign all of them.

  Agreed 100%.

  I am opposed to discrimination at all levels, for whatever reason.

  I am not.

  As they say, its easier to catch flies with honey.

  Bigotry isn't something you want to catch.
• 

  Viviane

  I don't care if you think the question asked makes no sense to you or makes perfect sense to you. I've asked a question and asked that you answer it for what it asks at face value. Are you so dense you don't understand that?

  I understand it and I HAVE answered you. At face value, your question doesn't make sense.

  If you want help constructing a similar question that DOES make sense, I am happy to help. What I won't do is assume I know what you mean to actually ask and answer that. That's just a recipe for disaster and I am sure a person such as yourself has a high appreciation for clarity and has no wish to ask a question that isn't clear what question you are meaning to ask.

  If you feel that you are unable to save face and ask for help constructing a clear question in public, feel free to PM me and I won't tell a soul about it.

  The question remains. I don't need to keep repeating it. Either answer it or keep avoiding it

  It keeps remaining to not make sense.
• 

  never a jw

  Marvin wrote:

  I'm not so sure that discrimination of gays (such as refusing service to a gay marriage event) should be a protected act just because a person has a religious bias against the event. As another poster pointed out (I think Viviane) there is a State interest in commerce that deserves protection too. So we have competing interests at stake. We have, for example, 1) gays who want to marry, 2) christian extremists who do not want to provide services to a gay marriage event and we have 3) the State's interest in preserving and growing commerce. There may be other interests at stake too. But these come to mind first. Balancing these under the law is what society is grappling with right now.

  Sounds reasonable, but it complicates things a bit. Keep it simple. Gays can form their own religion an marry there. Why do you want to force moral issues on religions. Some churches feel adamant about literal interpretations of certain books, let them be. It is not as if there's only one way of Christianity, Last time I checked the number was upwards of 30,000. I am sure there's plenty that cater to any taste of religiosity.

  Religious people can be, and indeed often are a---holes. Let them be the only a---holes in the room. Why do we want gays or other "disenfranchised" people to be a---holes or play the victims too. We don't want to create a society of weakling who need to run to big brother every time someone sticks his tongue at you.

  By the way, inserting the word commerce makes the argument too specious. That alone sounds like big brother's poorly supported excuse to tear down the fundamental right of freedom of religion. I don't buy it (pun intended)