Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

  • Viviane
    Something like it exists. See: Miss Black USA

    OK. You didn't ask me about that so... describe, specifically, the thing you are asking me about, the thing you made up and want me to assume to know how you think it works.

    1. Legal and moral.
    2. What I'm asking about is a 501(c)3 corporation.
    3. In the case of my question, yes, only "white" people could win the pageant.

    Specifically describe the organization you are asking about and it's practices.

    Without changing the question asked, make assumptions you feel necessary in order to answer what's been asked. If you need more clarification please feel free to inquire.
    If your view did not matter to me I'd not ask it.

    As I said, I won't make assumptions about your question. Describe to be the organization you are asking about. I absolutely will ask for clarification if needed and answer fully.

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    Deleted for weird error cutting off sentences.

  • Viviane
    All I've seen you use me for is a person to vent on. You're loaded with anger, and you're loaded with yourself. You bicker over nothing.

    Vent on you? No, I'm not angry at you or myself or the world in any way. You really shouldn't make assumptions about people. I am curious as to why you think I'm angry in any way.

    For instance, I work in a field of IT where every detail matters. Millions of dollars of fines, lawsuits, the ability to continue business depends on whether or not I design something correctly for customers. Clarity is, above all, the the thing we have to have when answering questions. If a question isn't clear, we have to figure out how to make it clear.

    It's not bickering to say "the question doesn't make sense, it needs to be made clear", it's the only way discussion on equal footing can continue.

    For instance, if someone were to ask me whether or not I recommended VMware or Hyper-V, the answer is "Either neither and both depending on what you are doing and why you are asking." If someone asks me "should I used on-prem or off-prem cloud", same answer. Actually, first, I want to clarify what they even mean by cloud, what they are doing, why they are doing it and proceed from there.

    Clarity, my friend. Clarity.

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    I recently read this and I thought it helpful in explaining the difference between a theory in general and a theory in science. It also speaks to the danger of teaching creationist views in school or even merely not teaching the reality of science and evolution. In my own view, with the very real danger of climate change, we cannot afford the cost of retarding society the way we are by teaching lies or ignoring reality.

    In science, something can be both theory and fact. We know the existence of pathogens is a fact; germ theory provides testable explanations concerning the nature of disease. We know the existence of cells is a fact and that cell theory provides testable explanations of how cells function. Similarly, we know evolution is a fact and that evolutionary theories explain biological patterns and mechanisms. The late Stephen Jay Gould said it best: “Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”
    Theory is the most powerful and important tool science has, but nonscientists have perverted and diluted the word to mean a hunch, notion, or idea. Thus, all too many people interpret the phrase evolutionary theory to mean evolutionary hunch. Not surprisingly, I spend the first week of class differentiating theory from fact, as well as defining other critical terms.

    Taken from:
  • never a jw
    never a jw


    Would you say the same thing if they were discriminating against people because they were African American?

    Yes, as a matter of principle and practicality the answer is yes for any private organization; definitely not for any public organization funded by taxpayers money. The principle is freedom. The practical factor in the case of a business is profit. Discrimination in almost every aspect of our life is absolutely necessary in order to reduce cost. Random choices in choosing almost anything are very inefficient. In the hiring practices in the workplace, discrimination, among many other things, happens more because of perceived cultural differences than color of skin. My view is that business managers, to use an example that I am familiar with, fear that hiring a member of a certain ethnic group may not be in the best interest of the company, namely the pursuit of profit. If 90% of the times that I hire members of a certain group I lose (I actually had a similar problem), then quite likely I will discriminate against that group in my future hiring practices --balancing that with the risk of a discrimination lawsuit of course. The color of the skin and other traits are not the main factor, they just happen to correlate sometimes with the main factor, the ability, on average, of members of that group to help me get the objective for which my company was formed, profit. Similarly, religion can discriminate for any reason they deem appropriate. You can create laws and enforce them, but you can't impose morality or open mindedness on others. Why would any black person want to force a "white" church to accept them. What good does it do for anyone? Let the bigots isolate themselves and drive themselves gradually into extinction if their discrimination is unfounded.

  • JeffT
    "What, specific law do you think talks about all customers and not people based on protected classes?"

    What I think is irrelevant. The State Attorney General said "Our law against discrimination prevents you from discriminating on the basis of race or religion or, since 2006, sexual orientation. If you do that in a consumer setting, you're automatically violating our consumer protection laws," (source cited in my earlier post). If you think you know more than the attorney General, please enlighten me.

    However, I think he was referring to RCW 49.60.030

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

    You said: I am not.

    Now you get to answer a question: Do you think discrimination based on some one's group identity is morally proper in some cases. If yes, which ones?

    Since I expect some one will throw this back at me; yes, I think discrimination based on group identity is wrong in all cases. Yes I know, that means the Christians are wrong when they discriminate against the LGBTQ* community.

    I also don't think the LGBTQ* community does itself any favors by making discriminatory statements back. There are some open minded churches around. I frequently drive by a Methodist church in downtown Bellevue WA that has a flag very like this on the facade:Image result for god is still speaking rainbow

    They deserve to be recognized for standing apart on this issue.

  • RichardHaley
    When I had a business I had a sign on the door that said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." This was applied several times to people who had bounced checks on me in the past unless they paid with cash of-course. I was not prejudice against poor people. I feel a privately owned business has the right to refuse service to anyone offset by the fact that the customer has the right to refuse to deal with a business. Morals and laws are two different things that conflict at times. If I was required by law to engage in a business arrangement that went against my conscience then I would choose not to be in that business. However sometimes laws are enacted after a business has been established for years that the owner of the business doesn't realize or has trouble with. The circumstances have to be considered in the context of many variables. If someone doesn't want to be involved in a business transaction with someone while at the same time still providing that service to others doesn't always mean they are being discriminatory.
  • snugglebunny
    Just curious. I've also sometimes seen little signs in trader's windows or in restaurants that state that the management reserve the right to refuse service or refuse admission at the owner's discretion. I did once question the validity of such a statement with the owner of a drinking establishment and he informed me that, yes, it was legal, but that if a trader gave a reason for refusing service, he could then be liable to a civil prosecution. So if he didn't want to deal with someone he would simply state that he was sorry, but he was not prepared to serve them, end of story.
  • DJS

    Snug and Richard,

    It may be legal to post such a sign but it isn't legal to act on it in a discriminatory manner as considered by the Constitution and the courts. But you all already know that; you are simply whining about your feelings and wishing the world catered to them. And wasting everyone's time.

  • Viviane
    Yes, as a matter of principle and practicality the answer is yes for any private organization; definitely not for any public organization funded by taxpayers money

    Well, fortunately for us, since a private business that is open to the public IS a public accommodation, they get to follow the non-discrimination laws!

    The principle is freedom.

    They are free to not open a business to the public is they want to deny service to gay people, women Catholics, etc.

Share this