Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

  • Fisherman

    Given: gay marriages are legal in Indiana.

    Can a justice of the peace discriminate on personal religious grounds?

    If I ordered a grilled cheese with bacon, lettuce, tomatoes and mayo, could I expect to get turkey, non dairy cheese and non dairy mayo instead based on religious freedom instead of on toast?

  • DJS


    I assumed you would feel that way; that is a Libertarian view. It has no data or evidence to support it, however. After initial push-back, society typically begins accepting social changes much quicker than it otherwise would. There are other costs incurred by society and individuals alike when governments sit back and do nothing. Libertarians don't typically consider opportunity costs for damaged individuals and the resulting costs to society (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, law enforcement, courts, drug and alcohol rehab, crime, etc.), lost or mitigated ambition and accomplishment, family considerations, etc. that go along with doing nothing. Ann didn't consider these things when she opined.

    This is a slam dunk. I know you will continue to 'feel' otherwise, but the humanist and the economist in me is A-OK with the laws. I have family deeply impacted by these types of prejudices, both inside and outside of the Borg.

    Nothing is ultimately more efficient in effecting change than societal pressure. Just ask Indiana's governor. Their RFRA has been gutted of its intended mean-ness. As of today it is a kinder and gentler meaningless mean spirited law. Neutered if you will, and that is most excellent. That shrill, shrieking whine emanating from the X-tian fundies and R Wing politicos sounds like heaven to me.

    However, the changing laws legalizing gay marriage and protecting gays from discrimination were the first push of the dominoes, and to discount that is to place one's head squarely up one's ass.

  • Viviane
    Why break the pattern now? You've been doing that very thing throughout this discussion at various times. You respond before you read. I made that very observation three days ago way back on page 3 of this discussion! You've been running in circles telling folks what they think and disregarding clear and unambiguous statements of the same folks declaring what they think. Your argument looks like this: I say so, so it must be true regardless of what you say you think.


    Same as before, didn't bother with whatever dumb thing you just said.

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake
    I assumed you would feel that way; that is a Libertarian view. It has no data or evidence to support it, however. After initial push-back, society typically begins accepting social changes much quicker than it otherwise would.

    Well, can't deny an established pattern. Maybe this law will be good then, could escalate society to a better place faster.

    id be interested in learning things like this, have any suggestions on good reads? (Referring to society springing back after push back, that kind of behavior)

  • cofty
    id be interested in learning things like this, have any suggestions on good reads? (Referring to society springing back after push back, that kind of behavior) - Jonathan Drake

    "The Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker is an astonishingly well researched book about the positive trend in social conditions. He particularly focuses on the decrease in violence and the improvement in human rights.

    "The Moral Arc" by Michael Shermer covers similar territory, and possibly in a more accessible way, but I haven't read it yet.

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake


    thanks I added them to my Amazon list. I'll order them soon as there's some money in a week or so.

  • never a jw
    never a jw


    Within a generation or so this will be a moot point. Gay marriage and equal access will be the norm, and people in the future will look back at the haters in 2015 and compare them to the KKK and other 20th Century hate mongers. And that's not an opinion.

    Agree. However, religions, under the first amendment, should have the right to their own religious ceremonies. In the mean time the state can provide non-religious ceremonies for anyone that looks humans and breathes. Christians have a very good point for refusing same sex marriage, they believe the Bible is the word of God, and the Bible condemns homosexuality. It's their own stupid belief and they should have the right to exercise it.

    My point remains: why would a homosexual couple wants to be married by a group of people who condemns them to hell or whatever the latest belief is. I feel they, the supporters of forcing religions to marry homosexual couples, want to be jerks too.

    You should be more riled up about the right given to JW parents to refuse life saving transfusion for their children. That's way more important. Children die as a result of this religious belief, which is also protected by the first amendment.

  • DJS


    Yes, as I mentioned in one of my initial posts, churches and religions have not faced any serious threats or incursions, including in the recent past, for rituals, policies, etc. that occur within the church and are church specific. The laws protecting and securing gay rights do not infringe on religious institutions - only on commerce or state supported agencies such as a justice of the peace or one conducting civil weddings.

    That, based on the separation of church and state where commerce is an interest of the state - not the church, is what the framers of the Constitution evidently had in mind. They were geniuses. The courts have consistently ruled in this manner for a loooooonnng time. It amazes me that so many have been so unaware or delusional about how the US works.

    One poster commented that Canada has forced a church to marry gays, but I cannot find any references to it. I kinda sorta doubt it. I do believe that some countries in Europe - Scandanavian I think - are moving toward requiring churches to perform gay ceremonies. They have a different framework for both religion and constitutional rights of which I am no expert. I'm not aware of gay couples trying to force REAL churches to marry them; I will research to see if it has occurred. I agree with you on this point. There are many other options.

    Religions were neither threatened nor impeded in any manner when laws supporting gay rights to marry and to not face discrimination in commercial, for profit engagements were passed. The X-tian right and fundies would have us believe they are the ones being 'forced' and discriminated against, which is not only completely untrue but in my eyes is obscene. The laws recently passed on in the queue in the various states, and I will say this again, were mean-spirited attempts by the X-tian fundies and the Far R. politicos to keep the door forced closed against gays and were driven by their anger at losing so many battles in the courts (38 states allow gay marriage, more are on the way). The laws were not necessary, did nothing to secure religious freedom and were intended to put gays back behind the door.

  • never a jw
    never a jw


    It seems that we agree. As a matter of principle I am OK with the right to discriminate for whatever reason, except for state funded institutions. However, I can easily compromise on applying non-discrimination laws to business, but I am not ready to do away with the first amendment as it applies to legitimate not-for-profit religions.

  • never a jw
    never a jw


    Basically, to leave the world a better place is why you do it.

    Agree, we all want a better place where discrimination is based solely on merit. You just don't fight dogma with more dogma. Let the idiots ridicule themselves into oblivion. That's a better way to deal with religious zealots.

    Don't feed their sense of persecution and therefore a divine purpose.

Share this