Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  DJS

  This case is about the same issue that the cases were about in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights movement, which is to uphold the US Constitution in not allowing discrimination in areas of interest to the state. Commerce is one of those areas. Your need to resurrect this OP when it was sleeping peacefully suggests that you need therapy.

  Whether you are a right wing X-tian fundie, Libertarian, Muslim, Gay or Black, discriminating in the marketplace because of your religious, social or political views has been determined illegal by SCOTUS and the various regional courts, in their interpretation of the US Constitution, for decades. It just happens to be gay people's time to gain fairness and equity.

  THAT is what this OP is about and THAT is what this social movement is about.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  2 totally different issues. One involves simple race, and the other involves action. If the Baker had refused to serve gay people, then it would be a closed case, but this Baker did not refuse to serve the people, it has already been proven that they were served graciously all along, however they did not want to be a part of a ceremony that went totally against their moral conscience. That is the difference.
• 

  DJS

  They are exactly the same issue. They only appear different to you because you want them to. The baker, florist and photographer are providing a for profit, commercial service available to the public. They are not being asked to 'partake' in religious services, only provide the services they are getting paid for to an event, which they certainly would do if it were a religious event.

  They do not have the legal right to provide the service inside their building and then refuse to provide it outside based on discriminatory reasons. But I suppose you know more than the framers of the Constitution and all of the individuals who have interpreted it over the decades. We should be in awe.

  Using your (again) completely wrong analogy a baker could sell a cake to a black person inside their bakery but would be legally protected to not take the cake to a black wedding reception. The courts have determined that your viewpoint is wrong, and they have consistently done so for decades.

  It would be so much better for you and the other R Wing X-tian fundies to simply lose the hate, realize what type of country we live in (constitutional democracy based on utilitarian principles) and that your religious beliefs and practices end at this demarcation point. And that demarcation point is a very good thing.
• 

  Viviane

  One small, but very vocal sector of society is causing all this ruckus. It is one thing to to ensure equal treatment of people, but to elevate one segment of society to an untouchable class is totally agregious.

  Or egregious, as the case may be. Regardless, rights for all means ALL. Hypocritical faux religiosity doesn't give people the right to accept public infrastructure and support and then arbitrarily decide to which part of the public they serve.

  The only people who are sued are born again bible believing christians.
  The issue at stake in the cake bakery is not the fact that they refused to serve gays, it is they refused to participate in a service that goes against their moral conscience. There are some businesses (fewer nowadays) that aren't willing to sacrifice their convictions for a quick buck, and this baker was one of them.

  Sure they are, because they don't actually believe the Bible, they believe the parts that already agrees with them. Until they refuse to serve fornicators, people that follow another religion or start avoiding shellfish and pork, well, they don't REALLY follow the Bible and don't get to decide to make up rules it never touches on, for instance, it never says "thou shalt be free to take the icky gay money except for when it's a wedding".
• 

  Junction-Guy

  I don't see this as a civil rights issue, more like a moral wrong issue. The only real hate in this situation is what was exhibited by the gay couple demanding this Baker cater a function that totally goes against his conscience.
• 

  Viviane

  One involves simple race, and the other involves action. If the Baker had refused to serve gay people, then it would be a closed case, but this Baker did not refuse to serve the people, it has already been proven that they were served graciously all along, however they did not want to be a part of a ceremony that went totally against their moral conscience.

  First, it's not gracious to accept money in exchange for a service.They weren't doing the gay couple a favor. They were happy to do it, the reason they were in business in the first place to to accept money for weddings.

  Your argument falls flat, could they also decide to not serve a wedding of a mix-heritage couple? If not, why not? How is that different? What if the couple getting married were Hindu or Muslim or JW?

  How is it moral to serve some occasions for a gay couple (who you know are doing acts you don't approve of) vs. getting marries, where those same acts will occur?

  If being black isn't a choice and being gay isn't a choice, what is the difference?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I don't see this as a civil rights issue, more like a moral wrong issue.

  The thing that makes this a civil rights issue is the business license under which the concern operates. This is part of the public infrastructure.
• 

  Viviane

  I don't see this as a civil rights issue, more like a moral wrong issue. The only real hate in this situation is what was exhibited by the gay couple demanding this Baker cater a function that totally goes against his conscience.

  Being gay isn't a choice, being black isn't a choice. How is it NOT a civil rights issue? How is it not rooted in hate when the basis for the discrimination is a book that says to kill gay people?

  Unless, of course, you think being gay IS a choice, which means all you need is to meet the right guy.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  Actually they were doing them a favor--the fact that they served them graciously was favor enough. The law doesn't say you have to be nice when dealing with customers. But either way, this couple did what was best for the agenda--they cried "victim" and sued. The squeaky wheel gets the grease!
• 

  DJS

  We don't really care that you view it is a moral case rather than a civil rights' case, and apparently neither does the SCOTUS and other courts. X-tian fundies and Libertarians you 'feel' and 'think' that their particular viewpoint transcends the US Constitution and decency and ethics, is delusional at best and hate-filled at worst.

  But you remain entrenched and full of hate; you wear it so well. One day in the near future, these types of hateful actions towards gays by those thinking they have a legal, 'moral' (pardon me while I vomit), or philosophical (pardon me while I vomit) right will come to an end in the US and likely all of the W and industrialized nations. It is getting closer each day, and when that time comes - and when haters such as the X-tian R Wing fundies - are gone from the planet it will be an even better day.