Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate) (page 3)

Marvin Shilmer

Here's what I don't understand: Why is Indiana singled-out and crapped on when the statutory language at issue is laced throughout state and federal books? It seems to me the powers of Indiana have, for good or bad, done no more than many other powers have before them (and from very diverse political interests!).

Is Indiana getting its knuckles rapped because it took its leadership longer to draw up and and pass legislation others adopted long before?

What am I missing here? What is so different about Indiana's recent legislation compared with other state laws (plus federal)?

Marvin Shilmer

Laws protecting minorities, women, the disabled, religious people and the LGBT community from discrimination make us better humans, give us better communities, a better country and a better planet. But the right wing, the X-tian fundies and the Libertarians will cloak their beliefs behind a fence made of hate.

A few weeks ago I watched a news segment (can't recall the media outlet) about a service provider (a florist as I recall) whose business is threatened because she didn't want to supply her services to a gay couple for their wedding. Apparently the gay couple sued this woman. I asked myself why on earth was this gay couple ruining this woman's business when getting the flowers they wanted was as easy as going to the store next door? Honestly, leveraging law like this seems like hate to me. "And for what? More cows?" We are talking about flowers, and this woman's hard-built business is threatened with ruin over that?

DJS

Marvin,

"What is so different about Indiana's recent legislation compared with other state laws (plus federal)?"

I do not know.

As for the woman whose business is suffering, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy or empathy for her. Using your analogy blacks should have kept their place in the back of the bus and never filed any types of lawsuits. The disabled should have known their place and never sued for access. Women should have stayed in the kitchen where they belong and not sued for the right to vote. I don't mean to be mean but that is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

As i see it, hate has a price. She is paying it, and that is most excellent.

RULES & REGULATIONS

Marvin said:
A few weeks ago I watched a news segment (can't recall the media outlet) about a service provider (a florist as I recall) whose business is threatened because she didn't want to supply her services to a gay couple for their wedding.

Replace gay couple with:

Hispanic couple

Fat couple

Jewish couple

Handicapped couple

African-American couple

Atheist couple

Is it alright if this florist didn't provide services to any of these couples?

Simon

Apparently the gay couple sued this woman. I asked myself why on earth was this gay couple ruining this woman's business when getting the flowers they wanted was as easy as going to the store next door? Honestly, leveraging law like this seems like hate to me. "And for what? More cows?" We are talking about flowers, and this woman's hard-built business is threatened with ruin over that?

You are looking at it the wrong way round. Why couldn't the woman just treat them like everyone else and supply them with the flowers as ordered?

If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all - are you saying that gay people should be banned from buying flowers? Who would be next on the list and what else would be denied them? Medical services? Food? Where do you draw the line? How about people called Marvin shouldn't be allowed to buy internet and phone service ... would that be OK? If not, why not?

Sometimes an example is needed and people need some punishment if they commit a crime.

violias

. Religious freedom goes both ways, Christians have rights too. Most Christian shops ( and other religions who oppose gay marriage ) have a FISH on the cards or door. This lets others know it is a christain business. They should take their business elsewhere. Why on earth would a gay couple want to FORCE a flower shop or cake shop to service their wedding - unless it was to just cause a big Brouhaha . People who own a business have rights too. Nearly every café I have ever been into has had signs, " no shoes, no shirt, no service". This is YOUR board. Do you want someone telling you how to run it?

Indiana is not the first state to do this, It has been signed into law since 93 by Clinton and 25 other states have same laws.

We fight so hard for Muslims and other religions to have "rights" , what about Christians? Don't they get rights?

I want you to know I am playing the devils advocate as I have no issues with whom anyone chooses to love. But I do believe in business owners rights too.

DJS

One thing I am certain of, and it is a day I will see if I live another 20 or 30 years. When the Millennials and the following generation take over, these types of hateful issues will be a thing of the past. I am ashamed of my generation.Hide behind your hateful wall and call it Libertarian, Religious Freedom, Conservative, Fundamentalist, God-Fearing, Jesus-Loving. Matters not. The wall is comprised of hate, and those of you who continue to support hate are haters.

But one day in the not too distant future you will be gone and those coming after you don't give a rat's ass about sexual persuasion. And the world will be a better place for it.

Your hate, as I have pointed out before, isn't confined in a sterile vacuum. It lives and breathes and has contributed to the death of Matthew Shepard and others and in the suicide of Jamie Hubley and others. But by all means, continue to cloak it in sweet words. Call it Religious Freedom. Name it Libertarian. Feel good about it.

VIola, do some research. We have addressed your points many times.

Marvin Shilmer

Replace gay couple with:
Hispanic couple
Fat couple
Jewish couple
Handicapped couple
African-American couple
Atheist couple

Okay. I replaced it. I have this:

Person A does not want to provide her services to Person B.

Label each of these as you want, the shop owner was not demanding anything of an employee, it is her individual liberty and the individual liberty of the couple. Why is this not best settled by consumer choice? The individual shop owner was not trying to interfere with the business of the couple. Why should they interfere with her business?

It seems we can have a Ms. [name your race/nationality/gender] Character Contest but we can't let a shop owner kill their own business by refusing service as an individual liberty. I say let the shop owner go about his or her business and let customers decide if they want to frequent the establishment. Or, are we trying to kill this woman's business in order to teach society a lesson? It's a bit paternalistic to me.

Marvin Shilmer

You are looking at it the wrong way round.

Why?

Why is this woman's personal choice any less important than the personal choice of her customer? I don't see anything about her imposing her personal choice on an employee, or anyone else. She didn't attempt to interfere with the choice of the couple to get married, so why should anyone interfere with her choice about who she wants to provide her personal services to?

Sometimes an example is needed and people need some punishment if they commit a crime.

I don't think what this woman did was criminal. She was sued in civil court.

Marvin Shilmer

As for the woman whose business is suffering, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy or empathy for her.

I'm neither sympathetic nor unsympathetic for this particular business owner. I'm more concerned about the question of personal liberty. If there's a store owner who wants to refuse service to someone then let them do so and let customers decide if they want to do business with such a person.

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

Share this