Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  redvip2000

  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?

  Isn't there such a thing as principle? Yeah i imagine if that couple or anybody else decides to turn a blind eye to bigotry, and simply go down the street, that would work just fine to get some flowers. But what message does it send?

  What if half of the stores in town decide to do the same? I guess you still have the other half. And what if 99 percent decide to follow suit? Well i guess you have one shop you can still use.

  And what if they all decide to do this?

  This issue is not about where to find flowers, it's about the concept that if you are in business and open to the public, you must serve ALL of the public. Or else, just close your doors and become a church.
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  redvip2000

  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.

  Again, this is a terrible way of protecting minorities.

  If a town has 100 stores, and there are 2 gay people living there. If 95 of those stores decide to refuse them service, they are now being punished by only having 5 stores to buy from.

  How will this be resolved using your logic?

  The stores will continue to block access, and the two individuals will continue to be punished, because they don't have the power to create a significant financial distress to those stores, after all, they are a minority.
  
• 

  Village Idiot

  @ Viviane: "As usual, Christians get it exactly backwards."

  While I agree with you in general we should not fall for their ploy and refer to them as 'Christians' since they only represent a fraction (30%) of all who identify themselves as Christians (90%) but do not share their beliefs or prejudices. Right wing fundamentalist Christians should be labeled "Fundamentalist Christians" or perhaps "Conservative Christians" in order to emphasize their minority status.
• 

  JeffT

  Let's take another example. If the government reinstates the draft, should conscientious objector status based on religious belief be denied?
• 

  Village Idiot

  @ Marvin Shilmer,

  "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?"

  But what happens when everyone 'next door' decides to discriminate? A lot of small towns might have only one bakery or floral shop. And what happens when such discrimination is broadened to include racial origins?
• 

  Simon

  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?

  Having standards for dress or behavior is completely different. This is not "who you are" unless someone chose to apply it in a discriminatory fashion.

  Someone who is shirtless can put a shirt on. Someone who is black, disabled or gay cannot change - it is who they are and as such should not be subject to someone's whims.

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

  They have the right to not be discriminated against UNLESS they demand the right to discriminate against others in which case they have the right to be sued and pay for their choice.

  What more 'rights' do you think they need exactly?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  If a town has 100 stores, and there are 2 gay people living there. If 95 of those stores decide to refuse them service, they are now being punished by only having 5 stores to buy from.

  Moving forward I think resolution is in making it clear to business persons whatever are the rules they must abide by. It sounds to me like the florist gal was not clear that under the law as a business owner she was required to provide a service contrary to her conscience. If this is the case then make it clear and provide folks a given period of time to get their affairs in order. Then the choice is stay in business, sell your business or close it down.

  I guess from now on the florist gal will have to supply floral arrangements to the KKK Grand Event whether she wants to do it or not.
• 

  Simon

  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.

  That's fine if you are not likely to be subject to any discrimination. For those who are it doesn't really work.

  Again, should people be allowed to have "whites only" restaurants? It's their restaurant after all.

  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?

  Why was it necessary to impose her opinions on other people's lives? What did it have to do with her? If it's the same case, it seems she was happy to take people's money (for a decade, aware of their sexuality) until gay marriage was legalized and then decided to make an issue out of it. Seems rather petty and arbitrary to me.

  She was interfering with the choice of the couple to get married and have the same options as anyone else and not have to suffer any ill will or comments about their lives.

  She was treating their marriage as her own personal political football. It was only fair that her business was given a kicking in return.
• 

  Simon

  Moving forward I think resolution is in making it clear to business persons whatever are the rules they must abide by. It sounds to me like the florist gal was not clear that under the law as a business owner she was required to provide a service contrary to her conscience. If this is the case then make it clear and provide folks a given period of time to get their affairs in order. Then the choice is stay in business, sell your business or close it down.

  If people need to be specifically told to "treat everyone equally" then I think the problem is with them, not the system. How can anyone not be aware that discrimination is wrong? Apart from the bigots in religion of course ...

  I guess from now on the florist gal will have to supply floral arrangements to the KKK Grand Event whether she wants to do it or not.

  Ah, trying to paint an extreme picture. A business to business arrangement is obviously different and a business can chose not to to business with another for whatever reason it wants. A business is not a protected class.

  She could refuse to sell flowers to the KKK, the NRA or the NAACP. But not white people, people who have guns at home or black people.

  What you are arguing for is allowance of the latter - but that should also allow people to say they don't want to serve religious Jews or other identifiable religious groups.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Again, should people be allowed to have "whites only" restaurants? It's their restaurant after all.

  "White only" restaurants are all over the place in the United States, and so are "black only". They call them "private clubs" in order to get around laws.

  Why was it necessary to impose her opinions on other people's lives?

  I don't think the florist gal was imposing her opinion on anyone. She was having an opinion imposed on her, one she apparently did not expect and did not understand as a legal requirement.

  A business to business arrangement is obviously different and a business can chose not to to business with another for whatever reason it wants. A business is not a protected class.

  
  She could refuse to sell flowers to the KKK...

  So the florist gal could refuse to sell flowers to a pair of KKK members who want their marriage event performed in full KKK regalia and pomp because to do so would be contrary to her personal religious conscience, but the same florist could not refuse sell flowers to a pair of gays for their marriage event because to do so would be contrary to her personal religious conscience?

  If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all., Right?