login
Religious freedom in Indiana (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2015-04-06 6:42 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro  9391     Omaha, NE |  Subject: RE: Religious freedom in IndianaOriginally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood So you're equating segregation, where millions of American citizens were systematically denied basic human rights for no reason other than the color of their skin, with women-only Zumba classes? You've got to be kidding. Seriously, do you go to Las Vegas and root for the casinos? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Where would affluent Christian white guys be without guys like you to stick up for them? Fight the power, brother Tony! Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Originally posted by Hook'em That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from.
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
The Indiana law codifies the federal RFRA as interpreted by SCOTUS as it relates to the definition of a person and by four of the circuit courts as allowing it's use as a defense in a civil case (two circuits have ruled otherwise). If the First Amendment's freedom of speech includes both the protection of hate speech and the right not to speak, why wouldn't freedom of association include freedom not to associate? Regardless of the reason? You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/  I believe I was just correctly pointing out the error of your statement. I think you are the one saying all this, not me. I was simply correcting your statement. |
| 2015-04-07 10:18 AM in reply to: 0 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ I think you just conflated two different types of businesses. JMK is referring to businesses that provide public accommodations. It's settled law that businesses that provide public accommodations must abide by the civil rights act(s). tuwood, you refer to gender-specific clubs. These clubs are considered private membership clubs and, as such, are exempt from civil rights laws in order to protect their "freedom of association." A famous gender-specific, private membership club example would be the Augusta National* Golf Club (until they started admitting women in 2012, I think). * Edited name Edited by Renee 2015-04-07 10:20 AM |
| 2015-04-07 11:22 AM in reply to: Renee |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Renee Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ I think you just conflated two different types of businesses. JMK is referring to businesses that provide public accommodations. It's settled law that businesses that provide public accommodations must abide by the civil rights act(s). tuwood, you refer to gender-specific clubs. These clubs are considered private membership clubs and, as such, are exempt from civil rights laws in order to protect their "freedom of association." A famous gender-specific, private membership club example would be the Augusta National* Golf Club (until they started admitting women in 2012, I think). * Edited name Yes, and... Some state courts and legislatures have recognized public accommodations (including public rest rooms and showers) in which gender-based discrimination is acceptable because of a compelling and overriding privacy issue. In at least one case, a court decided tthat members’ privacy interests at women-only health clubs can legally justify the exclusion of men. Courts have ruled that men-only clubs tended to involve business dealings in addition to just exercise, racquetball, etc, so excluding women from those places had an adverse financial impact, since they were, in effect, excluded from these conversations. No such wheeling and dealing goes on around the yoga mat at the local Lucille Roberts Fitness club, apparently, so no problemo to exclude men. So, in sum, apples and oranges. Your suggestion that they are the same is disgraceful. |
| 2015-04-07 11:30 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Renee Originally posted by tuwood So, in sum, apples and oranges. Your suggestion that they are the same is disgraceful. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ You really like putting words in my mouth. I never said they were the same, I was simply responding to your quote earlier in this thread. We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. There are businesses who are allowed to choose who sits at their lunch counter or drinks from their fountain. Yes, they're private clubs, but they're still businesses with their name on the awning and it's permissible in America. I don't agree with them, any more than I do the Augusta example. Back on topic and a more serious note. Are there actual lawsuits being filed against the bakery type company examples? I know there are several examples of protests and "public outrage" type stuff, but are there actual civil rights lawsuits that are being fought and won by people who are being turned away due to sexual orientation? I'm mostly wondering if the law is in step with public opinion on sexual orientation being a protected class. Or, is it more of the context of a public business denying anyone service (gay or straight) being a violation of their civil rights.
|
| 2015-04-07 11:43 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Jackemy1 There are 19 states that have the laws similar to what Indiana just passed. So Indiana didn't invent the wheel here. I saw this response/defense on my tv quite a bit in the last couple of weeks. It is a statement of fact that, if taken on its own, might lead people to believe that the backlash in Indiana is an anomaly. A quick review of our cultural and legal happenings suggests otherwise. 16 states passed their RFRA laws between 1993 and 2010. Concurrently, the federal DOMA law passed (1996), as well as a slew of state DOMAs. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples the freedom to marry, the first sign that the times they were a'changing. CoJ saw many angst-ridden discussions about the fight against, as well as the inevitability of, same sex marriage. I think I wrote in '07 that the tide had changed and it was just a matter of time before the DOMAs were overturned. A gay BTer was saddened by the rhetoric and not as optimistic as I was, which is probably why I remember the thread so well. Clearly, the tide has turned. Where once the majority seemed to support DOMA laws, the majority has changed its mind. What was once an accepted attitude or practice - treating the LGBT community as separate but equal or even unequal - is no longer supported or tolerated by a growing, vocal majority. You can make the argument, if you wish, that RFRA laws do not specifically say that one is free to discriminate against the LGBT community, but the larger community is savvy enough to know that this can be an unintended or intended consequence and they will push back hard and quickly, as we saw in Indiana. When WalMart is saying "this is a bad idea" for our culture, it's an excellent indication that the tide hasn't just changed, it is is running strongly in the opposite direction. To some people, it may seem like an abrupt change in the zeitgeist, but I think it merely means they haven't been paying close attention. SCOTUS has yet to definitively rule on this question. I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic; I am hopefully apprehensive. |
| 2015-04-07 11:58 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by tuwood There are businesses who are allowed to choose who sits at their lunch counter or drinks from their fountain. Yes, they're private clubs, but they're still businesses with their name on the awning and it's permissible in America. I don't agree with them, any more than I do the Augusta example. Back on topic and a more serious note. Are there actual lawsuits being filed against the bakery type company examples? I know there are several examples of protests and "public outrage" type stuff, but are there actual civil rights lawsuits that are being fought and won by people who are being turned away due to sexual orientation? I'm mostly wondering if the law is in step with public opinion on sexual orientation being a protected class. Or, is it more of the context of a public business denying anyone service (gay or straight) being a violation of their civil rights.
I have no problem with Augusta National's prior membership policy, nor do I take issue with a gender specific gym or the Boy Scouts' policies. They are operating in accordance with our laws. I'll leave it to the legal minds to kick around, but my lay understanding is that, since the LBGT community is not a protected class, they are not entitled to file civil rights lawsuits. The LGBT community has been pressing for protected class status for years, to no avail except with some minor wins (D.C?), if memory serves. I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I'm wrong. |
| 2015-04-07 12:47 PM in reply to: Renee |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Renee Originally posted by tuwood There are businesses who are allowed to choose who sits at their lunch counter or drinks from their fountain. Yes, they're private clubs, but they're still businesses with their name on the awning and it's permissible in America. I don't agree with them, any more than I do the Augusta example. I have no problem with Augusta National's prior membership policy, nor do I take issue with a gender specific gym or the Boy Scouts' policies. They are operating in accordance with our laws. I'll leave it to the legal minds to kick around, but my lay understanding is that, since the LBGT community is not a protected class, they are not entitled to file civil rights lawsuits. The LGBT community has been pressing for protected class status for years, to no avail except with some minor wins (D.C?), if memory serves. I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I'm wrong. Back on topic and a more serious note. Are there actual lawsuits being filed against the bakery type company examples? I know there are several examples of protests and "public outrage" type stuff, but are there actual civil rights lawsuits that are being fought and won by people who are being turned away due to sexual orientation? I'm mostly wondering if the law is in step with public opinion on sexual orientation being a protected class. Or, is it more of the context of a public business denying anyone service (gay or straight) being a violation of their civil rights.
That was kind of my understanding, but I honestly don't know. btw, excellent summary in your previous post. |
| 2015-04-07 1:24 PM in reply to: Renee |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Renee Originally posted by tuwood There are businesses who are allowed to choose who sits at their lunch counter or drinks from their fountain. Yes, they're private clubs, but they're still businesses with their name on the awning and it's permissible in America. I don't agree with them, any more than I do the Augusta example. Back on topic and a more serious note. Are there actual lawsuits being filed against the bakery type company examples? I know there are several examples of protests and "public outrage" type stuff, but are there actual civil rights lawsuits that are being fought and won by people who are being turned away due to sexual orientation? I'm mostly wondering if the law is in step with public opinion on sexual orientation being a protected class. Or, is it more of the context of a public business denying anyone service (gay or straight) being a violation of their civil rights.
I have no problem with Augusta National's prior membership policy, nor do I take issue with a gender specific gym or the Boy Scouts' policies. They are operating in accordance with our laws. I'll leave it to the legal minds to kick around, but my lay understanding is that, since the LBGT community is not a protected class, they are not entitled to file civil rights lawsuits. The LGBT community has been pressing for protected class status for years, to no avail except with some minor wins (D.C?), if memory serves. I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I'm wrong. There are many states where sexual orientation is a protected class and one is entitled to file civil rights lawsuits. |
| 2015-04-07 1:29 PM in reply to: Renee |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Renee 16 states passed their RFRA laws between 1993 and 2010. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the difference was either it was only the government that could not put undo pressure on people and business for there religious beliefs for the other states but in Indiana it extended to be government, businesses and people? That and the face that ltgb community is not protected class therefor it applies there and not other places? I thought that this law was pretty much anti gay but I guess it means I can not sue you for not carrying something heavy on the sabbath if your a Jew for instance. Trying to find something other than wedding cakes that could be done with the law. |
| 2015-04-07 1:30 PM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Forgot a co worker of mine thought maybe instead of forcing you to make a wedding cake they should be required to give them the number of someone who would. Only issue then is what if there isn't anyone else? |
| 2015-04-07 2:02 PM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by Renee 16 states passed their RFRA laws between 1993 and 2010. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the difference was either it was only the government that could not put undo pressure on people and business for there religious beliefs for the other states but in Indiana it extended to be government, businesses and people? That and the face that ltgb community is not protected class therefor it applies there and not other places? I thought that this law was pretty much anti gay but I guess it means I can not sue you for not carrying something heavy on the sabbath if your a Jew for instance. Trying to find something other than wedding cakes that could be done with the law. Should a Catholic caterer be forced by law to do a Planned Parenthood holiday party? How about Muslim photographer hired to photograph an art exhibit opening depicting sacrilegious pieces of Mohammed? |
| 2015-04-07 2:13 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Renee I'll leave it to the legal minds to kick around, but my lay understanding is that, since the LBGT community is not a protected class, they are not entitled to file civil rights lawsuits. The LGBT community has been pressing for protected class status for years, to no avail except with some minor wins (D.C?), if memory serves. I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I'm wrong. There are many states where sexual orientation is a protected class and one is entitled to file civil rights lawsuits. I did a quick search and, if we are to believe Wikipedia, 22 states + DC and PR outlaw discrimination based upon sexual orientation. 19 states + DC and PR outlaw discrimination based on gender identity. Not quite half the Union, but getting there. That's higher than I imagined, but I haven't been paying attention to the advancement of those rights. Happy to have my ignorance informed by such happy news. I still don't know if this means the LGBT community is a protected class, in the strict legal sense. Maybe they are, but only in the states that outlaw such discrimination? I'm using legal terms that I'm not well versed in using. |
| 2015-04-07 2:41 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Jackemy1 Should a Catholic caterer be forced by law to do a Planned Parenthood holiday party? How about Muslim photographer hired to photograph an art exhibit opening depicting sacrilegious pieces of Mohammed? Another way to ask the question is: Should Planned Parenthood be allowed to buy the products the Catholic caterer makes? Should an art exhibitor or museum be allowed to buy the services of a Muslim photographer? Also, it appears the answer begins with "It depends what state you live in." |
| 2015-04-08 8:54 AM in reply to: Renee |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Here's a story that's just starting to hit the media locally here in Omaha. This school is about two blocks from my office. As a private institution I feel they have the right (with current law) to do this, but based on my understanding of scripture I don't think it's right. |
| 2015-04-08 10:42 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by tuwood Here's a story that's just starting to hit the media locally here in Omaha. This school is about two blocks from my office. As a private institution I feel they have the right (with current law) to do this, but based on my understanding of scripture I don't think it's right. I say let them fire him. They don't deserve him anyway. Another school can hire him and provide a better education for its students than the school that let him go. |
| 2015-04-08 10:46 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Renee Originally posted by tuwood So, in sum, apples and oranges. Your suggestion that they are the same is disgraceful. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ You really like putting words in my mouth. I never said they were the same, I was simply responding to your quote earlier in this thread. We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. There are businesses who are allowed to choose who sits at their lunch counter or drinks from their fountain. Yes, they're private clubs, but they're still businesses with their name on the awning and it's permissible in America. I don't agree with them, any more than I do the Augusta example. Back on topic and a more serious note. Are there actual lawsuits being filed against the bakery type company examples? I know there are several examples of protests and "public outrage" type stuff, but are there actual civil rights lawsuits that are being fought and won by people who are being turned away due to sexual orientation? I'm mostly wondering if the law is in step with public opinion on sexual orientation being a protected class. Or, is it more of the context of a public business denying anyone service (gay or straight) being a violation of their civil rights.
I'm sorry, Tony, it's disingneuous to place the two examples side by side with no qualification in your statement and to then claim that you're not equating them. But whatever, agree to disagree and all that. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2015-04-08 10:47 AM |
| 2015-04-08 10:55 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by Renee 16 states passed their RFRA laws between 1993 and 2010. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the difference was either it was only the government that could not put undo pressure on people and business for there religious beliefs for the other states but in Indiana it extended to be government, businesses and people? That and the face that ltgb community is not protected class therefor it applies there and not other places? I thought that this law was pretty much anti gay but I guess it means I can not sue you for not carrying something heavy on the sabbath if your a Jew for instance. Trying to find something other than wedding cakes that could be done with the law. Should a Catholic caterer be forced by law to do a Planned Parenthood holiday party? How about Muslim photographer hired to photograph an art exhibit opening depicting sacrilegious pieces of Mohammed? I think this is where the rub is: "ABC Caterer", is a brick and mortar business, and, as such, in my opinion, doesn't get to exercise a religion. Maybe the owner of ABC Caterer is a devout catholic who doesn't want to do the party, but, as I said before, if you open a business, you have to abide by the laws that say you have to serve everyone. |
| 2015-04-08 11:51 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by Renee 16 states passed their RFRA laws between 1993 and 2010. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the difference was either it was only the government that could not put undo pressure on people and business for there religious beliefs for the other states but in Indiana it extended to be government, businesses and people? That and the face that ltgb community is not protected class therefor it applies there and not other places? I thought that this law was pretty much anti gay but I guess it means I can not sue you for not carrying something heavy on the sabbath if your a Jew for instance. Trying to find something other than wedding cakes that could be done with the law. Should a Catholic caterer be forced by law to do a Planned Parenthood holiday party? How about Muslim photographer hired to photograph an art exhibit opening depicting sacrilegious pieces of Mohammed? I think this is where the rub is: "ABC Caterer", is a brick and mortar business, and, as such, in my opinion, doesn't get to exercise a religion. Maybe the owner of ABC Caterer is a devout catholic who doesn't want to do the party, but, as I said before, if you open a business, you have to abide by the laws that say you have to serve everyone. So one must give up their faith to earn a living? Or more correctly, if a business owner doesn't share your faith or the popular faith of the times then it is your position that they don't have a right to a living I am of the opinion that the position of a Catholic caterer who would gladly serve someone who worked at Planned Parenthood in their restaurant but refrain from catering a holiday party at Planned Parenthood because of what they believe their faith demands of them is less hateful or intolerant than the culture police who tweet "let's burn that family's business to the ground." http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/schools/2015/04/01/Concord-High-Sc... |
| 2015-04-08 12:08 PM in reply to: 0 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Renee Originally posted by Jackemy1 Should a Catholic caterer be forced by law to do a Planned Parenthood holiday party? How about Muslim photographer hired to photograph an art exhibit opening depicting sacrilegious pieces of Mohammed? Another way to ask the question is: Should Planned Parenthood be allowed to buy the products the Catholic caterer makes? Should an art exhibitor or museum be allowed to buy the services of a Muslim photographer? Also, it appears the answer begins with "It depends what state you live in." The Indiana law the laws in other states similar to Indiana provides the courts guidance to balance religious freedoms against the interest of government and society. So I think in practice and depending on the circumstances in the case the answer to your question is it can go either way. Edited by Jackemy1 2015-04-08 12:23 PM |
| 2015-04-08 1:29 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Maybe all businesses in the future should place a sticker on their window which signifies which faith tor belief system they belong too. This way you know before you walk in what their beliefs are, and no one gets offended! |
| 2015-04-08 1:36 PM in reply to: jford2309 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jford2309 Maybe all businesses in the future should place a sticker on their window which signifies which faith tor belief system they belong too. This way you know before you walk in what their beliefs are, and no one gets offended! how about they just list the groups and people they hate on the outside, since it seems who to hate is up to the individual, and not the "faith system" itself. |
| 2015-04-08 1:40 PM in reply to: jford2309 |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana I am just waiting for a bicycle shop refusing to help a triathlete on grounds that cycling is there religion and they belief that triathletes are evil. |
| 2015-04-09 8:09 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Jackemy1 I am of the opinion that the position of a Catholic caterer who would gladly serve someone who worked at Planned Parenthood in their restaurant but refrain from catering a holiday party at Planned Parenthood because of what they believe their faith demands of them is less hateful or intolerant than the culture police who tweet "let's burn that family's business to the ground." http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/schools/2015/04/01/Concord-High-Sc... I try not to judge various levels of hate or intolerance, or indulge in pitting groups against each other (tribalism, blech), or painting with broad strokes. I find that it can lead me to create false premises or corrupt my logical thinking with bias and reach a false conclusion. If I'm going to bother at all, my drive is to understand the truth of a matter, whatever it is. I *think* the law says that if you are a business that provides public accommodation, you can't pick and chose which tribe you'll serve. (I don't believe a religious institution like a church, temple or synagogue falls into this definition of business.) It appears to me that the internet is getting better at creating consequences, good or bad, for those who advocate illegal idiocy at the micro level. You would think a teacher would know better, and probably does, but passions get the better of most of us, at times. Ten seconds to type, ten years to regret. |
| 2015-04-09 8:44 AM in reply to: 0 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jford2309 Maybe all businesses in the future should place a sticker on their window which signifies which faith tor belief system they belong too. This way you know before you walk in what their beliefs are, and no one gets offended! This discussion isn't just a mental exercise for me. We are opening a salon in the next couple of months. We will be open to all, providing services to all, to include wedding hair/make-up. Our state started issuing marriage licenses to all this year. There are wedding planning sites that cater to gay couples and refer them to gay-friendly services/venues; we will be going through the process of being vetted to make sure our salon is welcoming of all couples. This includes a day-long seminar we must attend. Part of our interviewing process includes asking our candidates for hire if they would be comfortable with working a same-sex wedding. I dislike even having to ask the question; it's like asking if they are a bigot, in my mind. At the same time, I have to respect that some people will equate providing an up-do with providing marriage sacraments. I'm not there to judge their beliefs; I just want to know they will provide the services we advertise, regardless of the beliefs, religion, race, sexual orientation, or national origin of our customers, Everybody's money is green and I'm happy to take it. The HR laws are unclear on how we can screen out candidates who refuse to provide these services. I think I will be putting together a policy statement for our new-hire package, something along the lines of our business being a place of public accommodation. I'm not keen on losing an otherwise good hire because they won't provide these services. I can't predict if someone who is opposed would want to cause trouble for my salon, even if they are not the one providing the service. I can see where 1 stupid tweet from an employee could set off an internet dust-up and adversely affect my business. No news crews will be allowed! We don't need to become a target for the various pitchfork factions, thanks to one ill-advised comment. My partner thinks I over-think things; I probably do. However, I am aware that there is a plethora of pitchforks to be had on the internet and things can go wrong very quickly in this age of type first, think last (or not at all). * Edited homonym mishap Edited by Renee 2015-04-09 8:46 AM |
| 2015-04-09 8:58 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by Renee 16 states passed their RFRA laws between 1993 and 2010. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the difference was either it was only the government that could not put undo pressure on people and business for there religious beliefs for the other states but in Indiana it extended to be government, businesses and people? That and the face that ltgb community is not protected class therefor it applies there and not other places? I thought that this law was pretty much anti gay but I guess it means I can not sue you for not carrying something heavy on the sabbath if your a Jew for instance. Trying to find something other than wedding cakes that could be done with the law. Should a Catholic caterer be forced by law to do a Planned Parenthood holiday party? How about Muslim photographer hired to photograph an art exhibit opening depicting sacrilegious pieces of Mohammed? I think this is where the rub is: "ABC Caterer", is a brick and mortar business, and, as such, in my opinion, doesn't get to exercise a religion. Maybe the owner of ABC Caterer is a devout catholic who doesn't want to do the party, but, as I said before, if you open a business, you have to abide by the laws that say you have to serve everyone. So one must give up their faith to earn a living? Or more correctly, if a business owner doesn't share your faith or the popular faith of the times then it is your position that they don't have a right to a living I am of the opinion that the position of a Catholic caterer who would gladly serve someone who worked at Planned Parenthood in their restaurant but refrain from catering a holiday party at Planned Parenthood because of what they believe their faith demands of them is less hateful or intolerant than the culture police who tweet "let's burn that family's business to the ground." http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/schools/2015/04/01/Concord-High-Sc... My point is, then, that you shouldn't get to pick and choose whom you get to discriminate against "on the basis of your religion". If ABC caterer wants to not do business with planned parenthood because it offends their faith, fine, but then they should also refuse to cater any event that violates catholic scripture in any way. Likewise, if the Muslim photographer wants to refuse to shoot the event where he finds some of the art distasteful! fine, but if he shows up at another event and there's prosciutto on the buffet, he's got to pack up and go home, giving a full refund on the way out. This use of religion as an excuse to deny service to certain people that the business owner finds objectionable is a sham. As I said, if this were really about faith, they'd extend their refusal to anyone who violated their faith in any way (and they'd be out of business in about five minutes). But it's not about faith. It's about bigotry and discrimination. Period. When people in the 40s and 50s were trying to justify segregation, what do you think they used as an excuse? Religion. They said that G-d said that race-mixing was an abomination and a sin, and that the races had to be kept separate as a result. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK