These RFRA's have been around for decades and Christians have yet to establish segregated lunch lines. And the Indiana RFRA does nothing to allow discrimination.
This is nothing but the latest attempt of the Left to demonize a group it doesn't like, or views as the opposition. That's all it is.
Settle down, brothers and sisters. There are not hordes of Christians hiding around every corner, waiting to refuse services to any certain group. It's gonna be alright.
no...they're hiding around the corner for other reasons.
This is a special kind of bad law. It's way, way too broad, Indiana lawmakers were advised by over 30 legal experts it was too broad, yet they passed it anyway, signed it behind closed doors.
It's not even close to the previous Federal and state laws that are already on the books elsewhere, and claiming that it is similar is merely reactionary tribalism reflective of the current political arena.
In the end, the $$$$ or rather loss of $$$$ along with bad PR will triumph over right wing ideology
I don't for one minute believe this is limited to, "Right wing ideology". Closed mindedness and living in the past are not hashtags owned by just one political affiliation. No way. I do agree though; the most effective way of crushing this is to hit Indiana and the other states who've adopted thinking like this right in the wallet.
alloak - Are you reading & listening?
I am. And what I'm hearing is nothing but a bunch of ginned up hysteria trying to score politically on the issue. Would someone please cite language in the bill that "makes discrimination legal in Indiana?"
My God, you'd think the KKK wrote the damn thing.
Here is the text of the letter signed by somewhere around 30 legal experts on this type of law, sent to Indiana Rep. Ed Delaney back on February 27th, in which they outline the issues with the law, the faulty broad scope of the law and the prediction that includes the firestorm that ensued.
Republican governors have taken quite the preference lately to signing laws in closed ceremonies. Didn't they just have a resounding victory in the last midterms? If they have the mandate of the will of the people, what's with all the exclusionary secrecy?
They really went out on a limb predicting a firestorm. Isn't that a given by now? A firestorm fueled by a blow torch of self-righteousness. A made to order scenario, pounced upon by those who believe they have the most to gain politically by keeping people pissed off at each other.
Republican governors have taken quite the preference lately to signing laws in closed ceremonies. Didn't they just have a resounding victory in the last midterms? If they have the mandate of the will of the people, what's with all the exclusionary secrecy?
Secrecy appears to be a growing trend in government.
They really went out on a limb predicting a firestorm. Isn't that a given by now? A firestorm fueled by a blow torch of self-righteousness. A made to order scenario, pounced upon by those who believe they have the most to gain politically by keeping people pissed off at each other.
No, they said how the law could be interpreted to discriminate against certain types of people. The State Legislators passed it and the governor signed it anyway. And the reaction was as predicted. Other states have passed similar laws but made sure that their laws were worded properly.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alloak - Are you reading & listening?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am. And what I'm hearing is nothing but a bunch of ginned up hysteria trying to score politically on the issue.
From the guy keeping the "Hillary Clinton" thread alive each day with more and more "breaking news" over this major e-mail scandal.....please.
They really went out on a limb predicting a firestorm. Isn't that a given by now? A firestorm fueled by a blow torch of self-righteousness. A made to order scenario, pounced upon by those who believe they have the most to gain politically by keeping people pissed off at each other.
No, they said how the law could be interpreted to discriminate against certain types of people. The State Legislators passed it and the governor signed it anyway. And the reaction was as predicted. Other states have passed similar laws but made sure that their laws were worded properly.
And I still don't quite understand why these laws are needed in the first place, or why people who normally advocate for less government think they are a good idea.
For those that do think it is needed, please help me understand. If a business owner believes doing something, let's just call it X for argument's sake, if that business owner thinks X is a sin, is it the sinner they don't want to do business with, or is it someone who sins by specifically doing X they don't want to do business with? Or is it anyone who follows another religion that they don't want to do business with? Does this law mean that it will be ok in Indiana for restaurant that is otherwise open to the public to refuse to serve jews, or catholics, or muslims, or atheists, or anyone else who might have a differing religious view or has sinned in any way (lied, cheated on their spouse, covets thy neighbors wife, dosn't recognize the Sabbath, etc) without any repercussions? Does that sound like America to you? It sure doesn't to me, and all of the political posturing has made it difficult to understand what the actual issue the law is supposed to address really is.
[Edited on 3/31/2015 by gondicar]
They really went out on a limb predicting a firestorm. Isn't that a given by now? A firestorm fueled by a blow torch of self-righteousness. A made to order scenario, pounced upon by those who believe they have the most to gain politically by keeping people pissed off at each other.
No, they said how the law could be interpreted to discriminate against certain types of people. The State Legislators passed it and the governor signed it anyway. And the reaction was as predicted. Other states have passed similar laws but made sure that their laws were worded properly.
And I still don't quite understand why these laws are needed in the first place, or why people who normally advocate for less government think they are a good idea.
For those that do think it is needed, please help me understand. If a business owner believes doing something, let's just call it X for argument's sake, if that business owner thinks X is a sin, is it the sinner they don't want to do business with, or is it someone who sins by specifically doing X they don't want to do business with? Or is it anyone who follows another religion that they don't want to do business with? Does this law mean that it will be ok in Indiana for restaurant that is otherwise open to the public to refuse to serve jews, or catholics, or muslims, or atheists, or anyone else who might have a differing religious view or has sinned in any way (lied, cheated on their spouse, covets thy neighbors wife, dosn't recognize the Sabbath, etc) without any repercussions? Does that sound like America to you? It sure doesn't to me, and all of the political posturing has made it difficult to understand what the actual issue the law is supposed to address really is.
[Edited on 3/31/2015 by gondicar]
An extreme example of what this law is intended to do, Catholic run hospitals do not want to perform abortions as they are not permitted by their religion. They have the right to not allow abortions to be performed in their facilities.
A workman (plumber, electrician etc) would be allowed to refuse to provide services to a place that may violate his beliefs. something like a strip club, a hospital that allows abortions, or possibly something like a farm that grows GMO crops. There are religions that oppose GMO foods. There are probably many more examples that others could come up with.
In the end, the $$$$ or rather loss of $$$$ along with bad PR will triumph over right wing ideology
I don't for one minute believe this is limited to, "Right wing ideology". Closed mindedness and living in the past are not hashtags owned by just one political affiliation. No way. I do agree though; the most effective way of crushing this is to hit Indiana and the other states who've adopted thinking like this right in the wallet.
So can you expand upon which political affiliations on a macro level or close mindedness sectors of the population other than right wingers you believe would favor the intent of these sorts of laws?
They really went out on a limb predicting a firestorm. Isn't that a given by now? A firestorm fueled by a blow torch of self-righteousness. A made to order scenario, pounced upon by those who believe they have the most to gain politically by keeping people pissed off at each other.
No, they said how the law could be interpreted to discriminate against certain types of people. The State Legislators passed it and the governor signed it anyway. And the reaction was as predicted. Other states have passed similar laws but made sure that their laws were worded properly.
And I still don't quite understand why these laws are needed in the first place, or why people who normally advocate for less government think they are a good idea.
For those that do think it is needed, please help me understand. If a business owner believes doing something, let's just call it X for argument's sake, if that business owner thinks X is a sin, is it the sinner they don't want to do business with, or is it someone who sins by specifically doing X they don't want to do business with? Or is it anyone who follows another religion that they don't want to do business with? Does this law mean that it will be ok in Indiana for restaurant that is otherwise open to the public to refuse to serve jews, or catholics, or muslims, or atheists, or anyone else who might have a differing religious view or has sinned in any way (lied, cheated on their spouse, covets thy neighbors wife, dosn't recognize the Sabbath, etc) without any repercussions? Does that sound like America to you? It sure doesn't to me, and all of the political posturing has made it difficult to understand what the actual issue the law is supposed to address really is.
[Edited on 3/31/2015 by gondicar]
An extreme example of what this law is intended to do, Catholic run hospitals do not want to perform abortions as they are not permitted by their religion. They have the right to not allow abortions to be performed in their facilities.
A workman (plumber, electrician etc) would be allowed to refuse to provide services to a place that may violate his beliefs. something like a strip club, a hospital that allows abortions, or possibly something like a farm that grows GMO crops. There are religions that oppose GMO foods. There are probably many more examples that others could come up with.
I saw an Indianapolis baker interviewed on TV , & he said his family business refused to bake some sort of Rainbow cookies for a gay party because it conflicts with his family's religious / moral beliefs. So there you go. Hope his business goes broke.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alloak - Are you reading & listening?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am. And what I'm hearing is nothing but a bunch of ginned up hysteria trying to score politically on the issue.
From the guy keeping the "Hillary Clinton" thread alive each day with more and more "breaking news" over this major e-mail scandal.....please.
Seems as if she's done a pretty good job keeping it alive. But that's OK, you be sure and let me know what I should be posting about from now on.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alloak - Are you reading & listening?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am. And what I'm hearing is nothing but a bunch of ginned up hysteria trying to score politically on the issue.
From the guy keeping the "Hillary Clinton" thread alive each day with more and more "breaking news" over this major e-mail scandal.....please.
Seems as if she's done a pretty good job keeping it alive. But that's OK, you be sure and let me know what I should be posting about from now on.
WOW! you mean Hillary has been bumping the thread about her ? What screen name does she post as?
[Edited on 4/1/2015 by Bill_Graham]
They really went out on a limb predicting a firestorm. Isn't that a given by now? A firestorm fueled by a blow torch of self-righteousness. A made to order scenario, pounced upon by those who believe they have the most to gain politically by keeping people pissed off at each other.
No, they said how the law could be interpreted to discriminate against certain types of people. The State Legislators passed it and the governor signed it anyway. And the reaction was as predicted. Other states have passed similar laws but made sure that their laws were worded properly.
And I still don't quite understand why these laws are needed in the first place, or why people who normally advocate for less government think they are a good idea.
For those that do think it is needed, please help me understand. If a business owner believes doing something, let's just call it X for argument's sake, if that business owner thinks X is a sin, is it the sinner they don't want to do business with, or is it someone who sins by specifically doing X they don't want to do business with? Or is it anyone who follows another religion that they don't want to do business with? Does this law mean that it will be ok in Indiana for restaurant that is otherwise open to the public to refuse to serve jews, or catholics, or muslims, or atheists, or anyone else who might have a differing religious view or has sinned in any way (lied, cheated on their spouse, covets thy neighbors wife, dosn't recognize the Sabbath, etc) without any repercussions? Does that sound like America to you? It sure doesn't to me, and all of the political posturing has made it difficult to understand what the actual issue the law is supposed to address really is.
[Edited on 3/31/2015 by gondicar]
An extreme example of what this law is intended to do, Catholic run hospitals do not want to perform abortions as they are not permitted by their religion. They have the right to not allow abortions to be performed in their facilities.
A workman (plumber, electrician etc) would be allowed to refuse to provide services to a place that may violate his beliefs. something like a strip club, a hospital that allows abortions, or possibly something like a farm that grows GMO crops. There are religions that oppose GMO foods. There are probably many more examples that others could come up with.
I saw an Indianapolis baker interviewed on TV , & he said his family business refused to bake some sort of Rainbow cookies for a gay party because it conflicts with his family's religious / moral beliefs. So there you go. Hope his business goes broke.
did the people throwing the gay party go somewhere else to get their cookies? Right, they shouldn't have to... but why would they want to go to that business? It's like, "I know your conscience tells you otherwise and I know as a Christian you find our lifestyle abhorrent but you ARE going to make these cookies for us, like it or not...it's the law". Personally, I'd make the cookies and I'm a Christian. my faith tells me homosexuality is not only a sin, it's living in sin, never mind the biological slant, but I do hate sin, not the sinner. So cookies for everybody! $300.
...and then the argument could be made that I compromised my faith, my faith-based, God-driven conscience so a gay couple could have some cookies. THEIR will forced upon my spirituality in the name of the law. Is that discrimination or am I not getting it?
Personally, I'd make the cookies and I'm a Christian. my faith tells me homosexuality is not only a sin, it's living in sin
I've never understood this. I'm a Christian too, and I always interpreted God's teachings that we should love everyone and treat them equally, as everyone is one of God's creatures. Love thy neighbor. I guess the Bible is like a Rorsach test...you see what you want to see.
I do applaud you though for doing business with them. I appreciate that you can separate the two.
Personally, I'd make the cookies and I'm a Christian. my faith tells me homosexuality is not only a sin, it's living in sin
I've never understood this. I'm a Christian too, and I always interpreted God's teachings that we should love everyone and treat them equally, as everyone is one of God's creatures. Love thy neighbor. I guess the Bible is like a Rorsach test...you see what you want to see.
I do applaud you though for doing business with them. I appreciate that you can separate the two.
by selling them the cookies I'm treating them equally and loving them in the Word. I'm not their judge, God is.
Just make sure that you practice your faith only within the four walls of your church or in your own home. Take it outside of those two areas and you can get yourself in deep trouble.
...and then the argument could be made that I compromised my faith, my faith-based, God-driven conscience so a gay couple could have some cookies. THEIR will forced upon my spirituality in the name of the law. Is that discrimination or am I not getting it?
This is what I have a hard time buying into. You are making them cookies. That is not a sin as far as I know. My understanding is that Christianity calls for compassion, kindness and love of all, sinners or not. You may disagree with their lifestyle, but I don't understand how doing business with them is against religious doctrine. Would those who would deny service based on sexual orientation also deny service to people who are not always truthful, commit adultery, don't believe in God at all, etc, etc? In my view it is just a "convenient" way for some people to ostracize a segment of the population that do things that they do not approve of. As you said, piacere, it is not our place to judge, that is up to God.
[Edited on 4/1/2015 by gondicar]
Just make sure that you practice your faith only within the four walls of your church or in your own home. Take it outside of those two areas and you can get yourself in deep trouble.
A great idea. Now we finally agree. Keep that stuff private, and lets avoid wars.
Personally, I'd make the cookies and I'm a Christian. my faith tells me homosexuality is not only a sin, it's living in sin
I've never understood this. I'm a Christian too, and I always interpreted God's teachings that we should love everyone and treat them equally, as everyone is one of God's creatures. Love thy neighbor. I guess the Bible is like a Rorsach test...you see what you want to see.
I do applaud you though for doing business with them. I appreciate that you can separate the two.
by selling them the cookies I'm treating them equally
Just as 99.98% of the cookie-baking universe would. But somehow just because this law passed, bakers will start refusing service all of the sudden? Ridiculous. This is just another tool to keep people mad at each other. Republicans are meanies, and since Christians tend to vote Republican, there you have it.....
An extreme example of what this law is intended to do, Catholic run hospitals do not want to perform abortions as they are not permitted by their religion. They have the right to not allow abortions to be performed in their facilities.
This one is a little more gray/complex for me. Performing an abortion would make that doctor an active participant in the offensive activity.
A workman (plumber, electrician etc) would be allowed to refuse to provide services to a place that may violate his beliefs. something like a strip club, a hospital that allows abortions, or possibly something like a farm that grows GMO crops. There are religions that oppose GMO foods. There are probably many more examples that others could come up with.
These examples are more clear cut...fixing a leaky pipe at a hospital that performs abortions or at a strip club, etc. doesn't make the plumber an active participant in the activity that he/she is against.
In any case, I don't think the Indiana law is right and I support any and all legal attempts to force the legislators there to reconsider.
...and then the argument could be made that I compromised my faith, my faith-based, God-driven conscience so a gay couple could have some cookies. THEIR will forced upon my spirituality in the name of the law. Is that discrimination or am I not getting it?
This is what I have a hard time buying into. You are making them cookies. That is not a sin as far as I know. My understanding is that Christianity calls for compassion, kindness and love of all, sinners or not. You may disagree with their lifestyle, but I don't understand how doing business with them is against religious doctrine. Would you are also going to deny service to people who are not always truthful, commit adultery, don't believe in God at all, etc, etc. In my view it is just a "convenient" way for some people to ostracize a segment of the population that do things that they do not approve of.
living in this world as Christians we are confronted with these types of scenarios and people, of which I am one myself (i.e., a sinner), daily, hourly in some cases. As Paul said, "If we wanted to avoid sin, we'd have to leave this world but as it is we are in the world but not OF the world". The coping mechanism for the sin we are surrounded by is God's Word and His Son, Jesus Christ and the love that flows from Him. No one deserves a finger pointed at them even though we all fall short of the glory of God and often fail miserably but to hold it against another for any reason or way of life isn't what being a true Christian is. When you point a finger at someone, three of your own are pointing back at you. If I were to deny any and all sinners, I'd have to live on the moon. The people who deny them business need to look in a mirror and the people who want the cookies should too. Where is their compassion and understanding for someone else's beliefs? Why do they knowingly force their will upon someone who they know doesn't approve of their lifestyle? It's as if they're being antagonists. Yet...we cope...and tolerate...
Personally, I'd make the cookies and I'm a Christian. my faith tells me homosexuality is not only a sin, it's living in sin
I've never understood this. I'm a Christian too, and I always interpreted God's teachings that we should love everyone and treat them equally, as everyone is one of God's creatures. Love thy neighbor. I guess the Bible is like a Rorsach test...you see what you want to see.
I do applaud you though for doing business with them. I appreciate that you can separate the two.
by selling them the cookies I'm treating them equally
Just as 99.98% of the cookie-baking universe would. But somehow just because this law passed, bakers will start refusing service all of the sudden? Ridiculous. This is just another tool to keep people mad at each other. Republicans are meanies, and since Christians tend to vote Republican, there you have it.....
So does this mean that you support this kind of legislation? If so, why? You've made it very clear how you feel about the people that are protesting it, but what about the legislation itself?
[Edited on 4/1/2015 by gondicar]
But somehow just because this law passed, bakers will start refusing service all of the sudden? Ridiculous.
Funny, the rights of bakers not baking something was (and is) extremely important to everyone in Conservative World and was quite likely the catalyst for the thinking that drove this type of legislation. Were they being ridiculous when they were supporting refusal of service?
This is just another tool to keep people mad at each other. Republicans are meanies, and since Christians tend to vote Republican, there you have it.....
The way Republicans squirm and deflect when confronted with even the slightest notion that one of their own may have made a mistake is always entertaining.
If this law in Indiana is so right and honorable, then why is the Governor saying it needs to be changed?
The people who deny them business need to look in a mirror and the people who want the cookies should too. Where is their compassion and understanding for someone else's beliefs? Why do they knowingly force their will upon someone who they know doesn't approve of their lifestyle? It's as if they're being antagonists.
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
I highly suggest everyone read the text of the letter from the group of attorneys that specialize in this type of law. The entire situation makes a lot more sense. I'm not an attorney, but it's pretty easy to read.
The law in Indiana grants special status to religious liberty rights, which greatly effects the balance set forth by previous laws and precedent.
While it may or may not be the primary driver behind the drafting of this law (who am I kidding?), take the gay and lesbian element out of it. What if, say, a Muslim grocery store owner demands that all women who enter his store must wear a hijab or they will be refused service and must leave? What if an athiest refuses service to someone wearing a crucifix necklace?
This type of law sets up guidelines for courts to use when deciding lawsuits between the refused and those doing the refusing. If they don't change the language narrowing the scope and clarifying the intent, the word "nightmare" won't even begin to describe what will avalanche Indiana courts.
