Heretic Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Good grief. Seriously, what are they thinking? In case you haven't heard: "Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,[1] is a law in the American state of Indiana, which mandates that religious liberty of individuals and corporations can only be limited by the “least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.”[2] The bill has been controversial. Opponents of the law claim that it is targeted against LGBT people and other groups. The bill is similar to the controversial Arizona SB 1062 vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer in 2014, which expanded Arizona's existing RFRA to include corporations." Could Indiana's new "religious freedom" law really allow restaurants to deny service to customers who are gay? Is the law necessary in order to protect pastors from being forced into performing same-sex weddings? Could it provide a legal rationale for Christian bakeries to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding? The problem with these questions is that the answers depend on whom you ask — especially among those most emotionally invested, but even within the legal community. And, now, with Gov. Mike Pence's announcement Saturday that he will seek further legislation to "clarify" the act, it could become even more complicated. The argument over what Pence has thus signed becomes not only intellectual, but visceral, vitriolic, ugly. Both sides dig in, because each thinks the other is flatly wrong— in their hearts, and on the facts. And the debate rages on, sometimes spiraling to a place so far away from the law itself. All of which raises a larger question. Which really matters most: What the religious freedom law will actually legally enable; what people think it means; or what the intent is behind the law? Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, might actually do little as a law when it goes into effect July 1, legal experts say. It simply sets a standard by which cases involving religious objections will be judged. The religious freedom law says the government cannot intrude on a person's religious liberty unless it can prove a compelling interest in imposing that burden and do so in the least restrictive way. And, yes, that leaves room for interpretation. So what the law could actually accomplish, experts agree, will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, probably in court. Until then, the debate — fueled by fiery rhetoric that has galvanized both sides — will remain in the court of public opinion. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/29/religious-freedom-law-really-means-indiana/70601584/ The good news is, it may open doors as well: The First Church of Cannabis was approved after Indiana’s religious freedom law was passed The First Church of Cannabis Inc. has been approved by Indiana’s secretary of state after the state’s religious freedom legislation became law last week. The church’s founder Bill Levin said he filed paperwork in direct response to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law last Thursday. Secretary of State Connie Lawson approved the church as a religious corporation with the stated intent “to start a church based on love and understanding with compassion for all.” (Letter provided by Bill Levin) (Letter provided by Bill Levin) Cannibis is listed as the church’s sacrament in its doctrine, Levin said, and he will set up a church hierarchy. The church will plan to grow hemp, he said, though it will not buy or sell marijuana. “If someone is smoking in our church, God bless them,” Levin said. “This is a church to show a proper way of life, a loving way to live life. We are called ‘cannataerians.’” Marijuana is currently illegal in Indiana for both medical and recreational use, so the church could test the application of the new law. RFRA prevents Indiana’s government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion if it can demonstrate that it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/30/the-first-church-of-cannabis-was-approved-after-indianas-religious-freedom-law-was-passed/?tid=sm_fb Now supposedly they are going to try and clarify what this law really is... In the meantime, they (Indiana) have lost over $40 million dollars from people/company boycotting them. Ever see those signs in a business? "Management has the right to refuse service to anybody". No one's complaining about that. No reason required. If you don't want my money, I'll take it somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 What I don't get is why people are boycotting them. If you discriminate against a discriminator, it doesn't make you the better party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 What I don't get is why people are boycotting them. If you discriminate against a discriminator, it doesn't make you the better party. It's not discrimination not to want to associate with bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Strangelove Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 What I don't get is why people are boycotting them. If you discriminate against a discriminator, it doesn't make you the better party. I disagree I would personally never support a business that said that certain people aren't welcome. Especially when they're discrimination based on something that the individual couldn't control ( Sexuality , Race ,ect). How does not wanting to support bigots put someone on the same level of said bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 What I don't get is why people are boycotting them. If you discriminate against a discriminator, it doesn't make you the better party. Why do people compare boycotting to an attack of sorts. Boycotting a brand is just the people no longer supporting an idea, which slowly fades away out of existence. This is your persecution complex speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I disagree I would personally never support a business that said that certain people aren't welcome. Especially when they're discrimination based on something that the individual couldn't control ( Sexuality , Race ,ect). How does not wanting to support bigots put someone on the same level of said bigots. Race can't be controlled. But some people think sexuality can be. Everyone has a reason for what they do and what they believe. It may not be a good reason, but it's a reason nonetheless. Also, shouldn't people be allowed to serve to whom they want to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Strangelove Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Race can't be controlled. But some people think sexuality can be. Everyone has a reason for what they do and what they believe. It may not be a good reason, but it's a reason nonetheless. Also, shouldn't people be allowed to serve to whom they want to? This explains your attitude then. FTR I'm firmly in the genetic/not a choice camp. You're christian and I can respect your views and even though I disagree with your line of reasoning there is no point in arguing because I'm sure you've already heard this debate before. So I'll simply say let's agree to disagree on the bolded. As for the bottom line. To me it depends if the person is threatening them or harassing them then absolutely but not if they walk with their same sex partner. Regards Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Why do people compare boycotting to an attack of sorts. Boycotting a brand is just the people no longer supporting an idea, which slowly fades away out of existence. This is your persecution complex speaking. Yeah it's not supporting an idea anymore, but it's also not supporting one violently. When the majority of the public thinks it's okay, nothing wrong has been done. But if the majority of the public thinks its not okay, then everything is wrong. Businesses and even Connecticut have pulled out of/disallowed funds for traffic to Indiana because they let business owners choose who they serve to based on what they believe and want. If we were on opposite sides of the debate here, you would be in a position to be called as having a "persecution complex" too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Race can't be controlled. But some people think sexuality can be. Everyone has a reason for what they do and what they believe. It may not be a good reason, but it's a reason nonetheless. Also, shouldn't people be allowed to serve to whom they want to? Wrong on every point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Wrong on every point Then go through with it on every point and tell me what's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Then go through with it on every point and tell me what's wrong. Everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Everything Yes, everything. Tell me what's wrong with everything on that post. Point by point, I want to know. I want to know that race can be controlled and that there aren't people who believe sexuality can be controlled. I want to know that there isn't a reason for why some people do things. Not even one that's deep, deep down inside that they don't even know themselves. I want to know that people shouldn't be allowed to serve who they want, and that they instead should be forced by law to serve everyone, even if it's against their beliefs. Is that better? I fixed "everything". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Then go through with it on every point and tell me what's wrong. Your perspective on this issue stems from seeing religion being persecuted by mockery and trolling, and seeing it as an attack on your beliefs and values. So you apply that to the mockery of a business idea, when people finally wake up to the idea that it's harmful. Why is it harmful? Because a harmful ideology gave birth to the idea. That goes for both the business being persecuted, or the religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Race can't be controlled. But some people think sexuality can be. Everyone has a reason for what they do and what they believe. It may not be a good reason, but it's a reason nonetheless. Also, shouldn't people be allowed to serve to whom they want to? Some people also think the earth is flat. People usually find ways to justify their actions, even if said actions are obviously wrong. When someone robs a bank or assaults someone or commits a terrorist attack, often times they legitimately think they did the right thing. If someone doesn't wanna serve a gay couple fine, but I refuse to support them in any way either, through my business, tax subsidies, building of roads, utilities etc. In fact let them discriminate, that way it's painfully obvious to the rest of us who we shouldn't be giving our money to. Then they can lose money and possibly go out of business, which is actually a bigger punishment than what they would have got from the authorities. Plus, the whole debate of whether homosexuality is a choice really misses the point. Even if it is a choice and two dudes wanna hook up, does it really matter? They aren't affecting anyone except for those that can't mind their own business. Many times "religious freedom" is used as a euphemism for "freedom to take away others' rights" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Strangelove Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Some people also think the earth is flat. People usually find ways to justify their actions, even if said actions are obviously wrong. When someone robs a bank or assaults someone or commits a terrorist attack, often times they legitimately think they did the right thing. If someone doesn't wanna serve a gay couple fine, but I refuse to support them in any way either, through my business, tax subsidies, building of roads, utilities etc. Plus, the whole debate of whether homosexuality is a choice really misses the point. Even if it is a choice and two dudes wanna hook up, does it really matter? They aren't affecting anyone except for those that can't mind their own business. Many times "religious freedom" is used as a euphemism for "freedom to take away others' rights" This right here is bang on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Your perspective on this issue stems from seeing religion being persecuted by mockery and trolling, and seeing it as an attack on your beliefs and values. So you apply that to the mockery of a business idea, when people finally wake up to the idea that it's harmful. Why is it harmful? Because a harmful ideology gave birth to the idea. That goes for both the business being persecuted, or the religion. I just think people should be able to serve who they want. It's not the best and if they choose to segment the market and lose money because of it, so be it. But they shouldn't be disallowed to serve who they want. BTW, if I was a shop owner in Indiana right now, I would serve everyone. Not because society would force me to, but it's what I believe in. I don't think people should be discriminated against, but they should at least have the choice to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I just think people should be able to serve who they want. It's not the best and if they choose to segment the market and lose money because of it, so be it. But they shouldn't be disallowed to serve who they want. BTW, if I was a shop owner in Indiana right now, I would serve everyone. Not because society would force me to, but it's what I believe in. I don't think people should be discriminated against, but they should at least have the choice to. Why are you so intent on allowing religious people to hurt others? Fact of the matter is, many of these businesses would thrive because their surroundings are equally backward. Nobody is hurt by this, except gay people who are refused service. You think it's fine to do so? I'd like to see you sing that tune when every store on the street refuses you service. In a small town. Full of people who hate you. Stop being so goddamn stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Some people also think the earth is flat. People usually find ways to justify their actions, even if said actions are obviously wrong. When someone robs a bank or assaults someone or commits a terrorist attack, often times they legitimately think they did the right thing. If someone doesn't wanna serve a gay couple fine, but I refuse to support them in any way either, through my business, tax subsidies, building of roads, utilities etc. Plus, the whole debate of whether homosexuality is a choice really misses the point. Even if it is a choice and two dudes wanna hook up, does it really matter? They aren't affecting anyone except for those that can't mind their own business. Many times "religious freedom" is used as a euphemism for "freedom to take away others' rights" Yeah, I know, and I'm with you on pretty much everything there. But people shouldn't be forced into serving other people, especially if people are going to harass them into doing it, which is why I don't get the boycotting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Why are you so intent on allowing religious people to hurt others? Because free choice is a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Because free choice is a thing. Should I be free to go and smack every creationist I come across? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.