Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 1:00:38 AM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
~fr~

Wedding cake - presented and eaten 'after' a wedding ceremony has already taken place so, forgive my ignorance but since a given couple would already be married how does baking a
cake fit into the grand scheme again? Do the same people who refuse to sell cakes to same-sex couples also refuse to sell cakes to people with tattoos because it's around the same place
with the same sort of sin factor going on as far as source material goes. Speaking of sins.. didn't that Jesus guy die for those anyway, so.. we're all good right?

I say.. let them bake cake and if you really, truly, believe that to be a sin, ask Jesus to forgive you. Just tell him you were loving your neighbor or turning the other cheek or
something like that. The guy washed the feet of Judas.. I doubt he'd draw a line at Betty Crocker.

Oh.. I did read the actual bill. Interesting wording that.

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 281
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 1:16:10 AM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
You have no idea what sort of decadence homosexuals are capable of when sweet buttercream icing comes into play.

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 282
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 1:36:45 AM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

You have no idea what sort of decadence homosexuals are capable of when sweet buttercream icing comes into play.

I am nothing if not open-minded! Do tell.. with small words and pics attached, please. I'm slow and blind so don't type more than
about 25 or 30 words a minute. I'm not asking because I'm a perv or anything.. heaven forbid! I went to culinary school and my
understanding is that most wedding cakes are made with fondant and royal icing because the melt factor of buttercream is much
lower and won't stand up as well so it's purely from a science interest that I ask at all..

yep..

.. that's my story.. well, it's a story in any event. ;)



_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 283
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 2:00:36 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
Excellent point, and well made!

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 284
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 2:58:51 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I've been trying (desperately) to come up with an analogy that the opposition to this law might understand.

I realize that there's a whole lot of anti-Semites around here, lately but this would be tantamount to me, walking into a kosher deli, demanding a ham sandwich, not getting it and deciding to either bring suit or get the government involved with me, claiming that I was discriminated (ETA: Oooops! On this thread, that should be "discriminanted") against because I'm a gentile.

It allows the deli to say: "It's not that he's a gentile. It's that what he is asking would force us to violate our religious tenet(s)"



Michael



I agree with this. And taking it back to the bakery scenario, at what point does baking a wedding cake go against the religion of the owner?


If I recall correctly from the lawsuits, it is not "baking the cake" that is the problem. It is being forced to create art that is the problem.

They are happy to sell any ready made, off the shelf cakes to anyone.

Designing and decorating a wedding cake is a form of artistry.

Why should someone be forced to create a piece of art that violates their beliefs.

They also have to show up and put the cake together. Which may force them to attend a religious service that violates their religious beliefs.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 285
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 4:47:23 AM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I've been trying (desperately) to come up with an analogy that the opposition to this law might understand.

I realize that there's a whole lot of anti-Semites around here, lately but this would be tantamount to me, walking into a kosher deli, demanding a ham sandwich, not getting it and deciding to either bring suit or get the government involved with me, claiming that I was discriminated (ETA: Oooops! On this thread, that should be "discriminanted") against because I'm a gentile.

It allows the deli to say: "It's not that he's a gentile. It's that what he is asking would force us to violate our religious tenet(s)"



Michael



I agree with this. And taking it back to the bakery scenario, at what point does baking a wedding cake go against the religion of the owner?


If I recall correctly from the lawsuits, it is not "baking the cake" that is the problem. It is being forced to create art that is the problem.

They are happy to sell any ready made, off the shelf cakes to anyone.

Designing and decorating a wedding cake is a form of artistry.

Why should someone be forced to create a piece of art that violates their beliefs.

They also have to show up and put the cake together. Which may force them to attend a religious service that violates their religious beliefs.


Except that marriage is, by legal definition, a civil ceremony. I certainly can't think of a religious ceremony of any kind that requires a legal license.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 286
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 5:37:30 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan

I just want to chime in to say, a business owner should have the right to refuse whoever they like, for any reason at all. Or no reason.

This bill is the exact opposite of tyranny.

If a gay person has a problem with it, they can either:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it
or
2. shop elsewhere, free market in action

nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, nobodys freedoms are impinged.


Drivel. These people are trashing free market principles by stopping people shopping in their stores - and you are, too, by supporting them. If you hate freedom so much, what are you doing living in a country that claims so much to support it?



You do realize that she's in the UK, right?

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 287
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 5:54:51 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Whoosh. Right over your head.

Why should discrimination be ok, if it is on religious grounds but not any other?

Is it ok to enshrine nasty backward values in a religion and then seek protection for them?

No it didn't even go over my feet. I got your point completely. What you refuse to understand is that if you force someone to violate their religious beliefs you are discriminating against them. This law does not allow for refusing to serve any gays or what ever, it allows for them to refuse a specific act which violates their religion, like demanding that the Kosher deli provide a ham sandwich.


So which specific act of baking a wedding cake, or creating a floral arrangement violates anyone's religion? There is nothing asked of business owners that they are not already in business to do.


they don't believe in gay marriage, so it shouldn't be that hard to figure out why they wouldn't want to bake a cake for one. And since I would want the very best cake I could find, I want to know up front if there is going to be a problem. With this law I know the baker is ok with serving me because no one is forcing him to smile and be nice. He is doing it because he wants my business. and because of that I have no problems supporting his.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 288
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 5:58:43 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
I never knew it was a sin to have a tattoo. Which book is that in?

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 289
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 6:06:11 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Leviticus 19:28: "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord."
I think there is something similar in romans



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 290
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 6:13:40 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I never knew it was a sin to have a tattoo. Which book is that in?

Leviticus 19:28 | New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
28 You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:28 | King James Version (KJV)
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:28 | Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
28 Don’t cut gashes in your flesh when someone dies or tattoo yourselves; I am Adonai.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 291
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 6:37:40 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I never knew it was a sin to have a tattoo. Which book is that in?

Leviticus 19:28 | New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
28 You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:28 | King James Version (KJV)
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:28 | Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
28 Don’t cut gashes in your flesh when someone dies or tattoo yourselves; I am Adonai.

Well then I guess it's okay as long as you're not doing it because someone died.

K.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 292
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 7:07:57 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
from Andrew klavan, who has a different take than whats been discussed here so far:

...The law, as you probably know by now, imitates the 1993 federal RFRA, voted in nearly unanimously and signed by Bill Clinton. It seeks to prevent the state from violating your right to act on religious principles unless they can show “compelling interest.” Among its purposes is preventing gay activists from bullying, say, Christian bakers or florists into participating in gay weddings that violate their religious consciences. Nineteen other states have such laws without being boycotted. Those states have my sympathy. They must envy Indiana deeply.

I support the right of gay people to forge faithful, lifelong unions recognized by the state and respected by people of good will. Leftists do not support this, make no mistake. They only use the issue as a way to attack Christianity and heterosexual family life. If that’s not true, let’s see one of these homofascist clowns walk into a Muslim restaurant and demand Mohammed make the falafels for his wedding. They don’t do this not only because they are cowardly scum, but also because attacking Islam is no more their purpose than is the true and honorable support of gay rights. Islam is not the philosophical backbone of the American way of individual freedom that leftists so despise. Christianity and Christian thought and family are the pillars of that freedom — and that’s why the left wants to destroy them.

These leftist bullies are not good for gay people any more than feminists bullies are good for women.


I should hardly need to say this, but just for the record: freedom is a two-way street. If I am free to do something, you are free to refuse to do it or to participate in it. If the homofascists don’t seem to support that principle it’s for one simple reason: it’s that very principle they want to destroy. Gay rights are only the weapon they happen to have at hand.

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2015/03/30/religious-freedom-in-indiana/#ixzz3VyJqDJkP

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 293
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 7:37:31 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Wa Po Throws this into the ring
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/30/answering-five-questions-about-indianas-new-discrimination-law/

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is probably feeling blindsided right about now. A strong conservative, he did what many other states have done and signed a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which emphasizes that the government can’t stop people from exercising their religious consciences. Then all of a sudden there was an eruption: national news stories, talk of boycotts, big corporations halting plans for expanding in Indiana.

We’ll get to the broader societal context that has made this such a big issue in a bit, but first it would be helpful to clarify a couple of questions about the Indiana law.

1. Is this the same law as the federal RFRA and versions in other states?

The answer is no, for a couple of reasons. First, there’s the intent. When the federal RFRA was passed in 1993, no one was talking about gay marriage, and it wasn’t about how private individuals deal with each other. The law was spurred most directly by a case called Employment Division v. Smith, which concerned whether two Native American workers could get unemployment insurance after they had been fired from their jobs for taking peyote in a religious ritual. It was that kind of private religious conduct that the debate revolved around at the time.

But more importantly, the Indiana law is different from other laws in its specific provisions. It not only explicitly applies the law to for-profit businesses, it also states that individual can assert their religious beliefs “as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” [emphasis added] The federal law, and most of the state laws, only concern instances where the government is forcing a person to do something or not do something; the Indiana law directly covers disputes between individuals.

Weirdly, Governor Pence thinks he can just deny that the law he signed does anything of the sort, despite this clear language. “In fact, it doesn’t even apply to disputes between private individuals, unless government action is involved,” he said yesterday on ABC’s This Week. That’s completely false.



And Indianan Repubs want to clarify


http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2015/03/30/70670728/

Indiana's Republican legislative leaders said Monday they're working on adding language to a new state law to make it clear that it doesn't allow discrimination against gays and lesbians. (March 30) AP

That was fast, but needed...good for them. We shall see what happens...or will it go to the supreme court?
It will be interesting to see how this affects 2016

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 294
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 7:38:29 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
That's how I read it

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 295
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 7:51:14 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

I don't think that analysis quite cuts it. Based on the demographics of the United States, it is likely that the vast majority of gays, if they are religious at all, are Christian and simply very much want the recognition and acceptance of their faith community.

K.










< Message edited by Kirata -- 3/31/2015 8:01:00 AM >

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 296
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 8:19:13 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

from Andrew klavan, who has a different take than whats been discussed here so far:

...The law, as you probably know by now, imitates the 1993 federal RFRA, voted in nearly unanimously and signed by Bill Clinton. It seeks to prevent the state from violating your right to act on religious principles unless they can show “compelling interest.” Among its purposes is preventing gay activists from bullying, say, Christian bakers or florists into participating in gay weddings that violate their religious consciences. Nineteen other states have such laws without being boycotted. Those states have my sympathy. They must envy Indiana deeply.

I support the right of gay people to forge faithful, lifelong unions recognized by the state and respected by people of good will. Leftists do not support this, make no mistake. They only use the issue as a way to attack Christianity and heterosexual family life. If that’s not true, let’s see one of these homofascist clowns walk into a Muslim restaurant and demand Mohammed make the falafels for his wedding. They don’t do this not only because they are cowardly scum, but also because attacking Islam is no more their purpose than is the true and honorable support of gay rights. Islam is not the philosophical backbone of the American way of individual freedom that leftists so despise. Christianity and Christian thought and family are the pillars of that freedom — and that’s why the left wants to destroy them.

These leftist bullies are not good for gay people any more than feminists bullies are good for women.


I should hardly need to say this, but just for the record: freedom is a two-way street. If I am free to do something, you are free to refuse to do it or to participate in it. If the homofascists don’t seem to support that principle it’s for one simple reason: it’s that very principle they want to destroy. Gay rights are only the weapon they happen to have at hand.

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2015/03/30/religious-freedom-in-indiana/#ixzz3VyJqDJkP


The key is that it copies the 93 law, and that 19 other states have basically the same law. Why go berserk over this one? None of the others ha the dire results predicted here.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 297
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 8:22:54 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


I don't think that analysis quite cuts it. Based on the demographics of the United States, it is likely that the vast majority of gays, if they are religious at all, are Christian and simply very much want the recognition and acceptance of their faith community.

K.



I think klavan would be in agreement with that but I believe what he is saying is, there's another "element" in the conversation/protestations that are independent of the people you are referring to.





< Message edited by bounty44 -- 3/31/2015 8:25:20 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 298
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 9:08:09 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I support the right of gay people to forge faithful, lifelong unions recognized by the state and respected by people of good will. Leftists do not support this, make no mistake. They only use the issue as a way to attack Christianity and heterosexual family life.

Damn! He's on to us. Every gay union/wedding I've been to has really been a secret attack on Christianity. It might seem a little odd at first that they've all taken place in church, but that's part of the plot.


quote:

homofascist clowns

Yet another T-shirt possibility.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 299
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 3/31/2015 9:10:41 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
FR

Why was this law great when signed by a Dem but evil when signed by a Rep.
Here we see proof of projection, we are always told "you would love it if a conservative Rep signed it you are just against it because it is a Dem"
We see here that some people are saying that because they know that's what they do.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156