Gay conservatives rebut media-Indiana religious freedom law

[DAReese]

This isn't really about religious freedom, it’s about… freedom.

So True. The owner of private property can, and should be able to tell people to leave, for any reason. It also seems true to me that the majority of those calling for "tolerance" etc. are the most intolerant and unaccepting of other viewpoints, this is true of both sides, but it seems to be more true of my generation than people of any other age unfortunately.

So it is Ok not to rent an apartment to the black couple, or the gay couple?

I'm going to have to disagree here. Ideally, we don't need laws to force people not to discriminate. We also don't need laws to keep people from killing each other, it is just common sense. But we as a species do not possess common sense. Minority groups do need protection from the majority.

I get that there are those who truly believe their religious rights are being trampled. They gave up some of those rights to be in business. Religious freedom only goes so far. I'm pretty sure most would be against the application of Sharia law against the teenage shoplifter of a Muslim-owned convenience store. But yet, that is their religious beliefs. How about the polygamist sects that marry off their daughters at age twelve? Or do we only want to apply religious freedom selectively?

So those "We reserve the right to deny services blah blah blah" signs? Against protected groups, they're not legal. Sexual orientation has become a protected group in most states.

[DAReese]

PC totalitarianism is rampant in high schools and universities, with disgraceful unquestioning mass media/Hollywood support.

YMMV

Tell me about it! Even at a fairly conservative university (BYU) you still run into a lot of these types. What surprises me is how much they think they know, despite only having lived 20 years. I hear some things that I know straight up are wrong, and a 5 minute google search could show them they're wrong. When I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't talk, I give an opinion--with the disclaimer that it's uninformed, or I ask questions, so I can actually have a basic knowledge of the topic. I don't know why more people don't follow this sort of rule.

Connor,

What 20 year-old doesn't think they know everything? Give them about five years, and suddenly the wisdom of age becomes relevant again.

[DAReese]

This isn't really about religious freedom, it’s about… freedom.

So True. The owner of private property can, and should be able to tell people to leave, for any reason.


It also seems true to me that the majority of those calling for "tolerance" etc. are the most intolerant and unaccepting of other viewpoints, this is true of both sides, but it seems to be more true of my generation than people of any other age unfortunately.

Conner, quit school now. You're wasting your time.


Only 8 y.o. think the "intolerance of intolerance" is the same as randomly without thinking repeating the hate of your forefathers is the same thing..
No point to waste any more effort in trying to teach your self anything, you already repeat perfectly the lines old bitter dinosaurs have been saying for at least 50 years.

Maybe since you know everything all about what private property can and should do, maybe you can get elected and then pass your own laws---and make sure you write about what a person owning private property can do when the property is a BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC...

A tiny little distinction but I'm sure there's a glib cliché to explain it away.

How about the disclaimer of "Only if they look and think like me"?

[John V]

Totally agree John.

Several Johns here, and as always several are expressing different opinions, one practical and one idealized/abstract.

Makes no difference, but helps to know.

[John Brennan]

So those "We reserve the right to deny services blah blah blah" signs? Against protected groups, they're not legal. Sexual orientation has become a protected group in most states.

I don't recall hearing any one of these cases involve discrimination against gay people per se, in fact in one well-publicized case, the proprietor knew and liked the gay customers and served them over and over. It was the gay wedding job she objected to. Once again-- an event, not people.

[DAReese]

Totally agree John.

Several Johns here, and as always several are expressing different opinions, one practical and one idealized/abstract.

Makes no difference, but helps to know.

The idealized/abstract beliefs of today are often the practical ones of the future. 150 years ago, I could own another human. 100 years ago, women couldn't vote. 50 years ago, blacks rode in the back of the bus, had separate facilities and couldn't rent apartments owned by racists. 30 years ago, bi-racial marriages were scandalous and bi-racial kids were shunned. 10 years ago, non-smokers had to inhale others cancer-causing smoke in public places and often pick up the tab, either directly or indirectly for their health care when they succumbed to cancer. That all changed because someone believed in the abstract/idealized world that was considered too liberal by many.

[DAReese]

So those "We reserve the right to deny services blah blah blah" signs? Against protected groups, they're not legal. Sexual orientation has become a protected group in most states.

I don't recall hearing any one of these cases involve discrimination against gay people per se, in fact in one well-publicized case, the proprietor knew and liked the gay customers and served them over and over. It was the gay wedding job she objected to. Once again-- an event, not people.

Perhaps in some instances, it is the event and not the people. What if my religious beliefs were that white and blacks shouldn't co-mingle? It is not the people, after all.

When you run a business that is open to the public, you give up the right to refuse people who are part of a protected group. If you don't want to cater to a gay wedding, don't cater at all. Who has pizza at a wedding anyway? You could always run your business by invitation only, and not be open to the public. I can't go into a VFW and drink without being invited. It isn't a business open to the public.

[DAReese]

Just wondering, if the law is truly about individuals religious freedom, why are they looking to change it after the outcry against it? Are individuals religious rights less important when it might cost the state tax money? Or do they only apply when they are convenient. The fact the law is being changed, to me, indicates it was not about the individuals right to choose, but instead was a sneaky way to legalize discrimination.

[John Brennan]

150 years ago, I could own another human...

Well, what goes around comes around, because 150 years later, it seems you can now once again own another person and make them your slave, forcing them to work for you against their wishes. Congratulations.

[In XS 7]

Ok David, and what about the rights of the religious people? I guess they have the right to believe in whatever they want. Or not?, I think serving in a pizza store/shop is public business, a wedding is a private event, serving in a public business is different than serving in a private event, in a private event you are being hire to work for that person/s only not to everybody, is like if you were hired by a factory, if a factory offers me a job I have the right to accept it or refuse it.

[Ed Lijewski]

Just wondering, if the law is truly about individuals religious freedom, why are they looking to change it after the outcry against it? Are individuals religious rights less important when it might cost the state tax money? Or do they only apply when they are convenient. The fact the law is being changed, to me, indicates it was not about the individuals right to choose, but instead was a sneaky way to legalize discrimination.

That post reflects lack of even basic reading if the bill much less the debate on it, or the federal RFRA or the ~35 other states who similarly considered and then passed their own RFRAs modeled after the federal RFRA..

The decision to amend and add specific language against use of RFRA to illegally discriminate by gender/sex was appeasement of gay rabble rousers and their bootlicking cooperator's in the mass media who could not point to a single instances of any RFRA, state or federal, having been used to that end. Bending to those complaining was a simple expedient to get with that state's agenda of more important work.

Knee-jerking or "feeling" doesn't equate to informed opinion/commentary.

YMMV

[milehighXR]

This isn't really about religious freedom, it’s about… freedom.

So True. The owner of private property can, and should be able to tell people to leave, for any reason. It also seems true to me that the majority of those calling for "tolerance" etc. are the most intolerant and unaccepting of other viewpoints, this is true of both sides, but it seems to be more true of my generation than people of any other age unfortunately.

So it is Ok not to rent an apartment to the black couple, or the gay couple?

I'm going to have to disagree here. Ideally, we don't need laws to force people not to discriminate. We also don't need laws to keep people from killing each other, it is just common sense. But we as a species do not possess common sense. Minority groups do need protection from the majority.

I get that there are those who truly believe their religious rights are being trampled. They gave up some of those rights to be in business. Religious freedom only goes so far. I'm pretty sure most would be against the application of Sharia law against the teenage shoplifter of a Muslim-owned convenience store. But yet, that is their religious beliefs. How about the polygamist sects that marry off their daughters at age twelve? Or do we only want to apply religious freedom selectively?

So those "We reserve the right to deny services blah blah blah" signs? Against protected groups, they're not legal. Sexual orientation has become a protected group in most states.

So in 5yrs I'll be able to help my fellow white boys, and be ble to legally create the "Straight White Boy College Fund" when us straight white guys are the minorities? The time line may be exaggerated, but it will happen. All this PC nonsense that the libs are stirring up is just serving create animosity towards these "protected" classes. I AGREE that being born black, being raised a certain religion are not reasons to be discriminated against, but we discriminate against people based on their choices all the time, and it's legal. Case in point the cake incident in CO a couple yrs ago, and it's only coming to light now(at least this week is first I heard of it). We do it to neo-nazis, and aetheists too. How long before people with a gazillion tattoos, or piercings, and other body mods, become a protected class? Seriously, we're letting men claiming to be women in the girls locker rooms/restrooms? No phuckin way, your CHOICES in life don't make you special, they don't grant you the right to trample my rights one bit. They sure as hell don't give you the right to force yourself into my organizations, especially after the high court says we have the right to not let you in. Please go create your own organizations and please discriminate against me for being a straight white man. I live and work where I do for a reason, and I know there are those that disagree with me on all kinds of stuff, but you don't see me trying to demand that everyone that disagrees with change their lives for me.

[DAReese]

150 years ago, I could own another human...

Well, what goes around comes around, because 150 years later, it seems you can now once again own another person and make them your slave, forcing them to work for you against their wishes. Congratulations.

It is far from slavery. Your boss making you do something you don't want to do isn't slavery, is it? They can always quit. When you're a slave, you can't quit. To compare this to slavery is an insult to all of the people who were enslaved. I'm pretty sure that my rights as the hypothetical gay couple wanting a pizza caterer for my wedding would not also give me the permission to beat, rape, kill or sell the caterer.

[DAReese]

[/quote]
So True. The owner of private property can, and should be able to tell people to leave, for any reason. It also seems true to me that the majority of those calling for "tolerance" etc. are the most intolerant and unaccepting of other viewpoints, this is true of both sides, but it seems to be more true of my generation than people of any other age unfortunately.[/quote]
So it is Ok not to rent an apartment to the black couple, or the gay couple?

I'm going to have to disagree here. Ideally, we don't need laws to force people not to discriminate. We also don't need laws to keep people from killing each other, it is just common sense. But we as a species do not possess common sense. Minority groups do need protection from the majority.

I get that there are those who truly believe their religious rights are being trampled. They gave up some of those rights to be in business. Religious freedom only goes so far. I'm pretty sure most would be against the application of Sharia law against the teenage shoplifter of a Muslim-owned convenience store. But yet, that is their religious beliefs. How about the polygamist sects that marry off their daughters at age twelve? Or do we only want to apply religious freedom selectively?

So those "We reserve the right to deny services blah blah blah" signs? Against protected groups, they're not legal. Sexual orientation has become a protected group in most states.[/quote]


So in 5yrs I'll be able to help my fellow white boys, and be ble to legally create the "Straight White Boy College Fund" when us straight white guys are the minorities? The time line may be exaggerated, but it will happen. All this PC nonsense that the libs are stirring up is just serving create animosity towards these "protected" classes. I AGREE that being born black, being raised a certain religion are not reasons to be discriminated against, but we discriminate against people based on their choices all the time, and it's legal. Case in point the cake incident in CO a couple yrs ago, and it's only coming to light now(at least this week is first I heard of it). We do it to neo-nazis, and aetheists too. How long before people with a gazillion tattoos, or piercings, and other body mods, become a protected class? Seriously, we're letting men claiming to be women in the girls locker rooms/restrooms? No phuckin way, your CHOICES in life don't make you special, they don't grant you the right to trample my rights one bit. They sure as hell don't give you the right to force yourself into my organizations, especially after the high court says we have the right to not let you in. Please go create your own organizations and please discriminate against me for being a straight white man. I live and work where I do for a reason, and I know there are those that disagree with me on all kinds of stuff, but you don't see me trying to demand that everyone that disagrees with change their lives for me.[/quote]


Here's the thing. Affirmative action isn't fair to the individual who loses out because of the quotas that had to be met that cost them their job/college/whatever. But to the group that wouldn't otherwise be able to get into the college, get the job, whatever, it is the best way to even the playing field. We tend to hang with, hire, promote those who look like us, think like us and have something in common with. That creates a barrier that shouldn't exist for a member of the protected group. Forcing someone to provide service to those they don't want to is also unfair to the individual. But to the group it protects, it also is invaluable. In this instance, it really isn't too important if they can get a pizza at their wedding. But if the caterer be be prejudiced, why not the fireman, the doctor, the lawyer? After all, they should have the same rights as the caterer.

The reason there is animosity towards these groups is because there still is an underlying prejudice towards them. If there wasn't, they wouldn't need to be a protected group. It isn't nonsense. It does go overboard at times, no doubt, but the reason for being still exists.

As to Colorado, just because the recipient of the prejudicial act chooses to turn the other cheek, doesn't make it right. If you choose to be in business, open to the public, you are bound to certain standards that the individual is not. I admit I would not hire someone with tattoos all over their bodies, it is a legal prejudice. If they were a protected group, I would not be allowed to do that. The neo-nazi? Well, they are by definition discriminatory, I'm not wanting anything to do with that type of person. But I'll still take their money if they want to hire me.

Transgender people are different. To me, if you have the body parts of a make, you use the Men's room, the male locker room and you're a guy. If their is a family locker room, you could use that instead, but you're not a women until the snipping happens. But honestly, I have no problem with women in my dressing room. They might get a little uncomfortable as I creepily stare at them, but I'll try to hide my notice of approval. Truthfully, I don't think the ability or inability to use a certain bathroom/locker room is a right. It is a cultural norm, but not a right. In fact, there is a local restaurant that doesn't have the typical Men's\Women's restrooms. Instead, they have several private toilets with a communal sink area. That works just fine.

This argument isn't about private clubs. It is about a business open to the public. You can create a club for any reason you want. In fact, there is one for the owners of a long-gone European Ford import of all things. They don't allow Chevrolet owners in, at least not on purpose. Why would I want to create an organization that discriminates against anyone? I'm not that unsure of my sexuality that I let gays bother me. Annoy me because they can be so flaming, but not bother me. I'm not so sure that I have racial superiority that I can't allow myself to be contaminated by an inferior race. Culturally, I'll never associate with someone who would rather want a handout instead of working hard to earn their way, but that group transcends race.

Finally, no one is asking you to change. They are expecting that if you are a business owner, open to the public, that it is open to all of the public, not just those you agree with. If you're not, and you choose to live in a way that you feel, solely by whatever criteria you deem important, you are better than someone who fails to meet your standards, go right ahead.

Me, I try to live by the 10 Commandments, summed up this way: Thou Shall Not Be A Dick. That covers them all, pretty much.

You're able to create the Straight Boy College Fund right now, it just won't be tax deductible to give to it.

[John Brennan]

150 years ago, I could own another human...

Well, what goes around comes around, because 150 years later, it seems you can now once again own another person and make them your slave, forcing them to work for you against their wishes. Congratulations.

It is far from slavery. Your boss making you do something you don't want to do isn't slavery, is it? They can always quit. When you're a slave, you can't quit. To compare this to slavery is an insult to all of the people who were enslaved. I'm pretty sure that my rights as the hypothetical gay couple wanting a pizza caterer for my wedding would not also give me the permission to beat, rape, kill or sell the caterer.

"Arlene" wanted to quit. She never wanted to be hired. She had the choice of being hired, or losing her business.

Slavery.