Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Can you refuse service on the mere suspicion of someone being gay?

Say Larry Craig goes to a Christian bakery and orders urinal cakes?

AGENT J said:

1.) lmao as soon as i hear this i always laugh my ass off. What is the homosexual agenda? please tell us what it factually is.
also in the things that over step and try to give americans special tretment will fail and be removed, im all fine for protecting rights, just not special treatment which SOME religious people disgustingly want.

Click to expand...

A lot of people who are not proponents of the homosexual agenda would say it is homosexuals who want special treatment.

2.) i agree good thing nobody antidscrimaitnion laws and equal rights and civil rights dont "force acceptance" another repeated and failed strawman. Saying its forced acceptance is always a false and dishonest statement.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you are agreeing with. Certainly not the Supreme Court in Hurley or Dale, the decisions I was referring to. In both cases, the Court held the state law unconstitutional for forcing the public accommodation involved to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. Apparently you think that in those decisions, the Court was not only making "failed strawman" arguments but also making a "false and dishonest statement." I'm sure the justices would give your opinion about that all the weight it deserves.

3.) im fine with that decision as its nothing like this on any level lol

Click to expand...

You just finished saying how false and dishonest it was to argue that these laws unconstitutionally force people to propound points of view they do not believe. But that is exactly the basis--government-compelled speech--for the Court's decision in Hurley, which you say you are fine with. Which is it?

4.) i understand thats what you think but its simply wrong. She in fact was discriminating against gays just like the court case says she was. No gay in the wedding no discrimination. If you do WEDDING pics then you do wedding pics period. especially if the other wedding pics have been for other religions, nonreligious weddings and remarriages . . all things that could be loosely argued just as much as gay weddings as being wrong based on religion. But magical the line is drawn at GAY which shows the hypocrisy and bigotry.

Click to expand...

Of course Elaine was not discriminating against this woman just because she was a lesbian. She would gladly have done other types of photographs for her. She simply disapproves of homosexual marriage, and if that makes a person a hypocrite or a bigot, then so are many millions of other Americans besides her. I suppose to a proponent of the homosexual agenda, anyone who dares disagree with their views is necessarily a bigot. I would say that kind of narrow-minded intolerance is itself bigotry.

if the owner wanted to do things that were just subjectively based on heir religion they are free to do so but they dont get to have a public accommodation shop and serve OTHER things that violate the religion and its ok but then magically claim this thing is really wrong and not ok. Its a crock and complete BS.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You and people who agree with you think you should be the final arbiters of whose religious beliefs are sincere, and whose are not. The law doesn't work that way. The Court in discussed in Hobby Lobby discussed in detail how its inquiry into the sincerity of the religious belief works. In that case, it found it was irrelevant whether some other person might argue that the four contraceptives Hobby Lobby's owners objected to were not really abortifacients. All that mattered was that they believed that they were, and therefore violated their religious belief that abortion is immoral.

so that easy question is "who gets to determine what is a violation of thier religious feelings and why and when its acceptable?

Click to expand...

That is anything but an easy question, and it will be up to the courts in the thirty-plus states that now have RFRA's to determine that in each case.

Dovkan said:

We are having a reasonable conversation, I'm showing the influence religion has had, and continues to have on politics. Wait, because I am a communist, I am not rational? I'm getting tired of this one liner BS.

Click to expand...

You are letting your anti-religion beliefs dictate your responses and that's due to the communism you embrace...

I explained why churches are tax exempt, and why it's a perfectly understandable and reasonable. It's a measure put in place tseparatete the government from religious establishments, mainly as a fail-safe to ensure that the government can't infringe on the religious freedoms established in the first amendment of the Constitution.

You ignored that and claiming that the tax exempt status should forbid or prevent leaders of religious establishments from voicing political opinions, then transformed the conversation into a rant against religion and it's place in America's history and culture.

Sorry, but I'm not going to have that conversation because it isn't appropriate to this thread, or one I signed up for....

Thorgasm said:

Can you refuse service on the mere suspicion of someone being gay?

Say Larry Craig goes to a Christian bakery and orders urinal cakes?

Click to expand...

They can't refuse him because "he is not gay.....he never has been gay.....he loves his wife...."......LOL.....

Blemonds said:

1.)Then I'll repeat my question.
2.) What do you call it when merchants are dragged into court, expensive legal proceedings by the way, and fined for not serving homosexuals that want products and services for their weddings?
3.) Is that not being negatively affected?

Click to expand...

1.) repeat it all you want the answer and the facts wont change
2.) same thing i call it when ANYBODY is goes to court and fined for breaking the laws. Criminals getting caught
3.) yes that is Criminals being subjectively negatively affected by thier own decisions
thats not CHRISTIANS being negatively effected because of thier Chrisitianty

i repeat because the facts havent changed:
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota

SlevinKelevra said:

where in the Constitution does it say the Bible is the law of the land.

Click to expand...

It does say the government can not prohibit the exercise of religion. Telling wedding chapples, wedding cake makers and etc that they have to perform a gay wedding, make a gay wedding cake and ect is a violation of their 1st amendment right to exercise their religion.

Grim17 said:

You are letting your anti-religion beliefs dictate your responses and that's due to the communism you embrace...

I explained why churches are tax exempt, and why it's a perfectly understandable and reasonable. It's a measure put in place tseparatete the government from religious establishments, mainly as a fail-safe to ensure that the government can't infringe on the religious freedoms established in the first amendment of the Constitution.

You ignored that and claiming that the tax exempt status should forbid or prevent leaders of religious establishments from voicing political opinions, then transformed the conversation into a rant against religion and it's place in America's history and culture.

Sorry, but I'm not going to have that conversation because it isn't appropriate to this thread, or one I signed up for....

Click to expand...

And you have a bias in support of religion, see how this works out? I agree, best not to discuss it.

CanadaJohn said:

This will clearly be declared unconstitutional if for nothing else being impractical in practice unless there's a companion bill that requires gay people to wear the scarlet letter. Otherwise, how would businesses know whether or not Governor Pence is gay? After all, there seem to be a lot of politicians capable of hiding their true sexuality, and politicians aren't known to be the sharpest knives in the drawer. Similar to the nonsense in Oregon, requiring businesses to declare their bigotry, this is just more sad stupidity.

Click to expand...

read the actual bill, or at least a summary of the bill. don't just read the cnn headline.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

It is NOT identical to the Fed law, or Illinois law. All Indiana had to do would be to copy's Illinois law, but they didn't. They wrote their own which is much broader and has much fewer protections in it. Indy's RFRA is much different. The Indiana GOP Legislators and Pence just got caught pandering to extremists in the GOP.

Click to expand...

The Illinois law went into effect in 1998, before anyone would have expected the left-wingnuts at the Obama Administration to argue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. that the federal RFRA didn't protect the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) because their company wasn't a "person" that could "exercise religion," even though the legal definition of person in this context was commonly understood to apply to "non-persons" such as corporations:

Nothing in RFRA suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition of “person,” which “include corporations, . . . as well as individuals.” 1 U. S. C. §1. The Court has entertained RFRA and free-exercise claims brought by nonprofit corporations. See, e.g., Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficiente União do Vegetal, 546 U. S. 418. And HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations. Pp. 19–20. (ii) HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot “exercise . . . religion.” They offer no persuasive explanation for this conclusion. :shock:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Click to expand...

When it comes to judges who apparently can't read a legal dictionary, you shouldn't leave anything to chance.

matchlight said:

1.)A lot of people who are not proponents of the homosexual agenda would say it is homosexuals who want special treatment.
2.)I don't know what you are agreeing with. Certainly not the Supreme Court in Hurley or Dale, the decisions I was referring to. In both cases, the Court held the state law unconstitutional for forcing the public accommodation involved to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. Apparently you think that in those decisions, the Court was not only making "failed strawman" arguments but also making a "false and dishonest statement." I'm sure the justices would give your opinion about that all the weight it deserves.
3.)You just finished saying how false and dishonest it was to argue that these laws unconstitutionally force people to propound points of view they do not believe. But that is exactly the basis--government-compelled speech--for the Court's decision in Hurley, which you say you are fine with. Which is it?
4.)Of course Elaine was not discriminating against this woman just because she was a lesbian. She would gladly have done other types of photographs for her.
5.) She simply disapproves of homosexual marriage, and if that makes a person a hypocrite or a bigo
6.) then so are many millions of other Americans besides her.
7.) I suppose to a proponent of the homosexual agenda, anyone who dares disagree with their views is necessarily a bigot.
8.) I would say that kind of narrow-minded intolerance is itself bigotry.
9.)Oh, I see. You and people who agree with you think you should be the final arbiters of whose religious beliefs are sincere, and whose are not. The law doesn't work that way. The Court in discussed in Hobby Lobby discussed in detail how its inquiry into the sincerity of the religious belief works. In that case, it found it was irrelevant whether some other person might argue that the four contraceptives Hobby Lobby's owners objected to were not really abortifacients. All that mattered was that they believed that they were, and therefore violated their religious belief that abortion is immoral.
9.)That is anything but an easy question, and it will be up to the courts in the thirty-plus states that now have RFRA's to determine that in each case.

Click to expand...

1,) a lot people SAY alot of things but facts show otherwise
theres no special treatment in equal rights
2.) what i said and what you are trying to make it into are two different things lol. nce try thogh
fact remains antidiscrimination laws and equal rights and civil rights dont "force acceptance"
try sticking to what was actually said
3.) wrong again, see #2
4.) yeah yeah , i dont discriminant against black people, i serve them all the time they just have to come in the back and drink of out of thier own water fountain . . . . sounds so familiar. SOrry that is in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation as the case decided
5.) the definition of the word makes her a bigot she see gays and thier marriages as lessers and dont think they are worthy of equal rights, that by definition is a bigot.
she is a hypocrite IF she did any weddings that were not her exact religion, 1st marriages or any weddings that were not religious in any way.
6.) doent matter how many americans are besides her, bigotry is bigotry and rights are rights. Well over 80% of the counrty was against interracial marriage at one time too :shrug: meanignless to rights.
7.) that proposal would be factually wrong because thats not what bigotry is at all, it has a clear definition
8.) i agree 100% good thing nobody is doing that here and more importantly the intolerance has to actually take place.
9.) wrong again, but please keep making up failed straw man they only further expose the failure of your argument
the law works EQUAL thats how it is designed to work, SOME of these people want it to be unequal. Belifs do NOT play a role vs rights. Trying to twist what the actual ruling was wont work, WHat if hobbly lobby believe they could just kill people would that work? of course not. SO sorry that claim is 100% factually wrong it wasnt "all that mattered"
10.) i wasnt sayign the question itself is easy i was saying its an easy question as in to ask and exposes the huge failure of the law.

having thirty-plus states determine each case is mentally retarded and the exact opposite of how equal rights and civil rights works. If the question is that hard thats hows EXACTLY why its a horrible idea and people are going for special treatment, thank you for further pointing that out. Having 50 sets of rules or exceptions is not equal and stupid. Its simply just easier if we all go by the same rules and some people dont try to get special rules for themselves

Jack Hays said:

[h=2]UVA Law Prof Who Supports Gay Marriage Explains Why He Supports Indiana's Religious Freedom Law[/h]9:32 PM, Mar 29, 2015 • By JOHN MCCORMACKDouglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, writes in an email:

Read more...

Click to expand...

I've read it. Here's what he had to say: "There are hardly any cases about discrimination, and nobody has ever won a religious exemption from a discrimination law under a RFRA standard." If he's right, the answer is "No." Pence is trying to play this both ways - appease the anti-SSM/gay crowd AND the rest of the world with "this has nothing to do with teh geys - promise!"

Pretty funny, actually.

Thorgasm said:

Can you refuse service on the mere suspicion of someone being gay?

Say Larry Craig goes to a Christian bakery and orders urinal cakes?

Click to expand...

You can refuse service for a number of things, and it's perfectly legal. Haven't you seen the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs anywhere in your life?

This gay thing is just the pet project of the legal arm of the left wing. That's really all it amounts to.

Peter Grimm said:

You can refuse service for a number of things, and it's perfectly legal. Haven't you seen the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs anywhere in your life?

This gay thing is just the pet project of the legal arm of the left wing. That's really all it amounts to.

Click to expand...

Way to show that you don't have a very good understanding of the issue.

Are you familiar with public accommodation laws?

Hari Seldon said:

No, not misinformed. Sanctioned "religious" bigotry, nothing less. They have already lost some business, I hope they lose a lot more. I read in Texass a similar law supported a cop who wouldn't work a gay pride parade. Very nice, I'm sure God approves.

Click to expand...

No not bigotry, there can be no religious bigotry in reaffirming religious freedom as it's practice is a protected right under the constitution. The idea that governmental institutions should be able to compel religious individuals to act against their own conscience (sincere religious belief) is outrageous.

Jack Hays said:

White House doesn't dispute it. etc.

Click to expand...

I got it. Again, if anyone voting for the law then had major interest groups promoting the law as a way to "protect" businesses and individuals "against those promoting homosexual marriage" then that's very relevant. We've been through this with the Federal law.

You keep deliberately missing the point, but those with the "faux" outrage are just taking the right wing anti-SSM crowd at their word that this law was intended to target homosexuals and SSM. It is in the news now, and I don't think the sudden push in red states to pass RFRA type laws is a coincidence or because they're all suddenly worried about native American rituals etc...

What would make the controversy go away is Indiana taking at least a partial step into the law like Utah did that explicitly protects gays - in Utah it was just in employment and housing, but that's a good first step. What's the harm?

Simpleχity;1064472851 said:

Pence did not answer directly when asked six times on This Week with George Stephanopoulos whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers.

Click to expand...

Right, because the bill makes no mention of gays. It's a hypothetical that can only be answered by the merchant and his sincerely held religious beliefs. The law doesn't deal with the merchant, it deals with how governmental institutions react to the merchant. He can't be persecuted for applying his sincerely held religious beliefs in his daily life, in and out of his business.

AGENT J said:

so you think refusing gay service at a bakery is bad and NOT with in reason
but refusing a wedding cake to gays (even though they give it to everybody else including other religions or non religious weddings which is completely hypocritical) is ok and with in reason of religious freedom

id like to know whats that is based on?

Click to expand...

I already made it clear exactly what it was based on.

People of faith believe that certain actions are forbidden, or what Christians would label a sin. I'm not a Christian or a religious person, but most people of faith are also taught (I'm paraphrasing here, ) to hate the sin, not the sinner. Another way of looking at that is, even though you don't approve religiously of what a persons chooses to do, it's God's job to pass judgment upon them, not yours.

Refusing to serve gay people is passing judgment on homosexuals, which in my view is wrong. Selling a gay person a doughnut is not participating in, or endorsing a homosexual lifestyle. However, a baker who views gay marriage as a sin and sees it as an affront to his or her religious beliefs, should not be forced to be a contributor, paid or otherwise, to a ceremony that they believe to be sacrilegious.



That is condemning the sin (gay marraige) as opposed to condemning the sinner (a gay person).

also what if the person owns apartments instead?

Click to expand...

Refusing to rent an apartment to someone who is gay, is wrong for the same reasons as I stated in the example above. Providing shelter to a gay person isn't an endorsement of their lifestyle or participating in something that is sacrilegious. Now if a gay person said I would like to rent this apartment to host gay sex parties, they deserve to be refused for being such a total moron.

Thorgasm said:

Way to show that you don't have a very good understanding of the issue.

Are you familiar with public accommodation laws?

Click to expand...

Yes and there is absolutely no relevance to our discussion as gays are not a protected class nationally

Dovkan said:

And you have a bias in support of religion, see how this works out? I agree, best not to discuss it.

Click to expand...

You are wrong about the religious bias, but right about ending the discussion.

For the record, I'm not a Christian, nor am I a religious person... You've mistaken my pro-constitution bias for a defense of religion.

Grim17 said:

You are wrong about the religious bias, but right about ending the discussion.

For the record, I'm not a Christian, nor am I a religious person... You've mistaken my pro-constitution bias for a defense of religion.

Click to expand...

Pro constitution bias :mrgreen:
We're divided then.

Grim17 said:

1.)I already made it clear exactly what it was based on.
2.)People of faith believe that certain actions are forbidden, or what Christians would label a sin. I'm not a Christian or a religious person, but most people of faith are also taught (I'm paraphrasing here, ) to hate the sin, not the sinner. Another way of looking at that is, even though you don't approve religiously of what a persons chooses to do, it's God's job to pass judgment upon them, not yours.
3.)Refusing to serve gay people is passing judgment on homosexuals, which in my view is wrong.
4.) Selling a gay person a doughnut is not participating in, or endorsing a homosexual lifestyle.
5.) However, a baker who views gay marriage as a sin and sees it as an affront to his or her religious beliefs, should not be forced to be a contributor, paid or otherwise, to a ceremony that they believe to be sacrilegious.
6.)That is condemning the sin (gay marraige) as opposed to condemning the sinner (a gay person).
7,)Refusing to rent an apartment to someone who is gay, is wrong for the same reasons as I stated in the example above. Providing shelter to a gay person isn't an endorsement of their lifestyle or participating in something that is sacrilegious.
8.) Now if a gay person said I would like to rent this apartment to host gay sex parties, they deserve to be refused for being such a total moron.

Click to expand...

1.) no you didnt . . i find the separation totally arbitrary and its bases illogical and or dishonest with some
2.) yes and some of these people are just makign it up. If its god jobs then let god do it
3.) yes it is
4.) nor its not, nor is selling them a cake
5.) they arent forced
6.) just like serving blacks at the back door, still serving them just not with the whites . . . its crap . . fact remains if the people in the wedding werent gay then they would get served, its still the gay person being denied a service, not ALL service but some serve. Its like hiring women but not making allowing them to be bosses, its disgusting..
7.) geez and what if its a gay couple, wouldnt the same weak argument about the cake for the wedding hold up based on that false logic? are you claiming that providing the cake is worse than providing the living faclitiies?
why?
8.) this is just stupid . . .gay sex parties are ZERO reason to be refused unless some other rules are being violated . . . .
people in apartment have parties all the time, unless the party is illegal or breaks other rules like noise, capacity limits etc the type of party doesnt matter

Jack Hays said:

Indiana Governor: This Is the Same Religious Freedom Law Obama Voted for in Illinois

Click to expand...

Speaking of Pence, this quote was hilarious:

"I just can't account for the hostility that's been directed at our state," he said. "I've been taken aback by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what is in this bill."

Click to expand...

LMMFAO. The mischaracterizations are coming from supporters of the bill he invited to the private signing...

From his orgs website: Advance America » Blog Archive » Help Protect Religious Freedom In Indiana!

SB 101 will help protect individuals, Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages and those supporting government recognition and approval of gender identity (male cross-dressers).

Click to expand...

Who said this was about teh gay???!!!! Only the people invited to the signing!

johndylan1 said:

Right, because the bill makes no mention of gays. It's a hypothetical that can only be answered by the merchant and his sincerely held religious beliefs. The law doesn't deal with the merchant, it deals with how governmental institutions react to the merchant. He can't be persecuted for applying his sincerely held religious beliefs in his daily life, in and out of his business.

Click to expand...

If that's actually true then it's a license to discriminate. Anyone with half a brain can justify any discrimination in religion - people did it with slavery. The Mormons used to believe goodness was related to being white, etc. And the courts can't judge whether your religious belief is "sincere" or not. The bill itself helpfully points out that the objection doesn't have to be related to a central tenet of any religion. So if your pastor says it, and it's #198 on #199 of sins, discriminate away.

What's funny is Pence is trying to go on national TV and tell the world you're wrong, but in front of religious audiences agree with you.

jamesrage said:

It does say the government can not prohibit the exercise of religion. Telling wedding chapples, wedding cake makers and etc that they have to perform a gay wedding, make a gay wedding cake and ect is a violation of their 1st amendment right to exercise their religion.

Click to expand...

wat>?

AGENT J said:

5.) they arent forced

Click to expand...

They have been threatened with financial penalty and hardship through legal channels if they do not comply... You can call that what you want, but it doesn't change what it is.

6.) just like serving blacks at the back door, still serving them just not with the whites . . . its crap . . fact remains if the people in the wedding werent gay then they would get served, its still the gay person being denied a service, not ALL service but some serve. Its like hiring women but not making allowing them to be bosses, its disgusting..

Click to expand...

Where did you come up with that? That does not apply in any way to what I said.

If a gay person orders a wedding cake and does not specify it's for a gay wedding, then if the baker refuses, that in my view is discrimination, not a religious objection.

7.) geez and what if its a gay couple, wouldnt the same weak argument about the cake for the wedding hold up based on that false logic? are you claiming that providing the cake is worse than providing the living faclitiies?
why?

Click to expand...

I just don't see that as the same. Denying people an apartment because you disagree with their lifestyle or because you object to how they might conduct themselves behind closed doors, isn't a justification to refuse to rent to them. I realize that there are some grey areas with this, but I just try and judge this situation considering both sides and doing what is right.

Your question brings to mind a similar debate I've seen discussed in the past, that is far tougher than this one... It's whether the manager of a family oriented apartment complex, where children of all ages live and are given a resonably secure environment to engage in outdoor activities, is within his rights to refuse to rent to a preditor who was convicted of multiple counts of child molestation several years ago and served his time.

8.) this is just stupid . . .gay sex parties are ZERO reason to be refused unless some other rules are being violated . . . .
people in apartment have parties all the time, unless the party is illegal or breaks other rules like noise, capacity limits etc the type of party doesnt matter

Click to expand...

Geez... lighten up... My point was, that if someone is so arrogant that they get in peoples faces with their lifestyle, which they know will be seen as objectionable and offensive to a significant percentage of our society, and basically challenge them to look sideways, then they deserve to be tossed to the curb.

What I'm saying here is, tolerance is a 2 way street. if you show respect for people and treat them the way you would want to be treated, you'll find that tolerance will win the day, and quite often even over valid religious objections.