What is your take?

A lot of companies are boycotting Indiana until this law goes away. I think i read even a state (Connecticut maybe?) is boycotting Indiana.

Seems pretty fucked up to me that a company can essentially refuse to serve a customer a grande latte because the customer is a homosexual.

There is a lot of hyperbole on both sides, I think. Refuse to serve a latte???? why not. Be forced to cater to an abortion clinic......uhhhh, I see the point.

Don't care.

I would not want to give my money to a business that would discriminate against me if they had the legal option to do so. Let the bigots bigot and take your money elsewhere. And as a straight white non-believing male If I were to hear of a local business denying service to others based on their race, religion, or sexual preference I would not give my money to those places. Word spreads quickly in the information age so I wouldn't think businesses would last long with those practices.

That said, I haven't really paid much attention to everything going on with this law. Anyone have a good breakdown of what it actually changes/allows?

It basically brings the same wording as the federal law to a state level. Not sure why it's an issue. Connecticut has boycotted Indiana, despite having the same law already on the books in their state.

superman;1717423 wrote:It basically brings the same wording as the federal law to a state level. Not sure why it's an issue. Connecticut has boycotted Indiana, despite having the same law already on the books in their state.

Lol it's not the same.

I'm on a mobile so I can't copy and paste but this article does a good job in explaining why it's not the same as the federal law. Bout halfway down.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

SportsAndLady;1717424 wrote:Lol it's not the same.

It is the same.

This article explains why
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html

explains why UConn didn't make it to the Final Four in Indy

justincredible;1717389 wrote:If I were to hear of a local business denying service to others based on their race, religion, or sexual preference I would not give my money to those places.

But... aren't you just doing the very same thing that you are boycotting the business for doing? You would be discriminating against a business for following their religious practices.

Personally, I don't care if a business does it or not. It's not something that I think about when I buy clothing, a cup of coffee, a cake or when hiring a contractor. I don't go into an establishment and say "HEY LOOK AT ME, I'M STRAIGHT, SELL ME SOMETHING!"
This is all getting to be really ridiculous.

Let capitalism take this issue on. I get sick of the leftwing talking about how gay people aren't going to get service.

CenterBHSFan;1717457 wrote:But... aren't you just doing the very same thing that you are boycotting the business for doing? You would be discriminating against a business for following their religious practices.

Discriminating against those that discriminate is not even close to being the same as discriminating against someone for their race/religion/sexual preference. Religious beliefs are no excuse for denying service to an individual for their race/religion/sexual preference. That said, I fully support a businesses choice to do so as I fully support freedom of association. That doesn't mean I would spend my money in their establishment.

That Atlantic piece really illustrates the media manipulation by agenda driven progressives....and the backlash by well meaning but manipulated and misinformed people.

The law simply allows the courts a "balancing test" for courts to apply to religious liberty cases. Just because you claim a religious exemption doesn't mean you automatically win or can discriminate at will. It simply allows for relief in some circumstances. For instance, you can't claim religious liberty in refusing to serve gays, jews, muslims a meal at your restaraunt, but you might be able to refuse to rent out your facility for a same sex marraige, an abortion clinic fundraiser, or simply not to open because of a religious holiday.

Moreover, that Atlantic piece seems to insinuate that there is something sinister about the law wording applying to "for profit" businesses....very simply explicit language for what was already implied in the federal statute. "Businesses", for legal purposes are always considered seperate entities.... "persons" in their own right.

CenterBHSFan;1717457 wrote:But... aren't you just doing the very same thing that you are boycotting the business for doing? You would be discriminating against a business for following their religious practices.

Personally, I don't care if a business does it or not. It's not something that I think about when I buy clothing, a cup of coffee, a cake or when hiring a contractor. I don't go into an establishment and say "HEY LOOK AT ME, I'M STRAIGHT, SELL ME SOMETHING!"
This is all getting to be really ridiculous.

this

HitsRus;1717479 wrote:That Atlantic piece really illustrates the media manipulation by agenda driven progressives....and the backlash by well meaning but manipulated and misinformed people.

The law simply allows the courts a "balancing test" for courts to apply to religious liberty cases. Just because you claim a religious exemption doesn't mean you automatically win or can discriminate at will. It simply allows for relief in some circumstances. For instance, you can't claim religious liberty in refusing to serve gays, jews, muslims a meal at your restaraunt, but you might be able to refuse to rent out your facility for a same sex marraige, an abortion clinic fundraiser, or simply not to open because of a religious holiday.

Moreover, that Atlantic piece seems to insinuate that there is something sinister about the law wording applying to "for profit" businesses....very simply explicit language for what was already implied in the federal statute. "Businesses", for legal purposes are always considered seperate entities.... "persons" in their own right.

As you already stated, hyperbole is going to take over and dominate the discussion (it's already in full swing). I am all for a business making their own decisions. Let capitalism decide the fate of the business. If you are a smart business owner (especially a small business) I think you would be well aware of the repercussions of discrimination in this day and age.

I guess I need to read more into it, but if what superman posted is accurate and that is how the law is written, then it is being completely taken out of context. I am not really surprised media outlets and people like Hillary are being very misleading though. Pretty much par for the course.

justincredible;1717463 wrote:Discriminating against those that discriminate is not even close to being the same as discriminating against someone for their race/religion/sexual preference. Religious beliefs are no excuse for denying service to an individual for their race/religion/sexual preference. That said, I fully support a businesses choice to do so as I fully support freedom of association. That doesn't mean I would spend my money in their establishment.

The law isn't about refusing to serve a latte or sell a cake.

The law is about the ability to refuse to actively participate in something you don't believe in. Being able to refuse to photograph something you don't believe in, being able to refuse to (as a pastor) actually marry a same sex couple, being able to refuse (as a doctor) to be forced to perform an abortion, being able to refuse to create a special cake with same sex figurines on top, etc.

If they want to come in, buy a cake and put their own figurines on top, have at it, but don't force someone to actively participate in something they don't agree with.

People that are saying this is allowing businesses to refuse servicing any gay people have no idea what they are talking about.

Is this discrimination?

jmog;1717513 wrote:The law isn't about refusing to serve a latte or sell a cake.

The law is about the ability to refuse to actively participate in something you don't believe in. Being able to refuse to photograph something you don't believe in, being able to refuse to (as a pastor) actually marry a same sex couple, being able to refuse (as a doctor) to be forced to perform an abortion, being able to refuse to create a special cake with same sex figurines on top, etc.

If they want to come in, buy a cake and put their own figurines on top, have at it, but don't force someone to actively participate in something they don't agree with.

People that are saying this is allowing businesses to refuse servicing any gay people have no idea what they are talking about.

I stated in my first post that I have not had a chance to read what the law is, I was just making general statements on my thoughts on the subject at large. I also do not disagree with anything you've said here. I also agree that the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion.

like_that;1717499 wrote:As you already stated, hyperbole is going to take over and dominate the discussion (it's already in full swing). I am all for a business making their own decisions. Let capitalism decide the fate of the business. If you are a smart business owner (especially a small business) I think you would be well aware of the repercussions of discrimination in this day and age.

I guess I need to read more into it, but if what superman posted is accurate and that is how the law is written, then it is being completely taken out of context. I am not really surprised media outlets and people like Hillary are being very misleading though. Pretty much par for the course.

All of this.

jmog;1717513 wrote:The law isn't about refusing to serve a latte or sell a cake.

The law is about the ability to refuse to actively participate in something you don't believe in. Being able to refuse to photograph something you don't believe in, being able to refuse to (as a pastor) actually marry a same sex couple, being able to refuse (as a doctor) to be forced to perform an abortion, being able to refuse to create a special cake with same sex figurines on top, etc.

If they want to come in, buy a cake and put their own figurines on top, have at it, but don't force someone to actively participate in something they don't agree with.

People that are saying this is allowing businesses to refuse servicing any gay people have no idea what they are talking about.

Thank you.

Belly35;1717530 wrote:


Is this discrimination?

No; it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution (except when living under the obama dictatorship).

Belly35;1717530 wrote:


Is this discrimination?

QuakerOats;1717538 wrote:No; it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution (except when living under the obama dictatorship).

If a private business puts that sign up it is neither discrimination nor a violation of the Constitution. And I say this as someone who most would consider to have "extreme" (pro) views on the 2nd Amendment.

superman;1717428 wrote:It is the same.

This article explains why
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html

From what I've read, that article doesn't explain everything, making it a bit inaccurate. From what I understand, the other states which have this law also have provisions that protect gays from being discriminated against. Indiana doesn't, which makes this incident a bit more than a simple "apples to apples" comparison.

CenterBHSFan;1717457 wrote:But... aren't you just doing the very same thing that you are boycotting the business for doing? You would be discriminating against a business for following their religious practices.

This might be one of the site's all-time greatest logical fallacies. "If someone holds beliefs you find offensive and you don't financially support them (and, by proxy, their viewpoint), YOU'RE AS BAD AS THEM!!!!!"

Classic case of media manipulation; a rampant problem in society that the dum dums eat up.

justincredible;1717542 wrote:If a private business puts that sign up it is neither discrimination nor a violation of the Constitution. And I say this as someone who most would consider to have "extreme" (pro) views on the 2nd Amendment.

True .....mine included a bit of sarcasm