ADVERTISEMENT

OT -

yosdk

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 30, 2001
5,377
1,206
113
I can't wait for my complete religious freedom to do whatever I want.
 
The outcry on social media about this is astounding. I keep seeing "indiana is so far behind the times." As usual, 99% of the public are low information voters that dont realize this is a trend that 19 other states have picked up on, including left hotbeds illinois, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, to protect small business and give them back the right of service. It's a foundation to the free market principle, as openly discriminating is quite bad for business. The bill does look bad at face value, which is as far as most people are able to take it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by Jedifick:
The outcry on social media about this is astounding. I keep seeing "indiana is so far behind the times." As usual, 99% of the public are low information voters that dont realize this is a trend that 19 other states have picked up on, including left hotbeds illinois, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, to protect small business and give them back the right of service. It's a foundation to the free market principle, as openly discriminating is quite bad for business. The bill does look bad at face value, which is as far as most people are able to take it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
First off, I agree with you that on its merits, this isn't a wholly bad bill. As you said, nearly half the states have adopted similar measures. However, it seems to be a solution for a problem that doesn't currently exist in Indiana (I realize that's not the case everywhere, and may not be the case here in the future).

But the biggest issue is the perception that a bill like this creates. It may not be the reality, but the public perception is that this bill codifies discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. For a state, and city, that wants to attract companies to bring jobs and young professionals to move in, that's not a good thing.

It took less than a day for Gen Con to threaten to possibly move future conventions out of Indiana if Pence signs the bill and the NCAA released a statement on the matter as well. It seems almost guaranteed that this bill will have a negative impact on the state and city's economy.
 
#1 - this should be taken to the Gen Discussion board
#2 - I agree that this law doesn't necessarily cause the issues raised by opponents.
#3 - It is pretty easy to see the bad optics here when you have a group of very socially conservative legislators sponsoring the bill in the aftermath of the failure to amend the Indiana Constitution to ban gay marriage. In fact given some of these legislators history and tenuous grasp of the law, I wouldn't be surprised if they did believe that the RFRA would give them the ability to discriminate against gays.

Edited because I dislike the wording of my last point.
This post was edited on 3/25 8:20 AM by stout1
 
Agree on all three points. I had to laugh when low information voter Jason Collins spoke out about not wanting to attend the final four in fear of bigotry from this bill. The last final four was in Connecticut which already has this law in the books.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Yep, pure bigotry bill, not surprising that religious and right wing hotbed illinois beat us in getting this law passed. Tic

Nuke, please do not vote until or attempt to sway others over to your incorrect and uninformed political viewpoints until you have become educated.

Thanks.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by Jedifick:
Yep, pure bigotry bill, not surprising that religious and right wing hotbed illinois beat us in getting this law passed. Tic

Nuke, please do not vote until or attempt to sway others over to your incorrect and uninformed political viewpoints until you have become educated.

Thanks.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I live in Ohio and am too lazy to google it, what is the text of the bill? Unduly burden language?
 
Those that justify their own bigotry by hiding behind the bigotry of others are cowards. Once you enter into the public arena by registering a business, you are entering into a public contract, and accepting all that comes with it. This includes access to the public commons (roads, police, monetary system, legal system, etc.) including civil rights. I can't not sell you a hamburger because you're black, gay, etc even if I'm a racist "religious" homophobe because I'd be denying a fellow citizen their civil rights in a public arena. It's not the same as refusing entry to a black, gay, etc. person to your private residence. Then you're just being a prick.

This is codified hate written by "religious" bigots. I have plenty of information. Thanks.
 
Bill accomplishes absolutely nothing except that it divides many of the politicians' constituents. What a meaningful way for Indiana legislators to spend their time! /s

Maybe politicians should actually try to help the people instead of score cheap political points? By the way, I'm not registered democrat or republican, but I can tell you that several of my young republican friends are now going to vote democrat simply because of republican politicians' outdated stances on social issues. Other states are moving forward and Indiana is moving backward...
 
Originally posted by NukeLaloosh:
Those that justify their own bigotry by hiding behind the bigotry of others are cowards. Once you enter into the public arena by registering a business, you are entering into a public contract, and accepting all that comes with it. This includes access to the public commons (roads, police, monetary system, legal system, etc.) including civil rights. I can't not sell you a hamburger because you're black, gay, etc even if I'm a racist "religious" homophobe because I'd be denying a fellow citizen their civil rights in a public arena. It's not the same as refusing entry to a black, gay, etc. person to your private residence. Then you're just being a prick.

This is codified hate written by "religious" bigots. I have plenty of information. Thanks.
topic view user...
 
Originally posted by purduesteelers:
Bill accomplishes absolutely nothing except that it divides many of the politicians' constituents. What a meaningful way for Indiana legislators to spend their time! /s

Maybe politicians should actually try to help the people instead of score cheap political points? By the way, I'm not registered democrat or republican, but I can tell you that several of my young republican friends are now going to vote democrat simply because of republican politicians' outdated stances on social issues. Other states are moving forward and Indiana is moving backward...
That's the major problem with politics in general. There is no incentive for any politician to do anything useful. All they do is put on a show to win votes.
 
Again, indiana is the 20th state to add this law. Do you really think Connecticut and Illinois are leading the charge against gay rights? Get informed, please. This bill simply protects small businesses.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
I think this bill has been over simplified by the media. To use the bakery example; what if I'm a pro-life baker and a couple comes in who had just had an abortion and asked me to make them a "Happy Abortion" cake. Say the couple asked me to decorate the cake with a dead baby and plenty of red icing to look like blood. Should that baker have the right to say, "no, I think that is inappropriate and I won't make that"?

I think the confusion comes when people fail to realize the bill is not about not serving certain groups, but more about what they have to serve to all groups. As long as that bakery doesn't refuse to serve the gay couple I see no problem with it. In fact, that was the case with the infamous bakery suit, the owner refused to make them a "wedding" cake, but offered to sell them anything else.

The left's go to move with anything is to label their opponent as a "Hater". If you believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, you are suddenly a homophobic bigot. If you believe that life begins at conception and thus are anti abortion, you are labeled anti woman. If you want people to show an ID to vote, you are racist.

These arguments by the left fail to look at issues for what they are and serve as a closed minded response to any argument. Its kind of ironic that a group that thinks of themselves as deep thinkers and progressive fail to have a discussion about anything without name calling.
 
Wait, you consider yourself part of the 1% of "high information voters" simply because you know 19 other states including Connecticut and Illinois have a similar bill?

Wow, with knowledge like that I see why you feel you and your 1% peers should be the only ones allowed to vote. How dare someone question the representatives in their own state if Connecticut and Illinois have done something similar!
 
Here are two quotes from you in this thread-

"As usual, 99% of the public are low information voters
that dont realize this is a trend that 19 other states have picked up
on, including left hotbeds illinois, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, to
protect small business and give them back the right of service."

"Nuke, please do not vote until or attempt to sway others
over to your incorrect and uninformed political viewpoints until you
have become educated."
 
Sure

As long as you don't violate others' rights.

No one has a right to force someone else to do business with them.
 
What if I believe Christians are responsible for millions of historical deaths in religious fueled hate and I refuse to serve them in my business - can I do that?

Once again, when you enter the public arena and depend on the commons to conduct business, then you have to respect civil rights of EVERYONE. It doesn't matter what your religion informs you to do (no matter how hateful and bigoted those actions might be); it only matters that you are no longer the judge of what is acceptable. You are now beholden to the agreed-upon civil rights of our shared society.
 
Originally posted by NukeLaloosh:
...Once you enter into the public arena by registering a business, you are entering into a public contract, and accepting all that comes with it. This includes access to the public commons (roads, police, monetary system, legal system, etc.) including civil rights...
I would add one thing, and this goes to the ridiculous notion of corporations as people, IMHO if you have incorporated your buisness for the protections and advantages that the government/people grant them then you can't discriminate. I don't care the number of shareholders.
 
Ah, yes, the Social Justice Warriors on Facebook

And other places. I've noticed it too. Its all about 1) status whoring and 2) trying to make people believe that everyone else is against this bill.

...as openly discriminating is quite bad for business.

Unless you're discriminating in favor of PC groups or against un-PC groups. Then, its a measure of your superior virtue. I'm guessing 99% of the people who are going to boycott (aka discriminate against) businesses, or who support the potential GenCon boycott (aka discriminate) against the state of Indiana, have no awareness of the irony of their behavior.
 
Since you're so very informed, Jedi, please enlighten the rest of us on how this is protecting small businesses, and protecting them from what exactly?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
What if I believe Christians are responsible for millions of historical deaths in religious fueled hate and I refuse to serve them in my business - can I do that?

Yes.

What if you believe whites are responsible for all the ills of blacks and therefore you institute policies to "redress historical injustices" and promote Diversity? Well, then you'd be discriminating against whites and in favor of blacks. You'd also be acting in accordance with official policies all over this society.

........it only matters that you are no longer the judge of what is acceptable.

Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.

Once again, when you enter the public arena and depend on the commons to conduct business, then you have to respect civil rights of EVERYONE.

So, when are you going to start?
 
This is going to shock you GMM, but governments exist, in part, to bring equality to minority groups. If not, then the totalitarian regimes you fear would exist in the unchecked laws written by the majority. Think King George. Or the Indiana Congress.
 
Originally posted by NukeLaloosh:
What if I believe Christians are responsible for millions of historical deaths in religious fueled hate and I refuse to serve them in my business - can I do that?

Once again, when you enter the public arena and depend on the commons to conduct business, then you have to respect civil rights of EVERYONE. It doesn't matter what your religion informs you to do (no matter how hateful and bigoted those actions might be); it only matters that you are no longer the judge of what is acceptable. You are now beholden to the agreed-upon civil rights of our shared society.
But again, this bill is not intended to allow you to not serve people of a certain group. I'm Catholic, say I came into your bakery and wanted a baptism cake for my child. At this point, you should have the right to say, "look man, we don't make baptism cakes because Catholics do not good for the world, no charity, no help to the sick, no education of young in poor countries". I would have to say "ok, will you sell me a donut?" Then you say yes and I go on my way. Now, I'm free to bad mouth your company all I want, but as long as you don't refuse me service and only refuse a certain request, I'm ok with that.
 
From what i understand, before this bill was in place if i went into a bakery and asked for a happy abortion cake with a fetus on it, and the baker refused, they were liable to be sued. Now you can refuse dead baby cakes without losing your business.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by NukeLaloosh:
What if I believe Christians are responsible for millions of historical deaths in religious fueled hate and I refuse to serve them in my business - can I do that?

Once again, when you enter the public arena and depend on the commons to conduct business, then you have to respect civil rights of EVERYONE. It doesn't matter what your religion informs you to do (no matter how hateful and bigoted those actions might be); it only matters that you are no longer the judge of what is acceptable. You are now beholden to the agreed-upon civil rights of our shared society.
Yes, you absolutely have that right, and as a Christian I support it 100%. Just like a baker that refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple would have to deal with the consequences, from a publicity standpoint, so would you, but the government has no right to step in and control the situation.

Every business owner should have the right to refuse someone service, and with that right comes the burden of dealing with the perception that paints of your business, good or bad. It's not illegal to be a bigot, it's just stupid.

Where is the audacity of the federal government end?

I refuse to do business, as a consumer (when possible), with large companies that support initiatives that I don't agree with. Are you saying that I should have to buy my car from the openly gay salesman that assisted me, or can I buy it from someone else?
 
"Nope, sorry dude, How do I know you won't serve that donut at your baby drowning ritual? Take a hike. Next."
 
Sure, easy stance to take when you're in the majority. But you sure wouldn't be happy if you couldn't find anywhere to buy a car because all the salesmen are gay.
 
This is going to shock you GMM, but governments exist, in part, to bring equality to minority groups.

Yeah, I suppose it would shock me since that idea is not found in either the US or Indiana constitution. Our government exists, in part, to protect our rights from being violated. This bill protects our rights. Naturally, you oppose it.

If not, then the totalitarian regimes you fear would exist in the unchecked laws written by the majority.

And with enough people who think like you we're moving towards totalitarian regimes.

Think King George.

Or King Obama who makes or ignores laws at his pleasure.
 
I don't get this, and I'm not disputing it is what is being said, but as a contractor, I can't refuse to restore a persons historic home simply because they are black, but if they ask me to remove two hundred year old moldings and replace them with crown from Lowe,s I can refuse.

As for the fetus, it would be impossible to force someone to use their creativity to create exactly what you want, unless they agree to it. And if you don't wnat to do it then who is to say your blank cake isn't your artistic interpretation of a fetus?
 
Originally posted by NukeLaloosh:
"Nope, sorry dude, How do I know you won't serve that donut at your baby drowning ritual? Take a hike. Next."
And that would not be allowed under this bill. Just like it wouldn't allow me to refuse service a gay person, only that I don't have to sell them a cake with two grooms on top.
 
Interesting. So, if my "religion" precludes me from serving Catholics and I claim impunity based on this law, then I suppose I'm not violating the First Amendment. Good to know. It's not at all how dictatorial regimes operated in the past.
 
Okay, so in the Indianapolis cake thing, this law would force them to make the cake just not force them to decorate it in a way they were uncomfortable with?
 
Originally posted by NukeLaloosh:
Sure, easy stance to take when you're in the majority. But you sure wouldn't be happy if you couldn't find anywhere to buy a car because all the salesmen are gay.
I said "when possible" when referring to who I choose to do business with. I'm sure I unwittingly give my business to companies, that support initiatives that I don't agree with, every day.

My position has nothing to do with being in the majority, it has to do with the freedoms that this country was based on that are systematically being attacked. I respect all people. I disagree with many people. I have the right to do so. The bigot that I heard cussing out a gay couple in the Wal-Mart parking lot last week has the right to be a bigot. Stupidity/ignorance can't be legislated.

I have just defined myself as a bigot, filled with hate, according to the liberal response to my views.
 
Originally posted by NukeLaloosh:
Interesting. So, if my "religion" precludes me from serving Catholics and I claim impunity based on this law, then I suppose I'm not violating the First Amendment. Good to know. It's not at all how dictatorial regimes operated in the past.
Look man, I don't quite know why this is so hard for you to understand, but no one is advocating what you are saying. No one wants preclusion for services, only that I should not be made to offer a special service for you that is offensive to me. As for dictatorial regimes, they start when the Government tells you what you have to do and do not allow for any individual choices.
 
Correction: your rights allow you to refuse to serve Catholics if you choose to do so.

It's not at all how dictatorial regimes operated in the past.

Correct, because individuals excercising their rights by acting in accordance with their beliefs and not violating anyone else's rights is not at all how dictatorial regimes operated in the past.

Meanwhile, governments then and now which force people to do business with people they don't want to is exactly how dictatorial regimes operate.
 
Originally posted by kescwi:
Okay, so in the Indianapolis cake thing, this law would force them to make the cake just not force them to decorate it in a way they were uncomfortable with?
Yes!
 
Okay, so what really has this changed? It's been awhile since I owned or ran a business in Indiana but that was how it was years ago.

My understanding of the Indy cake ordeal was that they refused to even make the cake and that is, IMHO, discrimination and your saying still is.
 
ADVERTISEMENT