The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[MCgrease08]

If you peek into the Indiana subreddit, you'd think every business with religious ties has a "NO GAYS" sign on their door, and service is being turned away left-and-right. Kneejerk reactions are the best reactions.

I'll make the point once again, our legislators fail to account for the law of unintended consequences. In an effort to try and solve a problem that doesn't exist, they ultimately spark a backlash against Indiana businesses, many of which never intended to turn away customers in the first place.

 

[MCgrease08]

The straw man is strong with this one.

No. He really does believe that. I'll give him credit for consistency.

 

[Denny347]

I'll make the point once again, our legislators fail to account for the law of unintended consequences. In an effort to try and solve a problem that doesn't exist, they ultimately spark a backlash against Indiana businesses, many of which never intended to turn away customers in the first place.

You said it better than I did

 

[Hoosier Carry]

Says who? You go into business for all the high minded, altruistic reasons you want. "Let's let people be free to run their businesses for whatever reason they want."

Seems simple enough for me...But your using that Freedom word again.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I was wondering why I hadn't seen this here. Social media has been losing it's mind about this.

I'm not a fan of this one. Giving people the freedom to deny services from a public business based on their religious beliefs is a step backwards. I'll be ashamed to be an Indiana resident if this gets passed.

I think if this is signed, this one will end up at the SCOTUS.

I'm sorry, what is that? Can you define it for me? I never learned the term "public business".

 

[hoosierdoc]

Yes. This bill does nothing other than pander to the religious right.

Really? It doesn't protect business owners from lawsuits for not doing something they are opposed to?

this goes both ways. Equal protections for the liberal business and the conservative ones. They both win. The angst here is just absurd.

Denny, as a physician I cannot be forced to do something I have a moral disagreement with. Why can I do that as a doctor but not as a baker, a performer, etc? This law is long overdue.

 

[MisterChester]

It would have been more expedient simply to say that you're being intentionally obtuse. The straw man you erected is one I already addressed, two or three comments ago. People who hold views like yours are the reason that the first amendment is needed - and the reason that it isn't sufficient, necessitating laws such as this one.

Going back to your other post, no one is forcing you to do anything. No one is holding a gun to your head ordering you to bake the cake. Everybody gets offended or doesn't want to do something because it's against their morals at some point in their lives. Especially if you're that unlucky baker we keep talking about. Oh you don't want to make the cake because of your morals? Then don't make the dumb cake, it's your wallet that's getting hit, not your high-horse. The other side can learn that lesson too. They denied you service? Go somewhere else with your money. No one's forcing you to shop there. You got holier-than-thou snobs on one side and entitled idiots on the other, I'll leave you to figure out who's who.

 

[Denny347]

Really? It doesn't protect business owners from lawsuits for not doing something they are opposed to?

this goes both ways. Equal protections for the liberal business and the conservative ones. They both win. The angst here is just absurd.

Denny, as a physician I cannot be forced to do something I have a moral disagreement with. Why can I do that as a doctor but not as a baker, a performer, etc? This law is long overdue.

My issue is that the "problem" is a figment of imagination.

 

[hoosierdoc]

My issue is that the "problem" is a figment of imagination.

Tell that to the baker who got sued

i agree that the opposition is imagining a state that will not exist when Pence signs the law. Just a bunch of sky is falling speech meant to scare people.

if the problem doesn't exist, why does anyone care to oppose the law?

 

[mrjarrell]

My issue is that the "problem" is a figment of imagination.

Folks keep deliberately ignoring the fact that you can't be sued in Indiana for refusing service to gay Hoosiers. They are accorded no protections by law in this state, as we have already seen in cases where they were refused service. The just want some special law carved out for those poor persecuted religious folks that were being forced to serve their fellow Hoosiers. Oh, wait...that never happened.

 

[MAJB Retired]

I support gay rights in the sense that I don't care what my neighbors are up to. It really has no impact on me what-so-ever if I live nextdoor to a gay couple, my life is not impacted in that in any way, shape or form. If they're in love, want to get married, cool. Go for it. I don't care... why should I? With any luck they'll have better success than the majority of straight couples who get divorced and they'll be happy.


With that said, I support the bill too. Business owners should be able to choose who they do business with. Maybe they don't like you wearing a blue hat in their store. Maybe they don't like your glasses. Maybe your jeans are too baggy. Maybe your jeans are too tight. It's their business, if they don't wish to serve you, they shouldn't have to.

At the end of the day they're potentially losing a lot more than just a single sale, and if business is so good that they can deny people based on criteria that doesn't impact the store (like a gay couple shopping there) then so be it. The market will speak and that couple can go shop elsewhere and if the issue is great enough the store will lose lots of business from others who support the LGBT community or support whoever was denied service for whatever reason.

There are several businesses (probably several who are into an alternate life style) who refuse to allow hoodies in their store...where is the outrage?

 

[MAJB Retired]

Pretty sure it is exactly the opposite. As in , against governments forcing private business to sell goods/services even if the business owner doesn't want to.

I'm sure this is a knee-jerk to the "gsy cake" fiascos. Laws like this should not be needed.

Yes, but in this world, common sense has left the room...

 

[One Shot One Kill]

Just because I like to play devils advocate, wonder if there would be an outrage because a business refused service to Christians
Their decision would be protected under this correct?

It'd be financial suicide no doubt as well as close-minded, but it was a "what-if" that crossed my mind (although very unlikely)

 

[Denny347]

Tell that to the baker who got sued

i agree that the opposition is imagining a state that will not exist when Pence signs the law. Just a bunch of sky is falling speech meant to scare people.

if the problem doesn't exist, why does anyone care to oppose the law?

We can all get sued for ANYTHING. Be careful what we wish for as we might just get it. I oppose any law based on irrational fear. Will this law affect my life? Not likely. But why do we need more dumbass laws? I thought most here were opposed to "feel good" laws? This is one of those instances where someone say back and said to themselves, " There ought to be a law." We know how many useful laws stem from that.

 

[MAJB Retired]

That's CO. They also have legal weed....neither affect us. We are just making a statement that makes this state look unflattering...

Wait...You meant to say...We are just making a statement that expresses our (the majority) view on what we believe.

 

[MAJB Retired]

This anger might be more properly directed at the original attention whoring statement-makers who sue folks that don't want to serve them instead of acting like grown-ups and finding another establishment that will.

Exactly !!!!!!!!

 

[Denny347]

Wait...You meant to say...We are just making a statement that expresses our (the majority) view on what we believe.

Majority? Hmmmm..........of whom?

 

[MisterChester]

Just because I like to play devils advocate, wonder if there would be an outrage because a business refused service to Christians
Their decision would be protected under this correct?

It'd be financial suicide no doubt as well as close-minded, but it was a "what-if" that crossed my mind (although very unlikely)

I'm sure someone on INGO would post about it and give it a clickbait title (as standard operating procedure) like "Rome part 2? Business persecutes local Christians"

 

[One Shot One Kill]

I'm sure someone on INGO would post about it and give it a clickbait title (as standard operating procedure) like "Rome part 2? Business persecutes local Christians"

Naturally, I just assumed that was a given
It wouldn't be a controversy without such a thread! Duh!

 

[MAJB Retired]

When a shop comes up that refuses service to the majority religion here, and they'll be vilified by you know who, does that make them (ones who were refused service and complain) fascists too?

If I refuse to service what I suspect is a radical Islamist who wants me to fix his /her (don't want to be accuses of being a sexist) van that I believe will be used in a bombing, can I be persecuted for refusing to do rrpair because of a religious intolerance? Folks, let's get a life, and get back to the things that matter.