The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[dusty88]

I stated up-thread a bit that there is a reasonable line, and used the cake baker as an example:

Scenario A: arbitrary person walks into the bakery, sees a cake in the display cake, and asks to buy it as-is. Baker says, "we don't serve your kind here." IMO, that is potentially actionable discrimination, because it is not a reasonable violation of conscience on religious grounds.

Scenario B: person walks into the bakery, asks the baker to bake a custom wedding cake, for a homosexual wedding ceremony, complete with all applicable decorations. Baker says, "I'm sorry, but I would view that as me participating in your ceremony, which would be a violation of my religious beliefs." That would be a reasonable violation of conscience on religious grounds, and not discriminatory.

I have argued that race discrimination falls under Scenario A, as does discriminating against the lawfully armed.

So the "reasonable line" or the reasons for a "violation of conscience" are OK if they fit your personal definition ?

 

[eldirector]

I do have to admit, I am getting quite the chuckle watching my FaceBook "friends" lose the collective minds about this.

Anyone point me to a source that shows the impact (negative or positive) in the other 39 states (or at the federal level) of the CURRENT laws? Surely there is the same outrage from local businesses, religious groups, community organizations, and "conferences" ? My Google-fu is weak on this topic.

 

[Denny347]

So... We let corporate interests dictate Hoosier laws then. Sounds like a fine idea.

They usually do. Money runs the system and those with the largest amount are corporations. From minor city code changes to news taxes, corporations push agendas. The city built the convention center to host conventions, you bet that the City does what it can to sway them to come here. The IPL stuff is top priority because it comes a week before Final Four, 10's millions are at stake for it to return in the future. It has to go smoothly. What is pushing our crime initiatives? The city's image for visitors.

 

[Dead Duck]

I just saw that Tony Katz posted on Facebook that Pence just signed the bill.

EVERYONE RUN!!

The Creamy Filling will Flow into the Streets!

 

[AA&E]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If this bill offends you....get over it. Waste of time and money?...Time will tell.

But it is our time and money being wasted, not only in the passing of, but the eventual defense efforts once this reaches the supreme court only to inevitably fail.

 

[rw02kr43]

I'm sure church meeting will be thrilling tonight. I wonder if they will pick up and move the church to a state that doesn't have this law.

Jason

 

[AA&E]

Your statement implies that government force deserves credit for cultural change.

Government sanctioned and even mandated discrimination when it was popular to do so. Sodomites were executed at one time. When the political winds shift, the politicians jump in and pretend to be the knight in shining armor.

Anti-discrimination laws don't stop discrimination. Jerks will still be jerks, usually in legal ways. What anti-discrimination laws do is open up innocent people to lawsuits, require businesses to take on process and paperwork, waste taxpayer money employing bureaucrats, reward lawyers, and reward attention mongers.

What this bill does is legitimize discrimination and makes it government sanctioned.

 

[dusty88]

What this bill does is legitimize discrimination and makes it government sanctioned.

NO, it says you won't be punished for certain reasons for discrimination. It doesn't allow direct harm to others. I don't know that the bill is needed, btw. But anti-discrimination laws exist and they cause problems for those of us that do not discriminate.

To clarify: don't confuse the "freedom to discriminate" with the action or sanction of discrimination.

An example of government sanctioning or requiring discrimination is discriminating in a public facility. Marriage laws are also an example of government-required discrimination.

If you choose not to serve others, you gain no government benefit. You probably also experience economic loss. Government doesn't need to step in to pretend to be the force that changes those realities.

 

[chipbennett]

So the "reasonable line" or the reasons for a "violation of conscience" are OK if they fit your personal definition ?

Given that I've not indicated what my "personal definition" is: no, that would not be correct. I'm merely stating that there *is* a line.

On one hand, it is morally wrong for the State to do something that truly violates a person's conscience (such as forcing artistic creation to be used as part of a homosexual wedding ceremony for someone for whom such a ceremony is contrary to sincerely held religious beliefs). On the other hand, the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and equal protection of laws, imply that any person has a legal right to engage in commerce with a business that is open to the public.

The line is somewhere between the two. My personal beliefs or definition of that line are irrelevant with respect to recognizing that the line exists.

 

[chipbennett]

But it is our time and money being wasted, not only in the passing of, but the eventual defense efforts once this reaches the supreme court only to inevitably fail.

Who is going to challenge it, and given that the same law has thus far withstood constitutional scrutiny in several other states, what makes you think that it would fail to do so in Indiana?

 

[dusty88]

Given that I've not indicated what my "personal definition" is: no, that would not be correct. I'm merely stating that there *is* a line.

On one hand, it is morally wrong for the State to do something that truly violates a person's conscience (such as forcing artistic creation to be used as part of a homosexual wedding ceremony for someone for whom such a ceremony is contrary to sincerely held religious beliefs). On the other hand, the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and equal protection of laws, imply that any person has a legal right to engage in commerce with a business that is open to the public.

The line is somewhere between the two. My personal beliefs or definition of that line are irrelevant with respect to recognizing that the line exists.

You are trying to rationalize a fuzzy line that fits your comfort level I think.

The logical line is in causing direct harm to others, not in failing to offer an opportunity to others.

 

[1775usmarine]

Tolerance vs Acceptance there is a difference.
Example: I run a business. I sell to whoever walks in regardless of their lifestyle or beliefs because I tolerate them. They want a special order done with a phrase or picture that I do not accept due to my beliefs, so I politely refuse and ask you to leave. I may even give you the name and number of another business who may be able to help you. I do not have to give you a reason as to why you were denied service even though you or may not know my beliefs. I would not even provide a response as to why your being denied even if you make the the claim is it because of blank. I would simply point to the sign that says I have the right to refuse service to anyone and again politely ask you to leave without raising my voice.

Laws are not needed to force people to accept someone else based on their beliefs or lifestyle. Instead they trample on your rights by saying these people are better than you or this lifestyle is better than yours so its now law. You will find most people who have a certain belief or lifestyle just want to be left alone as long as you can tolerate them.

 

[rw02kr43]

not worth arguing

 

[chipbennett]

You are trying to rationalize a fuzzy line that fits your comfort level I think.

Again, no. I'm merely asserting that a line exists, even if our ability to define it precisely is fuzzy.

Why do you keep making assumptions about my "comfort level"? I believe that homosexual marriage is sinful as defined by the Bible, but would have no objections on the basis of conscience providing any service to a homosexual person or couple. Heck, I have friends who are homosexual, and if they invited me to their wedding, I would attend, and wish them well. I have no problems with "comfort level."

By the same token: I respect and defend the rights of those who are led differently by their own conscience, and find any attempt by the state to force others to violate their conscience to be odious.

The logical line is in causing direct harm to others, not in failing to offer an opportunity to others.

I don't think that "direct harm" works as a logical line. What "direct harm" was caused to any would-be customer in any of the example incidents that led to lawsuits?

 

[femurphy77]

I just saw that Tony Katz posted on Facebook that Pence just signed the bill.

And it will lead to the biggest non-event the state has ever seen.

Oh wait, never mind!

 

[Dead Duck]

Now I can finally put that sign in my window -




No T-888s

 

[dusty88]

Again, no. I'm merely asserting that a line exists, even if our ability to define it precisely is fuzzy.

Why do you keep making assumptions about my "comfort level"?

I apologize for that. I don't mean to turn the discussion personal. What I do see is that your argument suggests we can pick and choose certain freedoms in certain situations.

I don't think that "direct harm" works as a logical line. What "direct harm" was caused to any would-be customer in any of the example incidents that led to lawsuits?

none
but I don't agree with the reasoning or laws that allow such a lawsuit to be filed

It's an example of how anti-discrimination laws harm business.

I think "direct harm" is a very logical line. Rarely do these lines intersect. Failing to offer service is not a direct harm. In fact, it very rationally and obviously discriminates against a business owner.

I have a good friend who is gay; I use her business and she uses my business. If I decided I didn't want to "do business" with her because she is gay (or make the same argument if she were a minority race), she might sue me for discrimination. However, she couldn't sue me as a CUSTOMER for choosing to not take business to her because of her race, status, etc. Same goes for employees. Employees can discriminate with no penalty.

Laws that put a burden on business seem OK when you stand on the sidewalk and think that business has a privilege. In reality, they put a financial, emotional, and risk burden on the business owner. That in turn makes it less likely that the guy standing on the sidewalk will ever BECOME a successful business owner.

That is one reason why anti-discrimination laws work to the benefit of the government and large corporations, not the individuals they pretend to protect.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Indiana subreddits throwing a ****-fit, demanding impeachment of Pence. Petitions going up as well for his impeachment.

SalesForce says they will no longer send business to IN.

Kneejerks all around.

 

[jwfuhrman]

Its because of the (R) after Pence's name. No other reason. Some people have become so brainwashed by the media, they are unwilling to even read the context. If he owned a restaurant, people would automatically say the food sucked, without ever having stepped foot in the place.


Or that Bill Clinton signed a federal RFRA while he was in office.


The easiest way to explain this to the masses is as follows:


A PRIVATELY OWNED CORPORATION OR BUSINESS can already refuse service to anyone, for any reason, at any time. The RFRA Law just makes it so the person who had service refused to them can't sue that business for bull****.


Now, with that said, I will say this. Is this law needed? In my opinion, no. But what ever, it doesn't change anything that has been in effect for 20+ years already. BUT, but being the "Greedy Evil Capitalist" that I am, I like money way to much. I'm not going to refuse service to anyone with one exception, you give me a reason to.


In this industry, I'm here to make help everyone exercise their God-give, Constitutionally Preserved Right to Defend themselves in the manner that they deem best fit for them. But if you make me suspect you are going to do wrong or cause harm with to innocent people then you sure as **** aren't gonna get anything sold to you.

 

[chipbennett]

I apologize for that. I don't mean to turn the discussion personal. What I do see is that your argument suggests we can pick and choose certain freedoms in certain situations.

More accurately: I believe that rights are co-equal. One does not trump another. Does that get messy (or "fuzzy") in practice? Absolutely.

none
but I don't agree with the reasoning or laws that allow such a lawsuit to be filed

It's an example of how anti-discrimination laws harm business.

I think "direct harm" is a very logical line. Rarely do these lines intersect. Failing to offer service is not a direct harm. In fact, it very rationally and obviously discriminates against a business owner.

I have a good friend who is gay; I use her business and she uses my business. If I decided I didn't want to "do business" with her because she is gay (or make the same argument if she were a minority race), she might sue me for discrimination. However, she couldn't sue me as a CUSTOMER for choosing to not take business to her because of her race, status, etc. Same goes for employees. Employees can discriminate with no penalty.

Laws that put a burden on business seem OK when you stand on the sidewalk and think that business has a privilege. In reality, they put a financial, emotional, and risk burden on the business owner. That in turn makes it less likely that the guy standing on the sidewalk will ever BECOME a successful business owner.

That is one reason why anti-discrimination laws work to the benefit of the government and large corporations, not the individuals they pretend to protect.

In principle and in general, I agree with you. I am always for less government intervention, whenever the choice exists.