Indiana's freedom of religious discrimination

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:13 pm

Gov rethinking things. Says he'll offer a fix, but won't go into specifics.

Like the Republican legislative leaders who said on Monday that they intended to clarify the law, the governor said he could not say what form that clarification might take. “The language is still being worked out,” he said.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:19 pm

I see a huge difference between, "I won't bake you a birthday cake because you're gay" and "I won't bake you a wedding cake because it's against my religious convictions... but I'll bake you a birthday cake."

I don't. No one asked the baker to marry anyone, just to bake a damn cake. The religion of the baker should have no bearing on the thing.

If buying a gay wedding cake do you need to make sure the farmers that grew the wheat that was ground into flour also think gay marriage is fine? Do you check in with whomever transported the eggs to the store to make sure they think gay marriage is fine? No. You just make a damn cake and sell it to them.

Edited By TPRJones on 1427822420

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:24 pm

"I won't bake you a wedding cake because it's against my religious convictions... but I'll bake you a birthday cake."

Does your religion attribute magical properties to wedding cakes? Do they make or break the event? Are you approving of it by making the cake? Hell, I hope they check to make sure that the groom and bride are both virgins. I hear god gets pissed about those things, too.

Post by **Vince** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:38 pm

These are the same people that have a stroke if a prayer is offered at a public meeting. And to be honest I'm having to rethink some things to be consistent. Not sure where I am yet. But if you can complain about an opening prayer at a public meeting because you don't believe in God even though no one is forcing you to participate in said prayer, then you need to shut your fucking pie hole about people that don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. It takes less involvement to sit there and shut up while a prayer is given than it takes to bake a cake.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:41 pm

People still go to public meetings? That's, like, more work than voting.

Post by **Vince** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:46 pm

TPRJones wrote:If buying a gay wedding cake do you need to make sure the farmers that grew the wheat that was ground into flour also think gay marriage is fine? Do you check in with whomever transported the eggs to the store to make sure they think gay marriage is fine? No. You just make a damn cake and sell it to them.

The guys growing the wheat and delivering the eggs are not participants in the wedding. They don't sit down with the couple and make a personalized cake. Even though they probably aren't at the ceremony, they (the bakers) are as much a participant as the wedding planner or photographer.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:00 pm

Let's have the baker put a sign on his door that says, "No gay wedding cakes." That way no gays will bother to ask him.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:01 pm

Even though they probably aren't at the ceremony, they (the bakers) are as much a participant as the wedding planner or photographer.

First I've heard of anything like that. We've got a baker down the street that makes wedding cakes. You go in and point to the one you want and they charge you and deliver it. They don't join the family.

In the case you outline I would agree that there is a difference. But only if we are talking about sitting down and joining in the ceremony. If it's just "I refuse to sell you this cake because I don't like what you will do with it" then it's bullshit.

EDIT: Oh, and as to the public prayer at government meetings that's a whole other kettle of fish. Don't get me started. There are a large number of ways in which those people are wrong and also a large number of ways in which they are right. There probably is no good answer. But it's certainly not as simple as you outlined it to be above.

Edited By TPRJones on 1427825044

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:08 pm

I just remembered a thing about the Oregon problem that was skipped over above. The reason it was so wrong was that the baker originally agreed and then backed out on the wedding day. That's where I think it's actionable; you don't intentionally screw over someone's wedding like that even if you do hate the idea of two dudes getting hitched. Don't agree in the first place if you aren't going to follow through. That's no longer about freedom of religion, it's about being a douche.

EDIT: Although having remembered that I can't seem to find any reference to it anywhere. It's possible I'm thinking of a different case. It still serves as a demonstration of where I think the line is between what should and should not be punishable.

Edited By TPRJones on 1427825476

Post by **Vince** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:28 pm

Actually I think in the Oregon case, gay marriage wasn't even legal at the time that all this took place.

Looking at what does and doesn't produce great outrage in this nation, a couple of weeks ago a woman in Colorado literally ripped an unborn 7 month old baby out of a pregnant mother and left the child to die alone in a cold bathtub. In that case the state opted to not charge the woman with the murder of the baby. Instead we're worried about whether or not a gay couple gets to terrorize all bakers with business ending lawsuits if they don't get to by their cake from someone that doesn't want to make them one.

This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:36 pm

This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.

Jerry Falwell? Is that you, back from the dead?

In that case the state opted to not charge the woman with the murder of the baby.

I'm willing to bet the perpetrator isn't getting out any time soon, murder charge or no.

Edited By Malcolm on 1427827021

Post by **Vince** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:38 pm

Malcolm wrote:
This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.
Jerry Falwell? Is that you, back from the dead?

Nope. A student of history. Look at what we were doing and were worried about prior to WWII

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:43 pm

Vince wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.
Jerry Falwell? Is that you, back from the dead?
Nope. A student of history. Look at what we were doing and were worried about prior to WWII

Explain. We weren't fucking around in Europe geopolitically for decades prior to WWII.

Post by **Vince** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:00 pm

We were asshole deep into Eugenics (along with England and France) long before Germany was. And Goebbels learned propaganda from US advertising (marketing and "public relations" were called propaganda before the Nazis starting using the term). Whether it's karma, God or cosmic balance, it seems when we ignore the principles our country is supposed to be built on for too long, bad things happen. Slavery and the Civil War is a good example.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:10 pm

Do you like microchips and the other bajillions of bits of tech we developed due to that conflict? Thank WWII.

Slavery and the Civil War is a good example.

You're shitting me. It used to be a principle of this country that black guys were 3/5 of a person. If you take "all men are created equal" at face value, then we weren't following that particular rule until after the Civil War. In fact, that phrase used to have "Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual, white, Protestant, land-owning" in parentheses right before "men."

Edited By Malcolm on 1427832740

Post by **Vince** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:20 pm

Malcolm wrote:Do you like microchips and the other bajillions of bits of tech we developed due to that conflict? Thank WWII.

The Jews, gays and Romanians that were killed might not be as excited about all that tech as you.

You're shitting me. It used to be a principle of this country that black guys were 3/5 of a person.

You do understand that the whole "3/5 of a man" thing wasn't a slight against blacks, right? It was actually a huge win for the anti slavery forces behind the Constitution. If they were counted as a whole person in representation the south would have had a grip on the house that would have prevented ever overturning slavery. If they'd wanted to slight the black man they would have stated he counted not as a person at all.

If you take "all men are created equal" at face value, then we weren't following that particular rule until after the Civil War.

Which is vaguely kind of almost exactly what I said. We ignored that principle until a very bad thing (Civil War) happened.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:37 pm

The Jews, gays and Romanians that were killed might not be as excited about all that tech as you.

They weren't killed because we decided to drop cash on R&D. They got killed because some psychos decided now was as good a time as any to test their insane political strategies and play Risk for real. Ask all the American soldiers that are still alive because we nuked Japan.

We ignored that principle until a very bad thing (Civil War) happened.

Then we didn't found the fucking country on it if we didn't do anything about it until 1865.

If they'd wanted to slight the black man they would have stated he counted not as a person at all.

There was quite a divide on that one. The North wanted the slaves to count as a person originally (during the Articles of Confed) because they wanted to tax the South for them. The issue was not about the status of the slave as a human nor his equality to others; it was how his presence affected the House Reps and taxes paid to Washington.

Edited By Malcolm on 1427834272

Post by **TheCatt** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:37 pm

How I view this thread:

Post by **Vince** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:42 pm

Yeah, I'm going back to my default mode.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:42 pm

Slavery was a contentious issue even when the Constitution was being written, the founding fathers just knew there wouldn't be a deal if it was abolished from the get-go. So they got the thing written and passed, allowed for changes, and immediately passed the first 10 amendments as the Bill of Rights. It just took them another 80 years to get around to considering blacks as "people" to whom that BoR would apply.

Point being, it wasn't like it was just accepted everywhere and the country was founded on it. It was and it wasn't. Gray area. Context is important. They ratified what they knew they could ratify. It got straightened out in the end.