Indiana's freedom of religious discrimination

Post by **Vince** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:50 pm

If the NRA asked a gay bakery to make them a gun cake and where refused, no one would bat an eye. If the KKK asked for a cake for their weekend BBQ from their black baker and he refused, no one would bat an eye.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:52 pm

GORDON wrote:Right, and if NAMBLA wants them to cater their banquet, then they will have no choice but to do it.

NAMBLA's into fostering shit that's genuinely illegal. That's different. "Sexual preference" protection goes a long way, but not below the age of consent.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:53 pm

Who said anything about sex? The L is love. It's beautiful.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:54 pm

Vince wrote:If the NRA asked a gay bakery to make them a gun cake and where refused, no one would bat an eye. If the KKK asked for a cake for their weekend BBQ from their black baker and he refused, no one would bat an eye.

Not my fault those two groups have PR issues (and, in the case of the latter, several others).

Post by **Vince** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:56 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Vince wrote:If the NRA asked a gay bakery to make them a gun cake and where refused, no one would bat an eye. If the KKK asked for a cake for their weekend BBQ from their black baker and he refused, no one would bat an eye.
Not my fault those two groups have PR issues (and, in the case of the latter, several others).

So you agree that this is not based on principle but instead on anti Christian bigotry?

Cool, thanks

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:57 pm

And funnily enough, the NRA and the KKK wouldn't be sending out death threats for being denied service. Only the peace-loving hippies do this any more.

Well, maybe not the KKK. Are they still in the lynching bidness?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:01 pm

Vince wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Vince wrote:If the NRA asked a gay bakery to make them a gun cake and where refused, no one would bat an eye. If the KKK asked for a cake for their weekend BBQ from their black baker and he refused, no one would bat an eye.

Not my fault those two groups have PR issues (and, in the case of the latter, several others).

So you agree that this is not based on principle but instead on anti Christian bigotry?

Cool, thanks

I argue the backlash is because the LGBT community gets more sympathy than the NRA and KKK.

It is based on principle. If you're operating your shop out of a fucking church or something, then I'd be inclined to say you can apply your religious beliefs however rigourously you want. When you open a public store and benefit from public infrastructure and public services, then you play by the public's fucking rules.

It's just not anti-Christian, either. I can find Dark Age advocates from every major religion.

As for the NAMBLA and KKK dudes, I'd like to see them take their cases to court in the event they try what G suggested. The NRA might get their cake. I bet the other two wouldn't because you can argue they're associated with various types of lawbreaking in the past. The NRA is a registered PAC, I think.

Finally, sexual orientation is an inherent trait of humans. No one makes a conscious choice to be gay, straight, or anything in between. It's a choice to join NAMBLA, the KKK, or the NRA, or any religion, for that matter. Discrimination based on something you were born with seems bullshit. Discrimination based on your choices and beliefs has the potential for more merit. No one's born into NAMBLA. You might have a sexual attraction to underage boys, and that's probably not something you can help. Following through on that act would make you a criminal, which is indeed a basis for discrimination. Outside of archaic anti-anal or -oral sex laws that haven't been officially cleaned up, gay sex acts aren't criminal provided both adults are consenting and of age.

Edited By Malcolm on 1427998248

Post by **Leisher** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:16 pm

I argue the backlash is because the LGBT community gets more sympathy than the NRA and KKK.

I have no horse in the LBGT race, and I certainly don't endorse the KKK. The NRA I've agreed with and disagreed with, however the backlash against anyone who even hints that they might not have the same beliefs as others on this issue reminds me of McCarthyism.

Oh you don't believe what we believe? Well fuck you and your ability to earn a living!

It's fucking disgusting. Show me the black and white line between discriminating over someone's sexual preferences, sexual identity, or beliefs, and discriminating over someone's sexual preferences, sexual identity, or beliefs.

I will never think it's ok to force someone to accept something. It doesn't solve a problem. It creates a new one.

Force does not equal education.
Force does not equal tolerance.

I'm probably WAY off topic of this law, but I felt this was the appropriate place to express what I see when I constantly hear about people being forced into acceptance while other people chuckle and say "You have freedom of speech, but you'd better be willing to accept the consequences."

There's something very, very wrong about that.

Post by **Vince** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:27 pm

It does feel like they are telling you how you have to feel about it, doesn't it?

Oh, and the NRA gets plenty of love. Just not from the press.

Edited By Vince on 1427999290

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:33 pm

Well fuck you and your ability to earn a living!

Your biz is run by umpteen zillion give and take rules between you and every level of gov't. When you enter into that relationship by founding and opening a biz, you have to be aware of and follow those rules. Well, I suppose you can ignore them and roll your dice in court. If you're just the dude that your friends call to photograph weddings, and one of them recommends you to a gay couple you don't know, as a private citizen you have every fucking right not to take their photos, cash, or set one foot inside the ceremony. If you are refusing the services of your biz as the owner, then the 14th amendment kicks in.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Edited By Malcolm on 1427999725

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:44 pm

GORDON wrote:They're not going out of business because they claimed they didn't want gay money, they are going out of business because they are in hiding and afraid to show up at work. Pretty big difference.

Yes, a big difference that I pointed out in the post you quoted.

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:46 pm

Vince wrote:The lost irony on this is the hate and intolerance is coming from the left. What I've been hearing from the Christians is "We have nothing against gay people. We love our gay customers. But our religious beliefs prevent us from participating in their weddings."

The hate and intolerance is coming from both sides. The quote you give there is the public face of it. What it sounds like in private when they aren't talking to the press is more like "I got nothing against them fags, but keep them away from me and my family."

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:51 pm

I will never think it's ok to force someone to accept something. It doesn't solve a problem. It creates a new one.

So if it becomes a thing for bakers to refuse to bake wedding cakes for mixed race weddings, you'd be okay with that?

"You have freedom of speech, but you'd better be willing to accept the consequences."

There's something very, very wrong about that.

I strongly disagree. That's the entire bedrock of the freedom of speech. You are free to speak your mind and not have to worry about the government putting you in jail over it. You are NOT free from the responsibility of dealing with the consequences when what you say is widely held to be despicable.

How can you whine on the one hand about how awful the internet is because anonymity means no consequences while on the other hand you maintain that free speech should have no consequences? It's hypocrisy.

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>(Slightly edited to be a tiny bit more diplomatic)</span>

Further edited to add: I will admit sometimes I think people go too far. And of course physical threats are way way too far. But overall the point still stands.

Edited By TPRJones on 1428002255

Post by **Vince** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:42 pm

TPRJones wrote:
Vince wrote:The lost irony on this is the hate and intolerance is coming from the left. What I've been hearing from the Christians is "We have nothing against gay people. We love our gay customers. But our religious beliefs prevent us from participating in their weddings."
The hate and intolerance is coming from both sides. The quote you give there is the public face of it. What it sounds like in private when they aren't talking to the press is more like "I got nothing against them fags, but keep them away from me and my family."

There's a lot to be said for keeping your hole shut for the sake of public tranquility.

And I personally think that "I got nothing against them fags, but keep them away from me and my family" is about a magnitude better than "I can't stand the Christians but I'm going to keep getting in their face and creating all sorts of public discourse until everyone either agrees with me or is in camps."

Post by **Vince** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:51 pm

TPRJones wrote:
I will never think it's ok to force someone to accept something. It doesn't solve a problem. It creates a new one.
So if it becomes a thing for bakers to refuse to bake wedding cakes for mixed race weddings, you'd be okay with that?

And this is where the fascists in the gay community come in. The law doesn't allow this. What it DOES allow is for the baker to have the opportunity to make that case if he were taken to court. That's all this law does. If a baker was taken to court and was able to show that he does belong to a legitimate religion that can be shown to have a doctrine in which homosexual marriage is against their religious beliefs then that has to be weighed in this decision. He would have trouble with doing that with a mixed marriage.

Just as a Quaker can claim conscientious objector status when it comes to the draft, that doesn't mean Quakers hate marines.

I'm sorry everyone doesn't love and embrace their lifestyle. They can get over it. I have. And I hate their movement a little more now. And it has nothing to do with their sexuality. It has everything to do with their fascist tendencies. I'm allowed my God given right to disagree with them.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:29 pm

I think you meant to say Marines.

Post by **Vince** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:47 pm

Yes, of course

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:55 pm

Vince wrote:And this is where the fascists in the gay community come in...

Sure, sure, but that doesn't answer my question. It's pertinent to the specific assertion I quoted. How about you, would you be okay with that?

I'm sorry everyone doesn't love and embrace <s>their lifestyle</s> the way they were born.

I fixed it for you. And this is why the bit above is relevant. Being gay is just as innate as race. You don't get to choose it.

And I hate their movement a little more now. And it has nothing to do with their sexuality. It has everything to do with their fascist tendencies.

To a certain extent I agree with you. Some of the people involved do go too far in various ways, IMO. But then as I've pointed out elsewhere they are in a war, fighting to exist in the manner in which they were born with full civil rights. Gay marriage isn't about someone choosing to do something on a whim. It's someone choosing to live their life with the one they naturally fell in love with without worrying if their kids will be taken away if their partner is killed because they weren't allowed to both be the parents of record. It's someone wanting to be able to be with their life partner when they are on their deathbed instead of being kept out by the hospital because they "aren't family". It's a lot of really fucking important shit like that. It matters a fuckload to some of these people, and so they are in a war. If you get in their way they will attack.

That having been said, who bakes the cake at the wedding is pretty unimportant. But after fighting for so long they can only see those that are against them as targets that need to be fought before the anti-gay ideas spread too far and roll back the progress they've made. I don't contend that excuses when they go too far, but surely you can understand why they do and sympathize to a certain degree.

Edited By TPRJones on 1428019830

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:58 pm

"Homosexual" isn't a lifestyle, it is a state of being. A lifestyle is certainly a choice.

Edited By GORDON on 1428022844

Post by **Vince** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:50 pm

TPRJones wrote:That having been said, who bakes the cake at the wedding is pretty unimportant. But after fighting for so long they can only see those that are against them as targets that need to be fought before the anti-gay ideas spread too far and roll back the progress they've made. I don't contend that excuses when they go too far, but surely you can understand why they do and sympathize to a certain degree.

I can and I do. I'm not accusing or anything of that nature here, but it doesn't seem like you've ever held a deeply held spiritual belief. And while I consider myself a Christian, I don't often go to church and I'm certainly not a super pious individual. I do understand that it is as core to some people's being as their very sexuality. I'd say in the case of those that take and keep chastity vows even more so.

Our nation was first pioneered by Puritans that knowingly risked death at sea and then death by starvation once they got here. In the Middle East there are Christians being confronted my jihadists that are being given the choice to forsake their Christian religion or die and they're choosing death. I heard the story of a woman in China not long ago that had a letter smuggled out of prison for being Christian. In irony of ironies, she was forced in prison work camp to make Christmas lights to be sold over here. Even here there are people that are willing to give up there successful businesses rather than comply with something that goes against their faith.

When we're talking about deeply held religious convictions, those aren't chosen on a whim either. Not for those that are deeply religious. And that was one of the founding principles this nation was built on. For the homosexual community to FORCE someone to go against their deeply held religious beliefs would be about as appropriate as the religious community to force the gay community to have straight sex.