Community Chat

[MickD]

Mike Tyson has a mansion on 60 acres for sale......for the low low price of?....I don't know.

[luvingit]

Oh brother....

[JillyMarie]

On 3/31/2015 KellyS said: JillyMarie I'm sure the baker knows that.

KellyS, I'm not sure the baker does know that. The governing body of Indiana certainly got caught by surprise.

[dreamytoo]

On 3/31/2015 beammeupscottie said:

That law is the same law as 30 other states have already enacted. So there's that. Also it is about Government interference with companies. Not individuals. But why let facts get in the way of a good smear.

Those other states have Non Discrimination laws in place insuring that business owners cannot discriminate against race, religion, gender, orientation etc. IN does not have the non discrimination laws so this law gives them free license to discriminate.

[Lion]

Indiana's new law is not like the federal law, and also not the same as previous state laws:

"SB 101 is substantially broader than the federal law. It extends religious rights to all businesses, no matter how large and completely secular they are. In addition, the federal law can only be invoked against government action. SB 101 goes much further, inviting discrimination by allowing religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in lawsuits and administrative proceedings brought by workers, tenants and customers who have suffered discrimination in a business transaction based on someone else’s religious beliefs.

Also:

" The old RFRAs were meant to keep the government from infringing on the religious beliefs of individuals. The new ones vary, but they almost all apply to private disputes. That is new and will allow people to use their religious beliefs as a defense if they are sued for discrimination by another individual."

Daily Kos, Kerry Eleveld

[MickD]

Dreamy too - oh that's right....thanks for the info.

[JeanLouiseFinch]

On 3/31/2015 Cakers1 said:

On 3/31/2015 JeanLouiseFinch said:

No body is making a law based on religion, the law protects religious business owners from being forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs. People of faith don't only BELIEVE in their religion, they apply it and LIVE it in their daily lives. No one can impinge on their practice of their religion, it's their Constitutional right. The RFRA is not an anti-gay law. The same law would protect a Jewish caterer who doesn't want to include pork entrees on their menu. States are making their own laws that are similar to the FEDERAL RFRA that Bill Clinton signed into law. <em>Furthermore, where's the boycots and indignation for gay businesses who don't want to service straight customers?</em>

What gay businesses are refusing to serve straight customers???

And how would they know who is gay or straight? Are customers being asked?

Or even better, why would anybody have to even care what business is run by a gay person or a straight person??

As to the post about the bride not wanting to buy a dress from a gay designer - not even close in comparison. That bride would not be denied a dress - her choice to buy or not to buy. The gay person, however, is being denied a service based on being gay.

If one wants to adhere to the concept that being gay is a sin, they might think twice about that old plank stuck in their eye while worrying about the plank in their neighbor's eye.

To answer your first question, here's one example that was shared with me today:
http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage...

As I stated in my post, people of faith don't only believe in their particular religion, they live the teachings of the religion. If their particular beliefs are that homosecksuality is considered a sin, then the religious business owner would be denying their faith by entering into certain business arrangements with them - ie. the wedding cake scenario. To force them to do business would be denying the religious business owner his Constitutional right to practice whatever religion he chooses. It's not a matter of if you or I agree with them. That said, no one is suggesting rude, mean, or insulting treatment of anyone, BUT where the religious business owner has his own rules he wants to operate by, there are many other options for everyone to shop at. And to be clear, this law only applies to private religious business owners.

In the end, it comes down to the question of who trumps who, someone's civil right or everyone's Constitutional right?

[VioletEyes]

On 3/31/2015 dooBdoo said:

On 3/31/2015 dooBdoo said:

"First they came for the communists,<br /> and I did not speak out because I wasn't a communist.<br /> Then they came for the socialists,<br /> and I did not speak out because I wasn't a socialist.<br /> Then they came for the trade unionists,<br /> and I did not speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.<br /> Then they came for the Jews,<br /> and I did not speak out because I wasn't a Jew.<br /> Then they came for the Catholics,<br /> and I did not speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.<br /> Then they came for the "incurables,"<br /> and I did not speak out because I was not weak or sick.<br /> Then they came for the Gypsies, Slavs, the homos--uals, disabled, all the "different,"<br /> and I did not speak out because I was not one of these.<br /> And finally they came for me.<br /> And there was no one left to speak for me."<br /> ~Martin Niemöller, pastor and theologian

Since this was buried by several long duplicate posts, repeating.

Thanks for posting dooBdoo... Well said and a good reminder what can happen if no one speaks up and stays silent

[Hoovermom]

On 3/31/2015 Cakers1 said:

On 3/31/2015 JeanLouiseFinch said:

No body is making a law based on religion, the law protects religious business owners from being forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs. People of faith don't only BELIEVE in their religion, they apply it and LIVE it in their daily lives. No one can impinge on their practice of their religion, it's their Constitutional right. The RFRA is not an anti-gay law. The same law would protect a Jewish caterer who doesn't want to include pork entrees on their menu. States are making their own laws that are similar to the FEDERAL RFRA that Bill Clinton signed into law. <em>Furthermore, where's the boycots and indignation for gay businesses who don't want to service straight customers?</em>

What gay businesses are refusing to serve straight customers???

And how would they know who is gay or straight? Are customers being asked?

Or even better, why would anybody have to even care what business is run by a gay person or a straight person??

As to the post about the bride not wanting to buy a dress from a gay designer - not even close in comparison. That bride would not be denied a dress - her choice to buy or not to buy. The gay person, however, is being denied a service based on being gay.

If one wants to adhere to the concept that being gay is a sin, they might think twice about that old plank stuck in their eye while worrying about the plank in their neighbor's eye.

Jean Louse French, I agree with you!!!

Here is a link for Cakers:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-mar...

[KellyS]

I wonder where the quoted pastor and theologian would have stood on this? Nobody is coming for anybody here. Business people just want their right to run their business according to their beliefs. I doubt there is any product or service than can't be gotten or performed for gay people by others more willing.