Indiana

[JAE]

Yogimus wrote:(a)On one hand, fuck the guy who won't bake another person a pizza.(b)On the other hand, "due to religious objections" is farking retarded.

Can we expand that to fuck the grown man or woman who whines to their Big Brother to force some other guy to bake them a pizza - at gunpoint?

It's basically already federal law (sponsored by Schumer, signed by Clinton) and on the books in twenty states meaning we're on the freaking Animal Farm and the year is 1984.. Connecticut law good, Indiana law baaaddd.

And I know we've been there for years, but such blatant, mindless, mob think moves me from WGAF to screw them all along with the donkeys they rode in on.

[MarkD]

I don't understand why any of this is an issue.

If I'm a private business owner, I can refuse to do business with anyone, for any reason or for no reason. I don't HAVE to sell my product to anyone I don't want to.

Period. Full stop.

Religion has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of free association, free choice, in short freedom. You shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone.

[Vonz90]

They way I look at, if you ask anyone (particularly lefties, but really just about anyone) if a business should be allowed to refuse to cater a KKK dinner or some skin head rally - virtually everyone will say yes, they have a right to refuse to do that.

Well, not catering a marriage you disagree with is the same right (ultimately the right of free association) just pushed to a different purpose.

This is different from a public accommodation. If your restaurant (hotel, most other businesses) is open to the public, and someone walks in, you have to serve them no matter what group they are in (although possibly not for other reasons - like if they are not properly dressed or something).

It is very different when you are scheduling something at a separate location at a later time. I do not see how that can fall into the public accommodation rules and would put an extra burden on peoples rights for no good reason that I can see.

Now does it make sense for a business owner to do that? I could see where it might in some cases. First off, there are the possible religious objections, and there are a lot of religions and interpretations there of, so that will vary. Even otherwise, some company might not want to associate your business with another group for a wide variety of reasons.

For instance, if you primarily clientele for a wedding cake business is ultra Orthodox Jews, then catering a gay wedding (or Nazi themed wedding, or any number of other things) would be a very bad business move because it raises the likelihood of alienating your core business.

In the end, a company has a right to control their brand image and to an extent that means choosing who you do business with. Big companies do that all the time, what we are talking about here comes to the right of small business to do the same, because no one is going after the big ones.

[PawPaw]

What amuses me is the hypocrisy of some of the people condemning the Indiana RFRA law. Apple's Tim Cook, for example, condemns the law, but yet you can buy Apple products in Saudi, where it's illegal to be gay.

And, our own fed.gov is negotiating with Iran, who routinely hangs gays from cranes, lifting them up and letting them kick it out.

The RFRA was fine when it was cute peyote-chewing Indians seeking exemption or Amish boys who didn't want to be drafted. Now that the right-wing Christians are seeking the same protections, then religious exemptions in the public sphere are verboten.

So, how do we want to do this, guys? Do we want to allow religious exemptions, or not?

[JAE]

And the trajectory of all this is at some point forcing the performance or financial support of actions which many find morally reprehensible: abortion, assisted suicide, etc.. The wedding cake - florist issue is a smokescreen.

[Captain Wheelgun]

Wouldn't freedom of association by definition also include the freedom to not associate? Or does that make too much sense?

[Aaron]

I predicated this sort of thing was coming back when the .gov started telling businesses whether or not they could allow smoking inside. Private property/business be damned, all must conform.

[MarkD]

This is different from a public accommodation. If your restaurant (hotel, most other businesses) is open to the public, and someone walks in, you have to serve them no matter what group they are in

No.

It's still private property, I can tell anyone I wish that they're not welcome there.

And we do that now. People under 21 aren't allowed in bars. Men aren't allowed in women's only health clubs. Most churches don't allow people who don't actually belong to that denomination to participate fully in the life of the church (for instance, in my own Anglican church, people who aren't Baptized aren't supposed to receive Communion).

Putting up a sign reading "No (insert group) allowed" may be foolish from a business perspective, but it shouldn't be illegal. The only facilities where that's not allowed are public (i.e. taxpayer-funded) facilities like post offices, courts, etc.

[Vonz90]

This is different from a public accommodation. If your restaurant (hotel, most other businesses) is open to the public, and someone walks in, you have to serve them no matter what group they are in

No.

It's still private property, I can tell anyone I wish that they're not welcome there.

And we do that now. People under 21 aren't allowed in bars. Men aren't allowed in women's only health clubs. Most churches don't allow people who don't actually belong to that denomination to participate fully in the life of the church (for instance, in my own Anglican church, people who aren't Baptized aren't supposed to receive Communion).

Putting up a sign reading "No (insert group) allowed" may be foolish from a business perspective, but it shouldn't be illegal. The only facilities where that's not allowed are public (i.e. taxpayer-funded) facilities like post offices, courts, etc.

This is factually incorrect. Not all business are public accommodations (think restaurants, hotels, gas stations, that sort of thing, most retail stores but I think there are some exceptions). If they are, they cannot discriminate based on race, color, etc. (see quote and link below for details)

This does not apply to churches at all or pretty much anything where the word "member" applies. So for your health club example, you have to be a member, they have criteria for membership, etc. This is also how private golf courses can exclude people and why there are still a few all white or all male such places (but if they open their club house to outside business, it is a restaurant and cannot exclude per above).

Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcin ... tions.html

[Flintlock Tom]

Two points that come to mind as I follow this issue:

1. Some of you guys sound as if you have never seen the "liberal double-standard." Are you "new" here?

2. Many are missing a very critical distinction: in the major cases, i.e.: bakery, photographer, etc., the "client" is not being discriminated against because of sexual orientation, the service provider is simply declining to provide a service which conflicts with their convictions.
If the "gay" customer simply wanted to buy a cake, they would have been served. But, they were asking the baker to participate in their "unconventional" ceremony against his convictions.