(03-30-2015 01:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

Thank you,
Inquiring Minds

Actually, yes. It should be no more legal for a business to refuse service to a Baptist Preacher than it should be for them to deny business to a LGBT person. Currently in Indiana, religious persons are protected from discrimination, but LGBT persons are not.

The market can't clear this. There are strong costs to discrimination that are borne by the target of that discrimination. Wedding venue cancels at the last minute. There are costs. Other competitors can charge Gay persons a premium knowing that they don't have to compete with others.

There are places where substitutes are more expensive or less of a fit or might not exist at all. Terre Haute isn't going to have a florist that just does Gay weddings for example. The market isn't that big.

By the way, perhaps I might feel different if those claiming religious freedom actually tried to exercise it consistent with their religious practices. Zero divorced persons are denied services when attempting to procure wedding supplies in the commercial sector. You see this law isn't about exercising religious freedom unless their religion is only about discriminating against Gay persons. In practice, the only people ever denied service under these laws are Gay persons. Its targeted at us.

This fundamental key is why we will never agree and why I shouldn't even ask this next question.

I don't know what you do for a living, but if you were in the service industry and were asked to produce something you thought was wrong, why should you be required to do so?

I actually told my straight direct reports at one company (they were livid over our company's decision to serve a religious seminary). I said "we don't discriminate...their money is green...that's the end of it".

Precisely. And those few bakeries that don't want to bake a gay cake will lose business. Especially if the gay community spreads the word (I'm sure they will). And I'm 100% ok with that.

So there's no need to throw out religious freedom.

Update.

1) NC Jane Crow law dead per the Governor. We had no hope of stopping it before this
2) GA Jane Crow law stalled. We had no hope of stopping it before this
3) AR Jane Crow bill is sitting on the desk of the Governor. Still think he signs it. But maybe....Just maybe.
4) MT Jane Crow bill dead per the Governor.

And in Indiana, Gov. Pence's disastrous response on National TV just turned it up a notch. There is now a major break in the GOP in Indiana. The Indianapolis Star's headline tomorrow morning... Full page... FIX THIS NOW. http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/03...qus_thread

NCAA just upped the ante. "If we have to move events....we'll do it". http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/col.../70689276/

By the way, if you don't like how this debate is going. I'd avoid watching TV for the next week. The Final Four is coming to Indianapolis. Indiana will get an earful this week.

---

This bill was promoted by a bunch of anti-Gay lobbying groups in order to invalidate municipal and state non-discrimination protections. And it is blowing up in their faces. It looks likely that LGBT persons will end up with massive upgrades in non-discrimination protections in Indiana law (already happening in municipal settings there). In a legislative environment where it would have been impossible otherwise.

---

The GOP ran on candidates who told the people that social issues aren't the focus. And just like after 2010, they focused almost exclusively on hot button social issues (in fear of their next GOP primary). Its nice to see it blow up in their faces.

---

On to Arkansas. The same thing is starting there. Virtually all of Arkansas' corporate leaders are openly in opposition to the bill.

(03-29-2015 01:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Why does the left always attack religious freedom?

Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin would not be pleased.

(03-30-2015 10:34 PM)Cletus Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Why does the left always attack religious freedom?

Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin would not be pleased.

Thank you for the input of Pat Robertson in this regard.

(03-30-2015 10:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Update.

1) NC Jane Crow law dead per the Governor. We had no hope of stopping it before this
2) GA Jane Crow law stalled. We had no hope of stopping it before this
3) AR Jane Crow bill is sitting on the desk of the Governor. Still think he signs it. But maybe....Just maybe.
4) MT Jane Crow bill dead per the Governor.

And in Indiana, Gov. Pence's disastrous response on National TV just turned it up a notch. There is now a major break in the GOP in Indiana. The Indianapolis Star's headline tomorrow morning... Full page... FIX THIS NOW. http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/03...qus_thread

NCAA just upped the ante. "If we have to move events....we'll do it". http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/col.../70689276/

By the way, if you don't like how this debate is going. I'd avoid watching TV for the next week. The Final Four is coming to Indianapolis. Indiana will get an earful this week.

---

This bill was promoted by a bunch of anti-Gay lobbying groups in order to invalidate municipal and state non-discrimination protections. And it is blowing up in their faces. It looks likely that LGBT persons will end up with massive upgrades in non-discrimination protections in Indiana law (already happening in municipal settings there). In a legislative environment where it would have been impossible otherwise.

---

The GOP ran on candidates who told the people that social issues aren't the focus. And just like after 2010, they focused almost exclusively on hot button social issues (in fear of their next GOP primary). Its nice to see it blow up in their faces.

---

On to Arkansas. The same thing is starting there. Virtually all of Arkansas' corporate leaders are openly in opposition to the bill.

The fact you need to use terminology like "Jane Crow" tells me your side is losing and it pisses you, and your intolerant acolytes, off. Shouldn't you and your "people" be searching for another 70 year old grandma's life to ruin?

I think it's going to come down to the courts to determine what a "substantial burden" on an individual's religion will be.

I would never support a law that permits a refusal of service to someone because they're LGBT, but forcing an individual or a business to participate in a gay wedding (for example) is forcing them to endorse that, which to me would be a substantial burden. Clearly not allowing a person to eat in a restaurant or stay in a hotel because they're gay is unacceptable.

(03-30-2015 11:18 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  I think it's going to come down to the courts to determine what a "substantial burden" on an individual's religion will be.

I would never support a law that permits a refusal of service to someone because they're LGBT, but forcing an individual or a business to participate in a gay wedding (for example) is forcing them to endorse that, which to me would be a substantial burden. Clearly not allowing a person to eat in a restaurant or stay in a hotel because they're gay is unacceptable.

Why does that carry endorsement? And where do you draw the line? And why does the GOP oppose adding non-discrimination protections for LGBT persons on the Federal level and in many states, including Virginia?

I went to a Bar Mitzvah once, doesn't make me Jewish.

(03-30-2015 11:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why does that carry endorsement?

To me knowingly participating in, and contributing to an event is an endorsement of sorts

(03-30-2015 11:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And where do you draw the line?

Like I said, it's for the courts to decide.

(03-30-2015 11:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And why does the GOP oppose adding non-discrimination protections for LGBT persons on the Federal level and in many states, including Virginia?

I don't know that this is true. I'm not saying that it isn't I just don't know. I'm not a Republican so I wouldn't defend it even if it were.

(03-30-2015 11:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I went to a Bar Mitzvah once, doesn't make me Jewish.

I didn't say baking a cake for a gay wedding makes you gay.

(03-30-2015 10:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The GOP ran on candidates who told the people that social issues aren't the focus. And just like after 2010, they focused almost exclusively on hot button social issues (in fear of their next GOP primary).

I agree totally with this. And I think it's a huge mistake for republicans to do this. They're the only thing protecting us from true socialism (as opposed to "European style" socialism which isn't really socialism) or communism, and they're screwing around with crap like this. I'm not happy to see them fail, as you are. I would be happy to see them not go there at all. I'm much more concerned about avoiding the likes of Elizabeth Warren than I am about who can or cannot check into a hotel.

(03-30-2015 11:18 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  I think it's going to come down to the courts to determine what a "substantial burden" on an individual's religion will be.

I would never support a law that permits a refusal of service to someone because they're LGBT, but forcing an individual or a business to participate in a gay wedding (for example) is forcing them to endorse that, which to me would be a substantial burden. Clearly not allowing a person to eat in a restaurant or stay in a hotel because they're gay is unacceptable.

The whole thing is idiotic. Private businesses are not eligible for religious exemptions, and the Supreme Court (if it ever got that high) would strike laws like this down instantly.

Some people may believe in their heart of hearts that this legislation is just. They have to realize, though, that it's only a matter of time before an employee files a religious discrimination lawsuit against an employer after the employee is fired for baking a cake for a gay couple.

All Indiana has done is hurt Republicans heading into an election cycle.

(03-30-2015 12:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

Thank you,
Inquiring Minds

Actually, yes. It should be no more legal for a business to refuse service to a Baptist Preacher than it should be for them to deny business to a LGBT person. Currently in Indiana, religious persons are protected from discrimination, but LGBT persons are not.

That's like saying right now citizens are protected from arrest, but criminals are not.

(03-31-2015 01:02 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

Thank you,
Inquiring Minds

Actually, yes. It should be no more legal for a business to refuse service to a Baptist Preacher than it should be for them to deny business to a LGBT person. Currently in Indiana, religious persons are protected from discrimination, but LGBT persons are not.

That's like saying right now citizens are protected from arrest, but criminals are not.

That's essentially saying discrimination is okay because "they are only homosexuals" (at best)

At worst you are openly advocating that homosexuality should be criminalized, or doing that was justified.

(03-31-2015 12:49 AM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 11:18 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  I think it's going to come down to the courts to determine what a "substantial burden" on an individual's religion will be.

I would never support a law that permits a refusal of service to someone because they're LGBT, but forcing an individual or a business to participate in a gay wedding (for example) is forcing them to endorse that, which to me would be a substantial burden. Clearly not allowing a person to eat in a restaurant or stay in a hotel because they're gay is unacceptable.

The whole thing is idiotic. Private businesses are not eligible for religious exemptions, and the Supreme Court (if it ever got that high) would strike laws like this down instantly.

Some people may believe in their heart of hearts that this legislation is just. They have to realize, though, that it's only a matter of time before an employee files a religious discrimination lawsuit against an employer after the employee is fired for baking a cake for a gay couple.

All Indiana has done is hurt Republicans heading into an election cycle.

Yeah, I can't wait to hear from any Democrat thinking about Running for president. I will start the Slander Machine immediately the First Hint and the entire MSM will Follow suit

(03-30-2015 12:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

Thank you,
Inquiring Minds

Actually, yes. It should be no more legal for a business to refuse service to a Baptist Preacher than it should be for them to deny business to a LGBT person. Currently in Indiana, religious persons are protected from discrimination, but LGBT persons are not.

The market can't clear this. There are strong costs to discrimination that are borne by the target of that discrimination. Wedding venue cancels at the last minute. There are costs. Other competitors can charge Gay persons a premium knowing that they don't have to compete with others.

There are places where substitutes are more expensive or less of a fit or might not exist at all. Terre Haute isn't going to have a florist that just does Gay weddings for example. The market isn't that big.

By the way, perhaps I might feel different if those claiming religious freedom actually tried to exercise it consistent with their religious practices. Zero divorced persons are denied services when attempting to procure wedding supplies in the commercial sector. You see this law isn't about exercising religious freedom unless their religion is only about discriminating against Gay persons. In practice, the only people ever denied service under these laws are Gay persons. Its targeted at us.

Good to know you approve of slavery.

(03-30-2015 06:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 04:27 PM)DFWMINER Wrote:  Should a Muslim sandwich shop owner be for forced to make me a BLT sandwich?

No. Unless he provides BLT sandwiches in the normal course of his/her business.

The government cannot tell a business what they have to offer. But if they offer something, they must offer it to all.

Hope that helps.

So then if traditional wedding cakes and services are all I sell then that is all I have to sell.

(03-31-2015 12:49 AM)Gakusei Wrote:  The whole thing is idiotic. Private businesses are not eligible for religious exemptions, and the Supreme Court (if it ever got that high) would strike laws like this down instantly.

I would not bet the farm on that..

Quote:All Indiana has done is hurt Republicans heading into an election cycle.

If not Indiana the Gaystapo would find something else to rally around. Until religious freedom is gone they won't be happy.

(03-30-2015 11:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 10:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The GOP ran on candidates who told the people that social issues aren't the focus. And just like after 2010, they focused almost exclusively on hot button social issues (in fear of their next GOP primary).

I agree totally with this. And I think it's a huge mistake for republicans to do this. They're the only thing protecting us from true socialism (as opposed to "European style" socialism which isn't really socialism) or communism, and they're screwing around with crap like this. I'm not happy to see them fail, as you are. I would be happy to see them not go there at all. I'm much more concerned about avoiding the likes of Elizabeth Warren than I am about who can or cannot check into a hotel.

You're not worried about people losing their businesses, homes, and being forced by the state into reeducation for having a religious belief system which prevents them from performing services at a particular ceremony...

(03-30-2015 11:18 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  I think it's going to come down to the courts to determine what a "substantial burden" on an individual's religion will be.

Which is why I hope Indiana comes out and defines the types of businesses who can exercise this right. Being forced to provide a service which goes against your deeply held spiritual beliefs is a substantial burden on a bed and breakfast but not the hilton.

(03-31-2015 07:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 12:49 AM)Gakusei Wrote:  The whole thing is idiotic. Private businesses are not eligible for religious exemptions, and the Supreme Court (if it ever got that high) would strike laws like this down instantly.

I would not bet the farm on that..

Quote:All Indiana has done is hurt Republicans heading into an election cycle.

If not Indiana the Gaystapo would find something else to rally around. Until religious freedom is gone they won't be happy.

Yep, the Feds agreed, as did 19 other states. All Indiana is doing to adopting the same sort of law on a state level. Apparently, that's enough to start jousting at windmills.

(03-31-2015 08:00 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 11:18 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  I think it's going to come down to the courts to determine what a "substantial burden" on an individual's religion will be.

Which is why I hope Indiana comes out and defines the types of businesses who can exercise this right. Being forced to provide a service which goes against your deeply held spiritual beliefs is a substantial burden on a bed and breakfast but not the hilton.

I think it's going to rest upon the interpretation of Dale vs. Boy Scouts and what role ones religious convictions play in their business enterprise. What happened with Hobby Lobby I don't think would be applicable in this instance.