I don't know who brought up Dale v Boy Scouts but it is utterly irrelevant in this conversation. Whoever said that doesn't know what they are talking about.

(03-31-2015 08:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't know who brought up Dale v Boy Scouts but it is utterly irrelevant in this conversation. Whoever said that doesn't know what they are talking about.

I said it. Obviously I'm not well versed in law but why wouldn't it have any relevance?

(03-31-2015 08:55 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 08:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't know who brought up Dale v Boy Scouts but it is utterly irrelevant in this conversation. Whoever said that doesn't know what they are talking about.

I said it. Obviously I'm not well versed in law but why wouldn't it have any relevance?

It's about private groups or clubs not public accommodation.

And, no, you didn't say it originally it has been circling the thread for several pages.

(03-31-2015 08:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 08:55 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 08:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't know who brought up Dale v Boy Scouts but it is utterly irrelevant in this conversation. Whoever said that doesn't know what they are talking about.

I said it. Obviously I'm not well versed in law but why wouldn't it have any relevance?

It's about private groups or clubs not public accommodation.

And, no, you didn't say it originally it has been circling the thread for several pages.

Thanks for the clarification.

(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.

Uh. So all Gay persons are criminals. And Gay persons aren't citizens. Thank you for clarifying for all of us exactly why protections for LGBT persons are needed.

Ok. So Pence appears to be digging in his heels on this one.

That press conference isn't going to make it go away.

Now GENCON is on CNN threatening to pull their conference.

(03-30-2015 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Tom, what rights does a Christian who is deeply and genuinely offended as a legitimate matter of faith have? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance the equities?

If the person refused to provide the same services to divorced people getting a second marriage, how does that change things, since you seemed to imply that it would be different?

Do you simply believe that being gay trumps all other rights, or do you believe that other people have rights too?

There are two rights in play: the Establishment Clause right to practice religion and the Equal Protection Clause right to not to be discriminated as being a member of a protected class.

It's very simple: When the two collide, the Equal Protection Clause prevails. You CANNOT use your Establishment Clause rights as a justification to violate another person's Equal Protection Clause rights. This is consistent with the states with "Religious Freedom" laws (outside of Indiana). They have recognized sexual orientation as a protected class, and therefore, a private business CANNOT discriminate against gays on the "religious freedom" basis in those states.

The difference in Indiana is that the state hasn't recognized sexual orientation as a protected class (at least for private businesses - it does have some protection for government workers), so that's why this is a much bigger national issue.

Regardless, it's a pretty clear and unambiguous legal distinction: the Equal Protection Clause prevails over the Establishment Clause when there's a conflict. Intuitively, it makes sense - you choose your religion, whereas you are born being in a protected class (including your sexual orientation unless you subscribe to outmoded thinking). There is no grey area here from a legal standpoint.

What befuddles me is how the liberal inclusion police have no problem with our national cozying up to Iran - a country where you can be put to death for gay sex - but somehow not wanting to create a cake for a gay wedding is inexcusable. And they choose to voice their displeasure by calling for boycotts and other economic actions that will hurt everyday working people in Indiana much more than it will the people in the state legislature and the "1-percenters".

How about some middle ground here... If you don't want to serve gays and lesbians you must upfront about it so that people can choose to not support your business if they don't like it. I really don't think you will see gays going foodless or shoeless or hotel-less because they can't find a place that will accept them as customers. In general, it isn't smart business practice to refuse customers because you don't approve of some aspect of their private life.

Apple CEO Slams Indiana Over Religious Freedom Law… Same CEO Who Negotiated Deal To Sell iPhones In Islamic Countries That Execute Gays…



CEO Tim Cook was responsible for getting Apple products into Saudi Arabia, where they still execute gays. The hypocrisy of the left continues.



And the UAE, another country where homosexuality is punishable by death.

Quote: The United Electronics Company, better known as eXtra, has announced the opening of Apple’s first new generation stores in Saudi Arabia.

The Apple outlets will be located in eXtra’s shops in Riyadh and Al Khobar, the retailer said in a statement. […]

Separately, the new Apple store planned for Dubai is expected to open in February next year, according to reports.

Earlier this year, Apple confirmed plans to open a store in the region, which was underlined by a series of job listings for stores in both Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

The new store in the Mall of Emirates is expected to be its biggest outlet in the world, bigger than its current flagship outlet – the 23,000 sq ft Grand Central Store in New York.

Apple CEO Tim Cook visited the UAE in February this year, meeting with Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed, as well as a number of Apple resellers.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-ret...75777.html

(03-31-2015 11:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  What befuddles me is how the liberal inclusion police have no problem with our national cozying up to Iran - a country where you can be put to death for gay sex - but somehow not wanting to create a cake for a gay wedding is inexcusable. And they choose to voice their displeasure by calling for boycotts and other economic actions that will hurt everyday working people in Indiana much more than it will the people in the state legislature and the "1-percenters".

How about some middle ground here... If you don't want to serve gays and lesbians you must upfront about it so that people can choose to not support your business if they don't like it. I really don't think you will see gays going foodless or shoeless or hotel-less because they can't find a place that will accept them as customers. In general, it isn't smart business practice to refuse customers because you don't approve of some aspect of their private life.

The whole issue is just a handful of zealots making a mountain of a mole hill.

Conn Dem Gov. Dan Malloy Attacks Mike Pence: “When You See A Bigot, You Have To Call Him On It”…

Governor Malloy just called himself a “bigot” as well since Connecticut also has a religious freedom law on its books.

(03-31-2015 11:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Tom, what rights does a Christian who is deeply and genuinely offended as a legitimate matter of faith have? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance the equities?

If the person refused to provide the same services to divorced people getting a second marriage, how does that change things, since you seemed to imply that it would be different?

Do you simply believe that being gay trumps all other rights, or do you believe that other people have rights too?

There are two rights in play: the Establishment Clause right to practice religion and the Equal Protection Clause right to not to be discriminated as being a member of a protected class.

It's very simple: When the two collide, the Equal Protection Clause prevails. You CANNOT use your Establishment Clause rights as a justification to violate another person's Equal Protection Clause rights. This is consistent with the states with "Religious Freedom" laws (outside of Indiana). They have recognized sexual orientation as a protected class, and therefore, a private business CANNOT discriminate against gays on the "religious freedom" basis in those states.

The difference in Indiana is that the state hasn't recognized sexual orientation as a protected class (at least for private businesses - it does have some protection for government workers), so that's why this is a much bigger national issue.

Regardless, it's a pretty clear and unambiguous legal distinction: the Equal Protection Clause prevails over the Establishment Clause when there's a conflict. Intuitively, it makes sense - you choose your religion, whereas you are born being in a protected class (including your sexual orientation unless you subscribe to outmoded thinking). There is no grey area here from a legal standpoint.

You are off on two points.

This is not an equal protection issue per se because we are talking public accommodation. It is a branch of equal protection law but the distinction is worth making.

Indiana does not consider homosexuals a protected class, this is where the distinction becomes important. As they are not a protected class the law is not applied in the same way or to the same extent. This is therefore not a conflict of equal protection, or public access rather, and establishment law. That argument is outside the scope of what is being discussed.

This is purely about public accommodation laws.

(03-31-2015 11:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  What befuddles me is how the liberal inclusion police have no problem with our national cozying up to Iran - a country where you can be put to death for gay sex - but somehow not wanting to create a cake for a gay wedding is inexcusable. And they choose to voice their displeasure by calling for boycotts and other economic actions that will hurt everyday working people in Indiana much more than it will the people in the state legislature and the "1-percenters".

You're absolutely correct that liberals are wrongly inconsistent with respect to Iran. However, that doesn't make liberals wrong with respect to Indiana's law. The United States should have slightly higher societal standards than being more tolerant than Iran.

Quote:How about some middle ground here... If you don't want to serve gays and lesbians you must upfront about it so that people can choose to not support your business if they don't like it. I really don't think you will see gays going foodless or shoeless or hotel-less because they can't find a place that will accept them as customers.

No, there's no middle ground here. If sexual orientation is a protected class, then you can't refuse to serve them on that basis any more than you can deny them service on the basis of race or gender. THERE IS NO GREY AREA.

Ultimately, the free market (both economic and political) will prevail. Companies in all industries are looking to attract young, educated and affluent employees and consumers, all of which are attributes that are very highly correlated with support for gays rights. The businesses that are boycotting Indiana are responding in their own rational economic interests. I doubt that you'd find anyone on MSNBC or the Daily Kos calling the US Chamber of Commerce liberal, yet the business wing of the Republican Party HATES these religious freedom laws. The social conservatives are completely getting in the way of advancing the business-oriented fiscal policies.

Politicians are facing the same thing, including Republicans that want to win the presidency. Winning all of those social conservatives in the red states is irrelevant with respect to the White House. The key to winning the Electoral College lies in the suburbs of purple swing states like Florida, Virginia and Ohio, and those areas (despite being fiscally conservative) are also increasingly in favor of gay rights.

How about separate but equal for gays in Indiana? That way we don't have to go all the way back to the dark ages, only part way.

Nothing brings out the butthurt like anything that has to do with homosexuals.

(03-31-2015 01:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How about separate but equal for gays in Indiana? That way we don't have to go all the way back to the dark ages, only part way.

How about freedom for everyone?

Plenty of establishments discriminate against various behaviors. Some places don't allow smokers.

This law doesn't give businesses carte blanche to discriminate. This law protects the GOVERNMENT from infringing on their religious beliefs.

(03-31-2015 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

Uh. So all Gay persons are criminals. And Gay persons aren't citizens. Thank you for clarifying for all of us exactly why protections for LGBT persons are needed.

This reply met... and surpassed my expectations!!!!

I said it is LIKE saying. That's called a simile. Believe me, if I thought you were a criminal, I would have no compunction in calling you a criminal. You are just immoral. But then, so am I. We all are to varying degrees. The difference is, I will not demand that a business serve my immorality. I will find one that is WILLING..... WILLING!

LIBERTY.

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

(03-29-2015 01:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT.

Except they cant..

Language in the law prohibits the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest".

I'm pretty sure that medical care counts as "compelling government interest" as would most public necessary services.

Most of this will be clarified in the follow up legislation and before you ***** about the need for follow up legislation consider how many times we've had to fix crap from the AFA.

Really, how about a fertility doctor refusing to work with a lesbian couple?

Yeah how about it? That should be her right as long as she's not working for the government.

I guess this settles it...

Quote:Miley Cyrus has even weighed in, calling Pence a name that we can't reprint on this family Web site in an Instagram post.

We're doomed.