quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
last thing, and to put it in a way that maybe you haven't asked yourself---so if providing a service to someone is in violation of a business' religious conscience, that's okay?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
This seems to be a fact-free topic so far, with lots of talk and not a single link to the actual bill.

The proposal is modeled on a 22-year-old federal law known as the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. That law played a key role in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that allowed Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations with religious objections to opt out of an Affordable Care Act requirement that they cover certain contraceptives for women. Nineteen other states have adopted similar "religious freedom" laws, and several others are considering legislation. ~IndyStar

Oh noes, not a bill modeled on a federal statute that the Supreme Court has already upheld? Say it ain't so!

Digest of Indiana Senate Bill 101

Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.

I haven't read it yet. But hey, what a concept, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I'll give a source to show where the information is originating from. So you can look at it, and determine for yourself if things are true and correct.

Covered that for ya. You're welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

Where is Indiania?

I suspect that's where joether got his college degree.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Sorry, missed the point in this brief description of the bill were it said they couldn't serve people because of sexual orientation. Making people do something is tyranny, allowing them to decide for themselves what they will do is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Sorry, missed the point in this brief description of the bill were it said they couldn't serve people because of sexual orientation. Making people do something is tyranny, allowing them to decide for themselves what they will do is not.

No, making people do something is not tyranny. Maybe you should look up the word and be more informed....

What this bill allows is religious discrimination of others on the basis of something biological. To use a metaphor, it would be like creating a law that allows white Christians to disallow service to blacks. Because being gay and being black, are two biological issues. Being an asshole Christian is not biological.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Governor Pence, always the jokester, said this law doesn't allow for discrimination and doesn't have anything to do with any contemporary issues. Hilarious, right? But seriously, doesn't this law also apply to politically correct discrimination? For example, there's a nice Jewish deli in downtown Indianapolis. This law seems to provide legal protection if they refuse service to a neo-nazi. Does anyone here think neo-nazis have an inherent right to dine at Jewish delis? I sure don't. And if Jewish delis should have the right to refuse service, shouldn't other businesses have the same right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Governor Pence, always the jokester, said this law doesn't allow for discrimination and doesn't have anything to do with any contemporary issues. Hilarious, right? But seriously, doesn't this law also apply to politically correct discrimination? For example, there's a nice Jewish deli in downtown Indianapolis. This law seems to provide legal protection if they refuse service to a neo-nazi. Does anyone here think neo-nazis have an inherent right to dine at Jewish delis? I sure don't. And if Jewish delis should have the right to refuse service, shouldn't other businesses have the same right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Governor Pence, always the jokester, said this law doesn't allow for discrimination and doesn't have anything to do with any contemporary issues. Hilarious, right? But seriously, doesn't this law also apply to politically correct discrimination? For example, there's a nice Jewish deli in downtown Indianapolis. This law seems to provide legal protection if they refuse service to a neo-nazi. Does anyone here think neo-nazis have an inherent right to dine at Jewish delis? I sure don't. And if Jewish delis should have the right to refuse service, shouldn't other businesses have the same right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

Anty discrimination laws are in place to defend one important right that's personal dignity, ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

Anty discrimination laws are in place to defend one important right that's personal dignity, ...

If your personal dignity is incumbent upon what others think about you, I would suggest it's not personal dignity.

I will admit that what others think about you can damage your reputation, which could lead to an inability to get a job or housing or whatever, but what you (or anyone else) thinks about me has no affect on my personal dignity.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


You're missing the point. People only have to be tolerant of things that are approved of by "the masses".

Tolerance for the minority opinion was never the intent behind the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. It was ... what? Oh! It was the intent that the minority opinion (like those who don't believe in God, at the time) should never be shouted down?

Never mind, then.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: UnholyBear

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

You're missing the point. People only have to be tolerant of things that are approved of by "the masses".

Tolerance for the minority opinion was never the intent behind the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. It was ... what? Oh! It was the intent that the minority opinion (like those who don't believe in God, at the time) should never be shouted down?

Never mind, then.



Michael

If that is the case then what about the minorities who are still part of the masses? Doesn't their concerns, rights also need to have some sort of protection?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UnholyBear

If the answer happens to be no, then where does all this stop? And once it does stop, who will be next to be designated as a "minority" As I see it, this is heading down a slippery slope that will not end with just legislating against one minority group but will move onto the next, then the next etc.

The human race has a piss poor track record for maintaining the status quo for the majority based on the concept that the majority is best for the whole. All one needs to do is search throughout history and find prime examples of where more often than not, discrimination disguised under legislative laws resulted in civil strife and war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: UnholyBear

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

You're missing the point. People only have to be tolerant of things that are approved of by "the masses".

Tolerance for the minority opinion was never the intent behind the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. It was ... what? Oh! It was the intent that the minority opinion (like those who don't believe in God, at the time) should never be shouted down?

Never mind, then.



Michael

If that is the case then what about the minorities who are still part of the masses? Doesn't their concerns, rights also need to have some sort of protection?

Read past my first sentence. You might realize that your sarcasm meter is broken.

Also, to be very clear; I used the term "minority opinion". That was not to be construed to mean: "the opinions of people who happen to belong to a minority group". "Minority opinion" as in: "An opinion that is not held by a majority of people".

quote:

ORIGINAL: UnholyBear

If the answer happens to be no, then where does all this stop? And once it does stop, who will be next to be designated as a "minority" As I see it, this is heading down a slippery slope that will not end with just legislating against one minority group but will move onto the next, then the next etc.

The human race has a piss poor track record for maintaining the status quo for the majority based on the concept that the majority is best for the whole. All one needs to do is search throughout history and find prime examples of where more often than not, discrimination disguised under legislative laws resulted in civil strife and war.

Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: UnholyBear

No sarcasm indicated but thanks and bless your heart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Governor Pence, always the jokester, said this law doesn't allow for discrimination and doesn't have anything to do with any contemporary issues. Hilarious, right? But seriously, doesn't this law also apply to politically correct discrimination? For example, there's a nice Jewish deli in downtown Indianapolis. This law seems to provide legal protection if they refuse service to a neo-nazi. Does anyone here think neo-nazis have an inherent right to dine at Jewish delis? I sure don't. And if Jewish delis should have the right to refuse service, shouldn't other businesses have the same right?

The example you make is not perfectly fitting as the bigoted prick is the customer and not the business owner.
Untill the neo-nazi is not provocative, rude or has any disorderly behaviour I would say yes. Anty discrimination laws are in place to defend one important right that's personal dignity, that actually trumps religious freedom otherwise I could just piss on random people if my religion impose me to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I would much rather see genuinely GLBT-friendly businesses flourish than deal with business owners that don't appreciate my almighty dollar.
It always reminds me of that scene in Pretty Woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu3x5SZrMHo

If enough people agree with you, then those GLBT-friendly businesses will flourish, and those that aren't won't. Eventually, those businesses that won't serve the GLBT crowd will either go out of business because there aren't enough customers, change their stance to stay in business, or continue to do business with a smaller customer base.

That's the way it works, and it will work, if you let it. Let the internet work it's wonders disseminating information at incredible speeds, and you'll get a real response from those who could be customers.