Serious Indiana RFRA

[Shrug]

I'm not likely to be discriminated against because of this law, so I might be the wrong person to be aggrieved, but this shit is ridiculous. In essence, Indiana contrived (and passed) a law affording corporations, for-profit and otherwise, the right to claim religious freedom against individuals, and backed the law with specific wording to ensure any suit claiming discrimination brought by a private individual against a business would be discarded, assuming the reason for the argued discrimination was religious, in accordance with the law. This seems based at fostering discrimination, specifically against gay and lesbian individuals, and I'm confused as to what makes it permissible in a society that has supposedly been trying to move away from segregation.

I understand there are states with laws titled the same thing - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - including Connecticut, whose governor condemned the act's passing. However, these laws in the majority of the states where they are applied do not mention corporations as part of this protection and similarly do not forbid suits claiming discrimination when the dispute is religious. They are not the same; they should not be treated the same.

For my part, i cannot distinguish between the following scenarios:

A Christian couple makes wedding cakes. They receive a request to bake a cake for a gay wedding and refuse based on religious grounds.

A Christian couple makes wedding cakes. They receive a request to bake a cake for an interracial wedding between a black man and a white woman and refuse because they are racist.

Essentially the latter is "i feel i can discriminate based on my personal beliefs" and the former is "i feel i can discriminate based on my personal beliefs because my religion says so".

When did believing in God mean you don't have to follow laws and mean you get to be a dick?

 

[doublenikesocks]

This issue really is based on perspective. From the viewpoint of the Christians, they feel they aren't being allowed to practice their lack of belief in gay marriage. The gays/lesbians feel that this law is causing discrimination. Which is more important? Religious freedom or gay rights?

When did believing in God mean you don't have to follow laws and mean you get to be a dick?

It's the law now in several states. And in their opinion, they are just following God's word. They don't think they are being dicks, just practicing part of their faith.

As for my question, if you were forced to do something that goes against your religion, would you do it?

 

[dwarfstar]

doublenikesocks Want to know how they can "practice their lack of belief in gay marriage"? They can not marry someone of the same sex. It's entirely possible to hold fast to a given belief without causing trouble for anyone else, and not to do so in a situation like this is kind of a dick move.

Regarding the question of freedom to practice religion however one chooses VS freedom from people using their religion as an excuse to be a schmuck, consider the following example. There are multiple religions out there that place a very high premium on virginity at the time of marriage, and have holy books that mandate that a woman who isn't a virgin when she gets married should be summarily executed. If some guy discovers that his wife wasn't a virgin and kills her, do we excuse that because he's "just practicing part of his faith", or do we treat him as a murderer and punish him accordingly? I know that's an extreme example, but that's precisely my point: if you excuse one, then where do you draw the line? How do you decide what level of harm you can inflict on others and still take cover behind the shield of religious belief?

 

[gantz]

There needs to be a real separation of church and state in the U.S., this should not be "law" anywhere. Who would care so much about what type of people are coming into their store as to make them feel the need to refuse their service, if the person is being polite and just going in and out, help them and get them out once they're done.

The state should be discouraging this behavior with laws and bills, but instead they're encouraging bigotry and ignorance.

 

[doublenikesocks]

doublenikesocks Want to know how they can "practice their lack of belief in gay marriage"? They can not marry someone of the same sex. It's entirely possible to hold fast to a given belief without causing trouble for anyone else, and not to do so in a situation like this is kind of a dick move.

Regarding the question of freedom to practice religion however one chooses VS freedom from people using their religion as an excuse to be a schmuck, consider the following example. There are multiple religions out there that place a very high premium on virginity at the time of marriage, and have holy books that mandate that a woman who isn't a virgin when she gets married should be summarily executed. If some guy discovers that his wife wasn't a virgin and kills her, do we excuse that because he's "just practicing part of his faith", or do we treat him as a murderer and punish him accordingly? I know that's an extreme example, but that's precisely my point: if you excuse one, then where do you draw the line? How do you decide what level of harm you can inflict on others and still take cover behind the shield of religious belief?

About your first point: this issue seems to be a lot about bakeries and gay weddings (see examples in Colorado and the law opposite Indiana's) where the bakeries would not serve gay weddings. That's what I meant; I should have clarified this.

I don't believe that all businesses/corporations should be able to claim a religious reason to discriminate. Only businesses, in this case, that do weddings. (cateries, bakeries)

That is an extreme example that I'm not sure at all how to respond to. To answer your question, I would modify these laws to only allow the religious exemption when the homosexual practice directly affects their doing business.

 

[Deck Knight]

1) Simple question:

Should the government be able to compel me, a Catholic, to defile the Eucharist - which for me would be mocking a sacrament.
The answer for any decent human being should be no.

In the same way the government should not be able to compel me to mock the sacrament of marriage by forcing me to participate in a ceremony that would mock that sacrament.

The issue here is not denial of service to persons but denial of participation in an event. It is an issue of protecting conscious rights against the notion that if a victim group approved by the government demands compliance from a less politically popular majority group, people in the majority group must be brought under the government's thumb.

But it turns out Christians have rights too. And it turns out conscience rights have more applications, for example conscientious objectors to war. Even if the nation declares war, someone who refuses to fight in that war cannot be compelled into it - for religious or even entirely secular opposition to it. This is a long established principle of personal liberty, that the government cannot compel people to act in ways they consider gravely immoral. For Christians, marriage is *holy* matrimony, not just a run of the mill commitment ceremony.

2) You also have the law wrong. RFRA only states that a religious liberty defense may be used in court. It does not require throwing out such a lawsuit.

I'll go further though: Even on the score of right to refuse service, I'm more with Charles Cooke: You should have the right to refuse your service to anyone for any reason, and let the market decide to reward or punish you. The black experience in America was unique in that you had human beings treated as property, and the Jim Crow laws specifically required all people to discriminate - even if they didn't want to. Thus the very extreme step of creating public accommodation laws to reverse that pervasive, previously legal and legally enforced discrimination.

Such discrimination never existed to remotely similar degree against any other group, especially not as it regards homosexual marriages, a perverse invention of the last 20 years. How could something no one thought existed possibly be banned? How could people become bigots overnight because you decided marriage now means "two consenting adults" to fit your personal purposes instead of "union of one man and woman for the purposes of procreation" - and your new interpretation must be hammered into the unwilling using the force of law?

IMO comparing refusal to procure homosexual wedding cakes to literally treating people like property is moral illiteracy.

 

[Stratos]

privately held businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. it's their fucking business

 

[Shrug]

Should the government be able to compel me, a Catholic, to defile the Eucharist - which for me would be mocking a sacrament.
The answer for any decent human being should be no.

In the same way the government should not be able to compel me to mock the sacrament of marriage by forcing me to participate in a ceremony that would mock that sacrament.

The problem is, the law did not afford you, the citizen, the right to refuse participation on religious grounds; you already possessed that. It afforded a corporation the rights to refuse service on religious grounds. This is problematic because corporations and businesses are not people, nor are they simply avatars for their proprietors. Companies are not people - they are not entitled to the same rights of expression.

The issue here is not denial of service to persons but denial of participation in an event. It is an issue of protecting conscious rights against the notion that if a victim group approved by the government demands compliance from a less politically popular majority group, people in the majority group must be brought under the government's thumb.

But it turns out Christians have rights too. And it turns out conscience rights have more applications, for example conscientious objectors to war. Even if the nation declares war, someone who refuses to fight in that war cannot be compelled into it - for religious or even entirely secular opposition to it. This is a long established principle of personal liberty, that the government cannot compel people to act in ways they consider gravely immoral. For Christians, marriage is *holy* matrimony, not just a run of the mill commitment ceremony.

So you contend that the act of a business party completing a transaction constitutes tacit endorsement for the event the transaction is intended to facilitate? I see no justifiable basis in that argument. It is absurd to suggest that anyone providing services for a homosexual wedding is in any way forced to participate in it - one who sells knives is not implied to be a part of an eventual assault committed with a knife they sold. By claiming this is an issue of participation in an event one finds morally objectionable (the marriage of two people of the same gender) rather than a denial of service, you appear to contend there would be no grounds for exemption if the event was not made a specification of a transaction. What occurs if a gay man purchases a cake from the store and uses it as his wedding cake, without the store owner's knowledge or consent? Has the store owner been forced into participation into an event she finds morally wrong? Of course not; a wedding is in practice completely indistinguishable from any other event and therefore not in any sense a grounds for exemption. Thus, any denial of a wedding cake to a gay couple does constitute a denial of service - a cake for a wedding is the same as a cake for a birthday.
The second half of the post expands on the fundamentally flawed argument in the first.

RFRA only states that a religious liberty defense may be used in court. It does not require throwing out such a lawsuit.

That was my mistake; regardless, the crux of the argument still applies.

I'll go further though: Even on the score of right to refuse service, I'm more with Charles Cooke: You should have the right to refuse your service to anyone for any reason, and let the market decide to reward or punish you.

privately held businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. it's their fucking business

So businesses should be allowed to, say, only serve whites? I understand Jim Crow-era segregation was much more pervasive and harmful than the type that might arise from this law, but it brings up the point: there are at least some instances where government needs to protect the right to service. The debate needs to occur on "where the line falls" not "if there should be mandatory service".

Such discrimination never existed to remotely similar degree against any other group, especially not as it regards homosexual marriages, a perverse invention of the last 20 years. How could something no one thought existed possibly be banned? How could people become bigots overnight because you decided marriage now means "two consenting adults" to fit your personal purposes instead of "union of one man and woman for the purposes of procreation" - and your new interpretation must be hammered into the unwilling using the force of law?

This argument boils succinctly down to: "I disagree with the government's law; therefore, I am exempt from following it". Laws exist to govern society - there is no other function they might serve. One does not choose the rules they follow and do not follow; I cannot say "I do not believe arson should be illegal, therefore i'm going to burn my neighbor's house down" as that is patently absurd. Thus, a business owner should not be able to say "i believe i should be able to deny service to a specific group of people due to my religious beliefs, therefore i will" - making the RFRA, which supports that, illogical and absurd.

The black experience in America was unique in that you had human beings treated as property, and the Jim Crow laws specifically required all people to discriminate - even if they didn't want to. Thus the very extreme step of creating public accommodation laws to reverse that pervasive, previously legal and legally enforced discrimination.
...
IMO comparing refusal to procure homosexual wedding cakes to literally treating people like property is moral illiteracy.

While i did use the example of being black to give an example, cognizant of the historical segregation faced by blacks throughout American history, I did not reference Jim Crow (in this instance, can be read as de jure) segregation nor slavery, both of which are of proportions much greater than this law. Trying to imply I did so constitutes literal illiteracy.

 

[billymills]

privately held businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. it's their fucking business

I agree with this, but I hope businesses won't refuse service for petty (read: religious) reasons.

I like the blowback this is having across multiple industries, which is the appropriate market reaction for people who could potentially be refused service by this law or by similar discrimination.

 

[Bughouse]

Hi leaving decisions to businesses about how they want to exercise their (because apparently corporate persons go to church and read the bible) beliefs has worked out great for so many people so far, how could this possibly go wrong

Not being able to get a wedding cake is small. There are way bigger fish to fry. And the end solution ultimately is just to pass ENDA and make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes, but lol that assumes congress would ever do anything useful.

In the meantime I don't particularly care to talk about this issue as it's so incredibly ridiculous and also barely even important in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Last month or the month before, there was a legit piece of news about a Christian florists refusing to do the bouquet for a gay wedding.
That couple went to sue her.

Most of the comments on Yahoo UK basically consists of "She's in her 70's, leave her alone", "It's her fucking business, just go to another florist." Basically, the majority of the crowd was against the couple for suing that florist.
But if you think about it, if any restaurant, whether privately owned or not, declines someone due to race... people will have totally different reactions.

My opinion is... if it's a private business, no matter how wrong they are, you can just go somewhere else.
I legitimately have been into a restaurant in the UK, in which the owners, although colored, treat other colored people like crap. Typical worship- whites kind of mentality. White people got the best seats and the polite treatment. Asians have to sit in awkward places, and her attitude was horrid.
Well, I just finished my meal and told every Asian in my school about it. Then we just learn to not go to that restaurant anymore.
I'm not going to spend my precious time suing the restaurant. Suing is like a hate- to- hate revenge going on, which I don't buy into.

Further more, refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is distinctly different than refusing to bake a cake to a gay person.
The former refers to disagreement to an act/ a practice, whilst the latter refers to personal discrimination.
If someone refuses to bake a cake for my interracial wedding (if that happens), I'm just going to think, "that's one weird person" and go to another cake shop, no hard feelings.
But if someone refuses to bake a cake for me simply because I'm Asian, I might make a huge noise on the internet to shame them.
My point is, I wouldn't classify the former refusal as discrimination. She's just against a type of practice.

Finally, my opinion is-- you can just go somewhere else.

 

[WaterBomb]

What's to stop a business (ie a cakery) from simply saying "sorry, we're backlogged right now and would not be able to complete your order in time" if they really didn't want to provide service to a person? It's a perfectly plausible situation in a business like that, and nobody would be able to prove it was done for other reasons. This can happen whether or not the law is in place, so all that has changed is that now businesses can reveal their true reasons rather than just making up an excuse. The type of people who are apt to discriminate against another based on hatred are probably the same type of people who would be willing to lie about it to get away with it if it weren't legal.

Additionally, I think that many people are reacting to things that haven't happened yet and are assuming the worst. Obviously it's a good thing to anticipate potential challenges and issues, but there's a difference between that and inciting a mass outrage.

Using the cakery example again, I'm willing to wager that almost any Christian owned cakery would have no problems making a cake that says "Congratulations Mark and John" or something along those lines. If the message were something more controversial, such as "Congrats Mark and John, win one for the Gay Marriage cause", then I could foresee issues.

I mean let's put this in a different perspective. Let's say my wife and I go into a cakery that happens to be owned by a Muslim and ask for a cake that says "Happy Birthday Jesus, our Messiah!", and he refuses based on religious grounds. Should I be able to force him to make it for me? I don't think so. If anything, I would apologize for causing him any discomfort and simply go to another cakery. I don't view that as discrimination. But then again I also have respect for religion and many don't, so some might not share my view.

Now, of course, most of the examples to this point have been of private, non-essential services. In those cases I think this bill is fine. If it were to intrude on more public and essential services like, say, access to bathrooms or the grocery store, then I could see justification for the uproar.

 

[Cresselia~~]

What's to stop a business (ie a cakery) from simply saying "sorry, we're backlogged right now and would not be able to complete your order in time" if they really didn't want to provide service to a person? It's a perfectly plausible situation in a business like that, and nobody would be able to prove it was done for other reasons. This can happen whether or not the law is in place, so all that has changed is that now businesses can reveal their true reasons rather than just making up an excuse. The type of people who are apt to discriminate against another based on hatred are probably the same type of people who would be willing to lie about it to get away with it if it weren't legal.
.

I think it's because some Christians somehow believe that they should be bold, and say aloud that they don't approve such behavior. And they actually believe that it's a good thing. They think that they should tell gay couples that what they are doing is "wrong", and by telling them, he/ she's being "good".
There are churches that enforces this boldness somehow, with bible verses to support it. (Which I don't think it's the true meaning of those verses.)

That's probably why that woman boldly told them that she refuses because of her beliefs, instead of finding other excuses.

But given, if that couple knew she was Christian in the first place, why would they risk going there? It's like they are deliberately finding someone to sue.

 

[Bughouse]

http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

@ everyone saying businesses can do whatever they want. Apparently it's still the 1950s in their minds.

I mean let's put this in a different perspective. Let's say my wife and I go into a cakery that happens to be owned by a Muslim and ask for a cake that says "Happy Birthday Jesus, our Messiah!", and he refuses based on religious grounds. Should I be able to force him to make it for me? I don't think so. If anything, I would apologize for causing him any discomfort and simply go to another cakery. I don't view that as discrimination. But then again I also have respect for religion and many don't, so some might not share my view.

You can see quite clearly here that denial on grounds of the customer's religion is illegal.

 

[WaterBomb]

You can see quite clearly here that denial on grounds of the customer's religion is illegal.

Isn't that what this bill is about, though? I thought the bill was seeking to make it legal. Please correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Bughouse]

Isn't that what this bill is about, though? I thought the bill was seeking to make it legal. Please correct me if I'm wrong

Denial in a public accommodation (still a judgment call whether a bakery would qualify, but that's another issue) based on the CUSTOMER'S race, color, religion, or national origin is illegal.

This law has to do with denials based on the BUSINESS OWNER'S religion. Though you can easily argue (and I would) that it's not just that they have religious beliefs, but is more specifically due to the fact that the business owner's religion disagrees with that of the customer, since presumably the customer's religious beliefs are totally fine with them having a same-sex marriage. But if it's specifically about this disagreement, it then brings you back to Title II...

 

[Stratos]

Denial in a public accommodation (still a judgment call whether a bakery would qualify, but that's another issue) based on the CUSTOMER'S race, color, religion, or national origin is illegal.

This law has to do with denials based on the BUSINESS OWNER'S religion. Though you can easily argue (and I would) that it's not just that they have religious beliefs, but is more specifically due to the fact that the business owner's religion disagrees with that of the customer, since presumably the customer's religious beliefs are totally fine with them having a same-sex marriage. But if it's specifically about this disagreement, it then brings you back to Title II...

id argue that a law saying you have to go against your religion would be in disagreement with the first amendment's promise of "free exercise of religion" so i wouldnt interpret it this way

in general people seem to love the idea of religion not being able to impose on them, but really really hate the idea of them not being able to impose on religion, despite the fact that the first amendment protection goes both ways.

So businesses should be allowed to, say, only serve whites? I understand Jim Crow-era segregation was much more pervasive and harmful than the type that might arise from this law, but it brings up the point: there are at least some instances where government needs to protect the right to service. The debate needs to occur on "where the line falls" not "if there should be mandatory service".

honestly, in today's society? sure. normally racism is a poor business decision. the problem with jim crow era wasn't that you could choose to only serve whites, it's that you couldn't choose to serve blacks, whether through legal or social pressure. That's not the case any more, and even if there is some racist-ass town where people can get away with denying service to non-whites, all it'll take is one tweet and the residents of that town will be lucky if their businesses are still standing the next day. I trust the free market's ability to sort out most problem absent of major societal imbalances that aren't currently present.

 

[Bughouse]

id argue that a law saying you have to go against your religion would be in disagreement with the first amendment's promise of "free exercise of religion" so i wouldnt interpret it this way

in general people seem to love the idea of religion not being able to impose on them, but really really hate the idea of them not being able to impose on religion, despite the fact that the first amendment protection goes both ways.

There are always ample exceptions in any of these laws for religious organizations, like churches, etc. No one is suggesting they must have their ability to exercise their religion abridged.

It is a very different story when you're talking about a pizza shop, whose business purpose has absolutely no religious basis. The Hobby Lobby case tested this general theory under the federal RFRA and the Supreme Court upheld their free exercise in that case specifically because the government could easily fill the health insurance coverage gap at little cost, and so it was not viewed as the least restrictive way to achieve the legislative goal. This was controversial enough already, and I highly doubt the court would argue the same way in these sorts of cases which are much less favorable to the business owners than Hobby Lobby was. They'd effectively have to argue that the government should be baking wedding cakes for same-sex couples who get turned away. That, I think, would sound ridiculous to anyone.

EDIT: some history on the topic of lgbt people and public accommodations
This too

 

[Shrug]

That's not the case any more, and even if there is some racist-ass town where people can get away with denying service to non-whites, all it'll take is one tweet and the residents of that town will be lucky if their businesses are still standing the next day.

The issue with this is there would be no grounds to shut down the businesses - all antidiscrimination protections would be removed. Therefore, a (hypothetical) isolated, backwards town can essentially forbid blacks, gays, or any other group from living there and the rest of the populace would have no recourse to fight that segregation. That seems problematic - boycotts wouldn't work, as said town would simply cater to racists; any other form of protest wouldn't be allowed to obstruct the mechanisms of the entire town.

If someone refuses to bake a cake for my interracial wedding (if that happens), I'm just going to think, "that's one weird person" and go to another cake shop, no hard feelings.
But if someone refuses to bake a cake for me simply because I'm Asian, I might make a huge noise on the internet to shame them.
My point is, I wouldn't classify the former refusal as discrimination. She's just against a type of practice.

The sale of a cake (for example) is not a forced endorsement of a practice. I fail to see the functional difference in procuring two identical cakes, one for a gay wedding and one for a gay friend's birthday party. Should a lighter company be allowed to forbid gays from ever buying a lighter, on the off chance that lighter is used to ignite candles at a gay wedding, thereby forcing the lighter company into participation in a an event they disagree with?

id argue that a law saying you have to go against your religion would be in disagreement with the first amendment's promise of "free exercise of religion" so i wouldnt interpret it this way

in general people seem to love the idea of religion not being able to impose on them, but really really hate the idea of them not being able to impose on religion, despite the fact that the first amendment protection goes both ways.

This isnt a question of "imposing on a religion", it is a question of "are companies allowed to flout laws because their proprietors are religious?". If i am a strict christian and i come home and find a man sleeping with my wife, am i allowed to kill both, then when the cops come to arrest me claim "dont impose on my religion you dick im allowed to do that in the bible!!". Obviously not; the Bible makes a wonderful allegorical look at values and provider of tenants by which to live, but a shitty legal code.

But given, if that couple knew she was Christian in the first place, why would they risk going there? It's like they are deliberately finding someone to sue.

maybe they just wanted a cake

 

[Stratos]

This isnt a question of "imposing on a religion", it is a question of "are companies allowed to flout laws because their proprietors are religious?". If i am a strict christian and i come home and find a man sleeping with my wife, am i allowed to kill both, then when the cops come to arrest me claim "dont impose on my religion you dick im allowed to do that in the bible!!". Obviously not; the Bible makes a wonderful allegorical look at values and provider of tenants by which to live, but a shitty legal code.

what law? the law that says youre required to bake cakes for people? That analogy was ridiculous.

 

[Shrug]

what law? the law that says youre required to bake cakes for people? if there is such a law, it seems rather unconstitutional to me

im pretty sure it's one of the ones where you're not allowed to discriminate in public accommodation, admittedly the cake example is right on the border but based on the ruling in this case you have a suggestion that government considers businesses required to serve people equally. The act might be called... the civil rights act of 1964? idk. You're not required to bake cakes for people, but if you decide to sell cakes, you're not allowed to sell to one group and not others.

 

[Bughouse]

How about we shift from talking about pizza or wedding cakes to a service that is waaaay more borderline: wedding photography

EDIT: lol shrug just beat me to it

 

[Stratos]

im pretty sure it's one of the ones where you're not allowed to discriminate in public accommodation, admittedly the cake example is right on the border but based on the ruling in this case you have a suggestion that government considers businesses required to serve people equally. The act might be called... the civil rights act of 1964? idk. You're not required to bake cakes for people, but if you decide to sell cakes, you're not allowed to sell to one group and not others.

and what im saying is that a law which forces you to provide a service which is against your religion would be against the first amendment, aka weve come full circle. Your argument was simply a tautology.

 

[Shrug]

and what im saying is that a law which forces you to provide a service which is against your religion would be against the first amendment, aka weve come full circle. Your argument was simply a tautology.

but i have proven that there are some instances where freedom of religion is necessarily superseded by law - you have not given any evidence to suggest there are legitimate reasons laws should be broken in order to defend freedom of religion. Laws override personal beliefs; i cant just ignore a law i disagree with, regardless of if that belief is religious in nature

Srk1214 you can go ahead with the photography thing i just posted the case if you want to explain

 

[Bughouse]

and what im saying is that a law which forces you to provide a service which is against your religion would be against the first amendment, aka weve come full circle. Your argument was simply a tautology.

No. If you click on Shrug's link, this was a case of a wedding photographer, which went in favor of the customers. The Supreme Court then declined the photographer's petition, meaning not even 4 thought the case merited review. Why? Usually it's because there's no circuit disagreement. And why is there no disagreement? In any state where it has been codified that lgbt people have protections in public accommodations, their rights have always, always trumped free exercise.