Ok, I’m seriously trying to find the rational thinking here from both sides.
Private business: We don’t want to be threatened with lawsuits when we refuse service to customers based on our religious beliefs ie. the bakers, photographers, etc who have been sued by gay couples for refusing to participate in their “special day.” Apparently there is a lack of gay cake makers and photographers in the US? Government needs to stay out of private business.
LGBT community: You passed a law that allows businesses to discriminate against us!
So here are some hypothetical yet very real situations that could occur if this law gets repealed, which is what the left is pushing for:
NAMBLA now wants to hold a social gathering at your gay establishment. They believe pedophilia is perfectly normal, and obviously they are all gay. Who knows, maybe these men haven’t even committed a crime but want to talk about their love for children. Why should some archaic laws dictate who you are allowed to love? If the individual consents, they should have that choice. You as a married gay man with kids decide “i don’t agree with pedophilia, so therefore I will not allow them to host an event in my establishment!” Based on allowed precedent, lawsuit is feasible.
You own a t-shirt shop. Client comes in and wants to have some shirts done with some very strong profane language regarding an issue. He’s within his first amendment rights, has appropriate permits for a demonstration, etc. Maybe he’s a KKK member, maybe black panther party, LGBT, etc. You believe that God’s word simply says “let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” and therefore do not want your product to carry their message, but you are the only T-shirt shop in town. What’s to stop a lawsuit here?
Only posting this because one of my favorite places in West Michigan jumped on the LGBT bandwagon. Unfortunately, I am likely to go down the street now for dinner because they felt the need to hitch their wagon to the wrong pony. http://woodtv.com/2015/03/30/hopcat-owner-indy-restaurant-open-to-all/
There really is no big deal as far as I can tell. I believe that 19 other states have similar laws. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, therefore IMO, the federal government has no right to mandate one way or the other. Leave it to the states. There is however, the First Amendment protecting the freedom of religion. As a Christian I don’t agree with what these businesses are doing in the name of Christ even though I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but it is their right to do so. There are so many other people getting married that, Biblically, they could refuse service to yet don’t. I know what the old testament says, but I also know what Jesus commanded us to do.
I think most of the hate is being generated by folks on social media who haven’t taken the time to actually look at the Law as written.
The idea that we all have rights and as long as I do not impose myself on your freedom’s, why should you be allowed to impose upon mine? In other words if I sell you flowers for your home it has no bearing on my religion, if you ask me to sell you flowers for your gay wedding, if my beliefs wont allow me to support gay marriage, then I have the right to refuse service.
Sounds simple to me.
The issue seems to be that if I refuse you service for any reason, then I am imposing on your rights. That simply becomes an issue when your intent comes in to conflict with my religious beliefs.
This isn’t in fact a bias based upon your sexuality, it is a bias based upon the commandments or doctrine of ones own personal religious beliefs and practices. Equal freedoms seem to scare the LGBT community.
Well that and it’s a cool way for minor celebrities to get some face time on the News.
Whatever happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?
Gub’ment needs to GTFO of this situation, IMO. The “equality” crowd doesn’t actually want equality- they want their minority to be put above all others.
It’s a tough world to be a white Christian heterosexual male. I’m pretty much the root of all evil.
This exactly. All it does is guarantee someone with a religious objection a day in court and requires the gov’t have a compelling interest in the law/regulation and that it’s the least burdensome method of meeting that interest. Historically, very few court cases brought under RFRA statutes have prevailed over the gov’t interest.
Secondly, the same groups that foam at the mouth over a Christian refusing to service a gay wedding, would be abhored if a Jewish or Muslim butcher were required to provide pork sausage for a function.
Thirdly, the attempt is made to parallel this with Jim Crow and refusing to serve blacks at the lunch counter etc etc. They forget Jim Crow was enforced by the gov’t and the miss the distinction that people are not refusing to serve gays entirely, they’re simply refusing to participate in their wedding.
This is all pushback on that gay couple (and later the courts) trying to force a baker to bake a cake for them, when there were plenty of other bakers in town who would have been willing to do it. Think of how much hot air would have been saved if the courts had stayed the hell out of it…
What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (NIV, Mark 7:20-23)
What is actually in the law? I see fifteen minute reports about it, but all they talk about is discrimination, not what the law actually says.
Frickn’ NASCAR came out against the law- all is a lost- but maybe they thought it would protect inbreeding.
If I were a wedding photographer, I’d show up and not shut up about how it was immoral. Let them even try the “If anyone has any reason…” line.
The LGBT extremists have gone past the anti-discrimination to making it so that you can’t hold the personal belief that their ‘lifestyle’ is immoral. You have to accept them, or else the gay mafia will make you a wine spritzer you can’t refuse. They need to solidify these gains before the start down the tranny acceptance path. It’s all getting a beach head to eventually forcing churches to renounce the teachings against homosexuality- or else face being ostracized. If you can get Churches to renege on the gay thing, you effectively made them irrelevant- if you can walk back that position, all the rest about the divine nature of God is a cakewalk.
This was never about cake, it was about silencing opposition and removing societal norms.
Proof positive that the left is not really all that supportive of free speech or the First Amendment.
They were all for it when it meant supporting Larry Flynt or the civil rights movement but when it was applied to Christians…not so much.
Hey…I don’t care if gay people get married or not and don’t think the state should be in the marriage biz but if you read this law…it is very hard to come away with a feeling this law is discriminatory.
It has been a disaster for our state. There are other states with similar laws however there are a few differences. First of all is when they were passed. Public opinion has changed in the last 20 years. The majority support LGBT rights, which is really what this law is targeting. Secondly many of the other states that have similar laws also have protections for such groups where Indiana does not. They try to claim this law isn’t targeted but one only has to look at the driving minds behind it to see some of the most adamant anti LGBT minds in the country.
Now as for me personally, I am not opposed to the law. However I do feel there needs to be protections included for minorities.
Regardless of the original intent the law was ill conceived and rushed through against broad bi-partisan opposition. It was signed less than a week ago and the repercussions are already staggering. Saleforce, Angies list, the NCAA, NASCAR, Cummins, Eli Lily, and many others have come out strong against it. With many of them already canceling planned expansions. Not to mention at least two huge conventions that have pulled out of Indianapolis.
At the same time the mayor of Indy who is a Republican, and the city council have already came out strongly against it with the mayor signing an order telling city employees to ignore the law.
From my part of the state the reaction has been similar. All but the most evangelical people down here oppose it.
We are not against the idea of protecting a persons faith. We are against businesses being allowed to discriminate.
In the end this has been a debacle of biblical proportions and they are going to have to fix it fast. The simple fix seems to be amending it with anti discriminatory language.
Everyone should LOVE this law. It positively identifies every PRIVATE BUSINESS that doesn’t support the gay agenda. Rather than exclaim “FABULOUS” and know where to NOT spend their money they want to punish any business that dares not love the gay agenda.
I know that Jesus spoke of sexual immorality. My point is that most judge not out of love, and that most judge without accounting for their own sins. I think that these shops would have a greater impact in peoples lives (and less of a chance of a lawsuit) if they would state their objection to what they are doing and ask them, with this objection, if they still want them to perform the service. If they say yes, it then gives you more opportunities to carry on a discussion with them. IMO, simply refusing service is the easy way out.
How exactly is this law targeting LGBT rights? Follow on question: why was there not widespread discrimination in Indiana prior to last week? This doesn’t empower anyone to wake up today and say “Finally, I get to stick it to the queers!!!” If anyone was so inclined, they freely could have done so under Indiana law previously.
The government has to have a compelling interest and the least restrictive means to substantially burden the exercise of religious liberty. That’s all it says.
This isn’t Obamacare that no one had a chance to read. This is a short bill, the operative text of which is a virtual word for word copy from the federal RFRA (passed with 3 dissenting votes from the entirety of the US Congress) and many of the state versions.
The public statements by all of those groups you mentioned are nothing more than hypocritical reactionary uninformed BS, many probably only to placate the outrage whores on Twitter who have nothing better to do than sit around and bitch about stuff all day. NASCAR, for instance, essentially stated today that they would not be banning gays from their races. WTF? How is that a response? It’s a total non-sequitur.
Most important part (most of the rest of it is definitions and outlining procedural recourse):
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
OH MY GOD THAT IS AWFUL!!! The humanity, the depraved GOP…
…seriously, I don’t get it. I expected something about banning the color pink or capris on men. This is what has everyone in an uproar? Kristallnicht it ain’t.