WaPo:
Indiana has come under fire for a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Mike Pence (R) that would allow businesses to refuse service for religious reasons. The NCAA has voiced its concern ahead of Final Four in Indianapolis next week, there are calls to boycott the state, and Miley Cyrus has even weighed in, calling Pence a name that we can’t reprint on this family Web site in anInstagram post.
But Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Here are those states, in dark teal:
Forty percent of U.S. states have something similar to Indiana, as does the federal government.A federal RFRA signed by President Clinton in 1993 shares language with Indiana and other states’ bills, prohibiting the government from “substantially burdening” individuals’ exercise of religion unless it is for a “compelling government interest” and is doing so in the least restrictive means.
[Indiana is the battle over religious freedom that Arizona never was]
The fact that legislation like this is so widespread probably gave Pence some confidence in signing the bill, despite the controversy in Arizona last year over its bill that was ultimately scrapped, and in other states, likeGeorgia, which are considering similar measures this year (the NCSL found13 additional states are considering their own RFRA legislation).
Not listed is Utah which just signed a similar law a few days ago.
Gays were so confused in Utah that they weren’t sure how to respond.
Should any people have a right to not have to respect them?
Just a few years ago Obama was against gay marriage.
Now it is becoming mandatory to go beyond tolerance all the way to unconditional respect.
So now if a gay man walks into a bakery and demands the owner make a cake depicting anal sex on it the owner must comply, his religious beliefs notwithstanding.
Gayness trumps religious freedom. Mark the day.
How about the right to sit down and have a meal without some idiots protesting something that never even happened?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqYvlgZEAQ
Is there no protection of that?
@DrJohn: Mike Pence would have made Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly proud with today’s performance.
How on earth can you make one’s sexual preference a protected class?
Aren’t all people of one sexual preference or another, or another, or another?
They are.
It is silly to try to do this.
Anyone can make any claim about their sexual preference.
Who would know for sure but the one(s) they share their private life with?
And who should have to know?
The Indiana law makes it possible to TRY to defend one’s action based on conscience, but it does NOT guarantee any particular outcome in court.
I really believe that the REAL problem the Left has with these 20 laws is that, originally, when DEMS wrote, passed and signed some of those laws, they expected only THEIR versions of ”oppressed minorities,” (like native Americans who took payote as part of their religion) to be the beneficiaries of these laws.
They have their panties in a bunch over the idea that CHRISTIANS might also benefit from these very same laws.
Well, get over it!
We are seeing the writing on the walls: Christians are becoming a MINORITY!
Whites are also becoming a MINORITY.
You’re precious laws designed to punish the majority will more and more often be used to help Christians and whites.
@Nanny G:
That has been the goal from the very beginning of the “gay” movement.
@retire05: No one has answered the question: if a farmer takes a hog to a muslim to have it butchered, can the muslim refuse? If someone wants a Jew to make a Hitler cake do they have to do so? Can anyone refuse service to someone if they don’t wear shoes and shirts? Can a black baker refuse to make a cake with the N word on it?
Part of the problem with Indiana’s Senate Enrolled Act No. 101, suggestively titled “Religious Freedom Restoration,” might be that what it actually says—not to mention what the real-world implications could be—is totally incomprehensible to anyone who isn’t a lawyer, and quite possible as clear as mud to many of them as well. Having looked over the Act, I have no clue what is actually being “restored,” or to whom.
Plain, understandable language probably would have been helpful.
@Greg:
Obviously you were educated by liberals. Should you be able to understand English? Answer my question, should a black cake baker be required to put the N word on a cake if the customer requested it?
@Redteam:
Think about this: it is claimed that there are homosexuals in every faction of our society. If a gay, who is Jewish, refuses to bake a cake for a neo-Nazi group, who has standing in the eyes of the law? Being Jewish, being gay or the neo-Nazi who is being denied services based on the gay Jew’s faith?
People invest their money, and generally all they can borrow, to open a business and try to make a success out of it by working 12-14 hours, 6-7 days a week. Now, if they treat their employees with Christian based fairness and kindness, no one complains. But when they want to hold to those beliefs in their business dealings, then they are subject to losing everything they worked for because of someone’s hurt feelings and a tort lawyer.
Somehow I don’t think that is what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.
@Redteam, #9:
Oh, please. Did you actually read the text of the bill? Would you care to try explaining precisely what it says in plain English?
People think they know what it means, based on the words “Religious Freedom Restoration,” and on the spin that’s being rolled out both right and left. The truth is that they really don’t know. The language only seems like English; it’s actually Legalese. What the law means in everyday terms is anything but clear—most likely by intention. Lawyers love this kind of ambiguity. It presents an new opportunity for profitable litigation. Politicians also expected to get some mileage out of it, but that may have been a miscalculation.
How your hypothetical question relates to what the law means in real-world terms is anybody’s guess.
@Greg
Yes, had no problem understanding, however I attended public schools before the Commies took them over.
why do you want it in a foreign language, to you?
My question wasn’t hypothethical, it was a real question. See, that was in plain English and it blew right over your head.
I pretty much figured you couldn’t.
The problem with your examples in #7—except for the one relating to “No shirt, no shoes, no service”—is that they are reversals of the situation: Requesting such services from the specific people in question would themselves most likely be calculated acts of bigotry, where customers intended to offend the proprietors. Basically what the question revolves around is which party is behaving like a total a-hole as an expression of their bigotry. That person would be in the wrong.
Gay people are certainly not immune from being bigoted and/or total a-holes. If such a person were demanding that a wedding cake be provided because he or she calculated that the request would offend a fundamentalist bakery owner he or she hated because of their religious beliefs, the gay person would be the one guilty of bigotry. In my opinion the proprietor would be within their rights to refuse service.
My problem with the Indiana law is that it seems to assume that the religious person is always in the right. That’s obviously not the case.
So, was the ACA (obamacare) a TAX or not a TAX?
Obama promised no persons making less than $350,000/year would see a dime in increased TAXES, but then he insisted that ACA was a TAX, and a big one, too.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N92I7TKi0Fg/VRh8tlaLcQI/AAAAAAAALlk/XTiWRWz-BfU/s1600/health-care-and-entertainment-percent-share-of-average-annual-total-consumer-expenditures-per-consumer-unit-1984-2013.png
How complex was the bill for ACA?
So complex Dems claimed it wouldn’t matter how long they had to read it first, they couldn’t read it, it was impossible to read.
Gov. Mike Pence called on lawmakers Tuesday to pass legislation clarifying that it does not allow business owners to discriminate in providing services on his desk by the end of this week!
Let’s see what they come up with.
It might be a pattern of how we can rewrite away the ACA.
@Greg; The real problem is that it is absolutely impossible not to offend people who are looking to be offended. So, once a business is detected having some religious principles, those will be tested and no one does this better than leftists. Anti-religious or pro-gay activists are infamous for pushing the limits well beyond reasonable extremes in order to force someone else to submit to THEIR values (or lack thereof).
What this law does is protect business owners from frivolous lawsuits for denying service based on their beliefs (yes, some people still have them). In fact, there should be no need for such a law, but the left makes them necessary.
Asa Hutchinson now buckling under pressure. Bets on which Repub. Gov. is next?
Religious Freedom Act lol
@Greg:
Refresh my memory because I don’t remember you having the same complaint about the Affordable Care Act that John Conyers said he did not read since it would take two days and two Constitutional lawyers to explain it. Did you support that bill although you never read it and most certainly could not understand it?
@Greg:
So you are admitting that when the homosexuals demanded the bakery cater their wedding that it was done as a calculated act of bigotry?
Since the act is written in English Legalese and you can’t understand it, I’m assuming English is not your first language. But as I pointed out, that may not be an accurate assumption, the truth may be just because you were educated by liberals, most of which have liberalism as their first language.
I don’t find it strange that you won’t answer questions, but expect others to answer your questions. That is your liberal training also.
So who is in charge of determining that: the request by a a gay was done as a calculation to offend?
I know you’re not going to believe this, but that’s the purpose of the RFRA. If you are the business owner and you suspect someone is asking you to break your Religious rights, ‘just for the hell of it’ that you have the right to refuse. As in, if I were to request a Black cake baker to put the N word on the cake, it would just be to taunt him. He would have the right to refuse. Without the RFRA, he does not have the right to refuse.
As I said, I know you’re not going to understand that, it’s written in English.
@Redteam:
And that is exactly what happened. But the Christians lost in court.
In Lexington, Kentucky, a city with a population of almost 1/2 million, gay pride parade organizers contacted Hands On Originals for the printing of t-shirts promoting the gay pride day parade. The t-shirt printers declined the order, but tried to help the even organizers by recommending another t-shirt printer. That wasn’t good enough for the gays. They sued the business.
Now, was that a setup? Take a look at the website for Hands On Originals and look at who the tributes are coming from:
http://www.handsonoriginals.co/
Hummmmm!!! “Christian” Outfitters. Are we to believe that this business wasn’t targeted by the gays? Really? There was no other t-shirt printer available in a city of almost 1/2 million? Because if anyone believes that, I have some ocean front property to sell them that is located in Lubbock.
But people like Gullible Greggie don’t care as long as it is not their ox being gored.
@retire05:
I think that was likely because they weren’t able to prove that it was just to make them violate their faith, that they, in fact, wanted or needed, for them to cater the wedding.
Whereas, I believe, that if I wanted a black cake business to put the N word on a cake, it would be ‘just for the hell of it’ and their right to refuse would be upheld. (and i would likely agree with that} However, I would also suspect that their was not a good reason that only that one business could cater the gay wedding either.
As you well know, liberals want it both ways. They want the right to discriminate against whites and conservatives, but do not want those persons to be able to discriminatat against other races or liberals. That’s the liberal world.
@retire05:
Having been involved in youth sports for years with many orders for shirt printing, here’s how I would have handled that if I were the shirt printer. I would have given a bid about 50% higher than my normal bid price. In return for my ‘special price’ I would have a stipulation that the name of the printer business would not appear on the shirt or on any materials associated with the orders. I’m relatively sure they would have found a different printer. Since the printer controlled the web site, they wouldn’t have to allow any comment on it by the gays.
@Redteam: KISS No businees would be required to print obscene material–two men or a man and woman performing a sexual act–print the n word on a shirt etc. However if the shirt simply lauds gay pride, muslim pride or hetero love–why should a business be able to refuse making the shirt or serving them a Pepsi?
@Redteam:
I think you are confusing cases. I referred to the case of the Christian t-shirt printers. It was decided that the t-shirt printers had no right to refuse to print the message wanted by the gay group that would have promoted the gay pride event.
I believe the decision was wrong based on the fact that the printer refused based on the message to be put on the t-shirts. Had the gay group wanted t-shirts printed with say, an American flag only, the printer would not have refused. IOW, we no longer have freedom of expression.
Same with the photographer who was sued because they would not photograph a lesbian “commitment” ceremony. It wasn’t even a wedding, but the photographer would have been required to attend. The photographer was fined $7,000.00 for refusing. The New Mexico Supreme Court determined that gays are a “protected” class, but Christians are not. IOW, we no longer have freedom of association.
Just read Antonio Gramsci and see where all this came from.
@Redteam:
And you would have been hauled into court for “financial” discrimination.
These cases are going to become more frequent. You will NOT be allowed to dissent. You WILL accept gays no matter your religious beliefs, your beliefs in nature, or for any other reason. Tolerance was never their goal, it was always forced acceptance.
@retire05:
My point was that the printer could charge whatever price they wanted to charge for a large order. They could charge them a price high enough that they would most likely find someone else to do the work.. When I placed orders for teams of shirts, sometimes 25 cents per shirt made a lot of difference. If the going rate for what they wanted was ‘say’ $12 per shirt, then give them a bid of $18. State that terms of the bid is that the name of the printer will not appear on the shirt or in any activities of the event. Don’t allow any comments on the web site. If they are fool enough to agree, then print the shirts and make the money on them. Consider it a penalty to the buyer for ‘rushing’ you for work you didn’t have time to do. If by chance the customer chose to accept the price, then by the time the issue of delivery time gets ‘cleared up’ and it results in an extra charge for a ‘rush’ order, then they may turn it down. After all if the ‘gays’ can’t say who printed the shirt, it may not be worth it to force them to do it.
In the case of the ‘wedding’ photographer, now that they know the price for ‘not shooting a gay wedding’ is $7000, then I think it is only fair that the price for shooting one is closer to $10,000. If there is a charge for not shooting, then be sure the charge for shooting is high enough.
These people that are ‘refusing’ to do these things should be using money to make the difference because they will be expected to pay out if they refuse to do the business.
@retire05:
I don’t think so. If we got most bids for shirts at say $10-12 and one bidder bid $18, we didn’t carry them to court for the price, we just went with the $10 bid. It didn’t occur to me that they might be bidding 18 just to not get the work. Printing shirts and wedding photography are both ‘bid’ type work. Unless money is no object, you don’t go with the high bidder. I don’t think anyone could win a case of discrimination of price. Last time I checked, the government is not allowed to ‘fix’ prices for screen printing shirts.
@Redteam:
And when the printer had to prove, in court, that they had charged others the same increased rate, based on similar number of t-shirts, complexity of design, numbers of colors required, etc. they would have still lost.
The printer was chosen simply because they advertised they were Christian, and for no other reason.
No, these people are not letting the almighty dollar trump their religious beliefs. I am a little surprised that you think the dollar should trump religious beliefs. Thank God that we, as a nation, still have people of principal among us. Unfortunately, they are too few.
@Redteam:
Price was never the issue nor was the lowest bid the goal. Going after a proclaimed Christian business was.
@Redteam:
I suggest you check the law on “unfair” business practices. Gouging is against the law.
@retire05:
I don’t think that would be the issue in court. I think the person initiating the suit would have to show that, in fact, it was not within the limits of what the printer was allowed to charge. I think that Apple could make a case that just because most of their cell phones sell for $600 didn’t mean that they couldn’t make and sell one for $900. I believe all small businesses can charge whatever the customer agrees to pay. I bought an empty 55 gallon drum the other day. I paid $15 for it because that is what the person that owned it said she wanted for it. I did not ‘have’ to buy it, nor did she ‘have’ to sell it, but since she was willing to sell it for 15 and I was willing to pay 15, we made the transaction. Had she told me she wanted 30, I would probably not have bought it, nor do I think I would have the right to take her to court and force her to sell it for 15. I don’t think she would have to prove in court, that she had charged 30 in the past either.
but, back to the issue. the RFRA gives the person not wanting to perform the service the right to show that it is actually for religious beliefs and not just because someone is gay. If it is not for religious conviction, then they should have to perform the service.
You took me back, way back!
From when we were still in the printing biz.
And from before that to when things were humming along in our economy, well before 9-11-01.
Yes, we used to do that all the time.
Bid high just so as not to have to add on a new customer when we knew we were going to be busy enough.
There are intangibles involved in the set up for each job.
Some of these are more expensive than others, sometimes a job is said to be ”camera ready,” but then there are other factors that make it even more expensive than a job not camera ready at all.
New customers can be a pain for a lot of reasons.
Sometimes you’d just bid the job so high you could avoid the headaches.
As to these days, in case you hadn’t noticed, nobody carries much inventory anymore.
If you want a product that a company sells, it has to get it after you order it, there won’t be one at the company for you to look at.
Even places like Lowes and Home Depot follow this sales plan, which forces you to either plan ahead for a high-end appliance OR take what they have in stock (usually their own lines only.)
You might think a T-shirt printer could take on any job equally, but, because of dye and shirt availability, it might be far from the truth.
@Nanny G:
And how many different colors and on and on. Then you find out they need them next week and then you find out one is a XXX. And since all your equipment is already obligated, you’ll have to run your equipment from ll at night til 7 in the morning and someone is going to have to work overtime.
Just see where Calif is ordering water conservation for the 1st time ever. One of the deals is to replace 50 million acres of grass with other ground covering (rocks, etc) Now obviously that means that Ca is more concerned about water than they are with the climate. Do they not know how much CO2 50 millions acres of grass consumes in a year? And here all the algore followers are all worried about CO2, but not when it comes to water. No……..they abandon all their climate concerns just for a drink of water.
@Redteam: I’ve been watching these backwoods Georgian florists saying they wouldn’t provide floral arrangements for people they knew to be gay.
WTF—Jeff Davis County no less
Nothing like a bigoted comment from a radical left winger from the failed state of California.
@retire05:
Who said anything about gouging? A business such as screen printing is very variable on pricing. Every point is figured in. How many colors, price of unprinted shirt, size of shirts, labor rate of printer, time job received, when it has to be complete, number of dyes, number of screen printings per shirt, cost of dyes, cost of anticipated law suit because they know they’re not gonna make the gays happy and they’re gonna have to sue them to get their money, maybe a 50% deposit.
The power of the purse could easily solve many of these problems. Making public statements ahead of time doesn’t help anyone’s case, the gay or the shop.
@rich wheeler:
You must’ve been watching PMSNBC, I heard they had 3 viewers today. I guess you and 2 others.
Is that how they were described on the news show as “backwoods Georgia florists”? isn’t that some type of discrimination or is it okay since it was probably coming from the commie side and the florists were likely white people.
That coming from a lib in the failed state of Confusio….uh, California. Isn’t obscenity in the eye of the beholder? Two men kissing is totally obscene ‘to me’. So could I not put that on the cake? I’m quite sure sodomy is not obscene to gays. So does each city or county set up an obscenity committee?. The Supreme Court has already ruled that obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why gays can run around in assless chaps in Calif but not in most other states. Likely even mostly just in San Francisco.
@Redteam: Interviews were on CNN. Do you side with these florists who would deny their services to potential customers they knew to be gay? Does this law permit them to do that?
Racism and bigotry should not be allowed to hide behind the cloak of religious freedom. Wouldn’t you agree RT?
@rich wheeler:
oh, so now you’ve bailed on PMSNBC also.
question: how do they know they are gay? But it would depend on the service requested. If it is to sell them flowers and deliver them to a church (huh, gays wedding in church?) I would say they should have to do so provided they pay the listed prices for the services rendered.
Assuming you’re referring to RFRA law, then it would require them to perform the service. There not apparently being any religious questions involved.
true but: Racism and bigotry should not be allowed to hide behind the cloak of Racism and bigotry either.
Wouldn’t you agree RW?
@rich wheeler:
Let me give you an example: two women walk into a florist shop. They order flowers to be picked up two weeks from Saturday. How is the florist supposed to know that the two women are gay? Can you tell gays just by looking at them? What if it was two men? How can you tell they are gay? The order would be filled and there would be no problem.
But if you expect the florist, who holds beliefs guaranteed by the First Amendment, to participate in the gay wedding by not only delivering the flowers, but setting them up at the site of the ceremony, I believe, absolutely, that the florist has a right to refuse to participate in that ceremony.
Funny that you, who claims to be a Christian, would label those who hold to Christian tenets as showing “bigotry.”
Your Christian values seem to fold as quickly as a cheap suit, just as your loyalty to the Marines does.
@retire05: Your usual crass insults 05 Boring
The florists said they would not provide even a dozen roses if they knew the customers to be gay–no mention of weddings.
Christian tenets—what would you know about them?You’re a proud bigot and homophobe. NOTHING Christian about that.
@Redteam: Never have watched MSNBC–though you seem to know a lot about it.
@rich wheeler:
still pointing fingers? is your finger pointing toward you?
and no one else watches it either. I seem to know only because I see the stats on who watches which stations. They seem to have a problem because PMSNBC has 3 viewers one day then 2 the next and they can’t figure out how to list that half viewer. Seems even libs don’t buy their leftie world.
@Redteam: You and your girlfriend are the homophobes RT. You two old dinosaurs oughta get a .room.
@rich wheeler:
If you think I’m a homophobe then you don’t know a damn thing and can’t understand anything you read. I will assure you that you can’t quote one single ‘homophobe’ thing I’ve written. You are the one that has the ‘pointing’ finger.
@rich wheeler:
Can you provide a link that reports that? Or is that just another one of your fables to support your argument? And how, exactly, would the florist know that the person trying to purchase flowers was gay? Ummmm? Got an answer for that?
Just because you want to ignore Biblical teachings so your brand of “Christianity” will mold itself to your left wing progressive beliefs doesn’t mean everyone does. It simply means that you are a cafeteria Christian, picking only those teachings that you like, discarding those that don’t fit your progressive agenda.
And believe me when I tell you that calling me a “homophobe” is funny beyond your wildest imagination and only shows that you really have no retort except for insults, which you seem to object to when you think they are thrown your way. Hypocrite.
@rich wheeler:
That’s pretty funny coming from someone with as many years on them as you have.
@retire05: yeah, I’m pretty sure Richie is about as old as I am. I guess judging by his comments, he’s some kind of specialist on homosexuals.
@Redteam:
Perhaps since RW feels so strongly about people being forced to accept homosexuality as normal, he should make himself a sign that says “Support Homosexual Acts” with his name and address on the sign and stand in front of one of California’s mosques.
@retire05: Sounds like an excellent idea, how about it Rich?