The State of Hate

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
So if a lesbian had a florist shop or bakery, they should be forced by the government to service an anti gay event?


There isn't any 'force' about it: their business license requires them to obey the law, and that includes the laws against discrimination. Serving an event is not an endorsement, no matter how much they insist it is. Also, they knew what the law requires when they applied for whatever licensing is required, and they agreed to abide by the laws. Now they want an exemption?
If their religious beliefs are that powerful, they should not be offering to serve the general public. They can choose instead to open a business that is private, where they will serve only the customers they choose.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
The state of Indiana is solidly conservative and Republican, with that party holding not only the Governor's office but also the legislature by considerable majorities; they have a 71-29 majority in the state Senate and a 40-10 majority in the state House. Facts are stubborn things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

One word could explain why you're wrong: gerrymandering. Because sometimes, the facts don't paint the actual picture, and you know it. And even if the state is mostly Republican, that does not mean conservative, by a very long shot. A recent Ball State University poll found that 54% of adults do not support a ban on gay marriage being added to the state constitution, while 38% support it. That refutes your "solidly conservative" statement pretty well, methinks.
Care to respond to the words of Republican Senator Cindy Kirchofer, cited in my earlier post? We assume her constituents are also Republican, as they elected her, and they do not agree with the law Pence signed.
Interestingly, neither Pence, nor any of the others who agree with him, are offering any proof of public support for their position. There is only proof of public opposition, and there's an awful lot of that, so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Imagine if you will that you're traveling across the country from one airport to another. An airport not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose cabbies are that of imagination and 75% Muslim. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the MSP airport.

On a cold January night you exit the Minneapolis/St. Paul main terminal and enter a cab. You have been in the air since yesterday after departing Tokyo. You landed earlier in the day at SEA, then boarded a flight to MSP. You are cold and tired. At this point all you want to do is get a cab ride home, your hotel, The Mall Of America or wherever it is people flying in from Japan want to go when arriving in Minneapolis.

As you climb into the cab, the driver notices the bottle of saki you bought at the duty free. The cabbie, a Muslim, refuses to drive you to your destination on the grounds of religious beliefs. He will not take fares that have alcohol or dogs. The ham sandwich in your shirt pocket probably isn't helping either.

Does this wacky, Quran toting cabbie have a right to deny you, a white God fearing Christian a ride? According to a Minnesota court, he does not. Nor does a Nazi cabbie have the right to deny a Jew a ride. Even the ACLU goes along with this decision.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Exactly what the Founding Fathers intended to prevent: imposition of religious "beliefs" upon those who believe differently.

Umm, you may want to rethink using this statement. The ones forcing their beliefs on others are the LGBT groups and the government. A business owner is just saying I don't want to participate not that they want to force all businesses to not be able to participate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aristotle

paullud

Veteran Expediter

He was eating and having fellowship with them to lead them down a different path. Jesus wasn't forced to participate in their acts so there is a big difference.

It's pretty much always a waste of time to use propaganda like that as a way to express your thoughts because they are pretty much always pointless and way off base. The only people that think they make good points are the ones that already think that way but aren't capable of thinking for themselves.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
There isn't any 'force' about it: their business license requires them to obey the law,

That's the definition of force.

2force
verb
: to make (someone) do something that he or she does not want to do
: to make it necessary for (someone) to do something
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Why take up the spirit of offense over Indiana, I do not live there, so I do not care. It is has passed another man made law.........now don't forget, you are an expeditor......................
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
That's the definition of force.

2force
verb
: to make (someone) do something that he or she does not want to do
: to make it necessary for (someone) to do something

Wait till someone denies making him a cheeseburger because HE is against there religion. ..guaranteed he will sing a diffrent tune...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

witness23

Veteran Expediter
We're not talking about IBM. We're talking about Betsy's Cakes and Steve's Photos and Mohammad's Fine Hams. Any or all of them should have the right to say no to you or me or Fred or Ethel or anyone else they choose.

Mohammad's Fine Hams...... I get it, I see what you did there, boy you are clever. I bet if there are any racists or bigots reading this thread they spit whatever liquid was in their mouths all over their screen.

Way to go Indiana for passing a law in which your governor admittedly recognized, "I'm not aware of cases in controversy". All this just to throw some red meat to your religious conservative base in Indiana and those bigots around the internet forums that are giving you a big cyber pat on the back.

Bigots need stop using Christianity or any other religion for that matter to justify their bigotry? Christians should know better and these things just continues to give Christianity a bad name.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Especially when there is a lot of demogoguery going on with this law.
Article:
So RFRAs Don’t License Discrimination?
No. RFRA is a shield, not a sword. It can be used to defend oneself against lawsuits or administrative action. It can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law.

So How Does This Really Work?
For example, back in 2006 the Supreme Court considered a case (PDF) involving a psychotropic tea that believers of a New Mexico church imbibed as part of their religious ceremonies. Customs inspectors had seized the tea as a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. The high court applied the balancing test described above. First, no one disputed that depriving the believers of their tea would be a substantial burden on their exercise of religion. That’s the religion side of the scale. Second, the federal government in claimed it was just applying the Controlled Substances Act to everyone equally. But that is precisely why the government lost at the Supreme Court—unanimously. The government could not explain why it could not give an exemption to this little group of believers that wasn’t harming anyone with its tea. And so the government’s interest in uniform application of the Controlled Substance Act was outweighed by the interests of the believers in practicing their religion in peace.

If There’s a Federal RFRA, Why Do States Have to Have Them, Too?
That’s a different Supreme Court case. In 1997, the high court held that the federal government lacked the authority to impose RFRA on the states (hurray, government of limited power!). If the states want to have RFRAs, they have to adopt them on their own. Since then, 20 states have enacted RFRAs.

Is Indiana’s RFRA Like the Other RFRAS?
Yes and no. Indiana’s RFRA applies the same standard as in the other RFRAs that is described above: substantial burden versus compelling interest and least restrictive means. Indiana’s RFRA is a defense not just for individuals, but also companies and corporations. This is similar to the federal RFRA after Hobby Lobby, which also applies to individuals, companies, and closely-held corporations. But not all state RFRAs include companies and corporations. So that’s different in some states.

Indiana’s RFRA also protects individuals both in lawsuits or administrative actions brought by the government and in lawsuits brought by private parties. Some states, like New Mexico, do not allow RFRA to be used as a defense in litigation where the government isn’t a party. Also, the federal circuit courts are split about whether the federal RFRA can be used to defend against private lawsuits where the government isn’t a party. So that’s also different in some states and in some federal circuits.

Otherwise, it’s the same law.

You Didn’t Say Anything about the Gay Stuff.
That’s because the words “gay,” “lesbian,” and “sexual orientation” don’t appear in any of the RFRAs. Until now, the most controversial RFRA case was last year’s Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which was about whether the federal government has a compelling interest in forcing religious business owners to pay for abortifacents. (It doesn’t.)

This big gay freak-out is purely notional. No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide.

Why Is Everyone So Mad about Indiana’s RFRA, Then?
The fear is that it could be used to deny service to gay people in places of public accommodation like businesses and restaurants. But, as discussed above, no RFRA has ever been used that way before. Also, Indiana does not have a public accommodation law that protects against anti-gay discrimination, meaning there’s no state law in Indiana preventing anti-gay discrimination in businesses even before the state RFRA was enacted. Notably, despite the lack of such a law, nobody can point to any Indiana businesses that were discriminating against gays.

That’s what makes this an informed attribute. Gay marriage is on many people’s minds lately, for obvious reasons. In truth, though, Indiana is merely catching-up to states that have had RFRAs for decades—like Illinois, for example, which got its RFRA with the help of a young state senator named Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Indiana is now caught in the cultural cross-fire.

Do Religious Freedom Protections Hurt Gays?
It is entirely consistent to favor broad religious freedom protections and also favor gay rights. Many gays are religious, and so themselves benefit from religious freedom protections like RFRA. But even where gay Americans and religious Americans find themselves in conflict, there is ample room in communities to peaceably coexist. That’s the point of a RFRA. No side gets an automatic-victory card. The interests of all sides gets weighed.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/your-questions-on-indianas-religious-freedom-bill-answered/
 

x06col

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Retired Expediter
US Army
Most of Indiana is not conservative: Pence won the election with 49.62%, his opponent John Gregg had 46.42%. That's not a large majority - and even among the conservatives, there are many who support the right of gay people to be treated as everyone else. Cindy Kirchoffer, a Republican who voted against it, said that 75% of her calls, letters, and emails from constituents were against it, and she is obligated to represent them, not her personal ideology. [How refreshing!]
That isn't because of a gay "agenda", it's because gay people have finally quit pretending to be otherwise, and a great many people got educated by a [surprise!] gay family member, coworker, or friend. They may have been unhappy and/or uncomfortable at first, but over the past 10 years, they've come to understand that gay people are no different [except in the privacy of their own bedrooms, where none of us belong] than straight people. The sole justification for treating them differently is "religious beliefs", and that's not good enough. Those who don't share your beliefs should not be ruled by them, period.
As for your claim that the furor will subside, you're wrong on that too. It's growing, and Pence is only fanning the flames - because he's an arrogant governor who thinks he can impose his own ideology on the people he is paid to represent. It's about to get real, now.

It certainly is refreshing that a Politician votes the wishes of their constituents, I for one wish they all would. Cindy however, is not my representative and i'm only assuming that she represents the likes of the all knowing College town of Bloomington to get the 75% going that way, or lemme see what other Mecca is there in Indiana. Regardless, I believe that if all Rep's voted the way of the VOTERS...... the Measure stands.......doesn't it?
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
. . . I believe that if all Rep's voted the way of the VOTERS...... the Measure stands.......doesn't it?
The Jim Crow laws of the old south were supported by 75% of the voters also. Those laws were wrong and so is this one. As usual, Imho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Wait till someone denies making him a cheeseburger because HE is against there religion. ..guaranteed he will sing a diffrent tune...

That isn't even close to what the bill is for. The gay propaganda machine has really conned the gullible.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So it's not fine to tell someone thanks but no thanks causing them to go elsewhere but it is fine to force someone against their will to do something. That makes sense. That isn't any form of discrimination, putting one person above another. :rolleyes:
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Trying to draw an analogy between race, which is assigned at conception, and homosexuality which is a lifestyle choice and behavior, does not hold. The Left is forever trying to establish moral equivalencies where none exists. It's lazy. Feel-good talking points devoid of substance.
 
Last edited:
Top