I am sooo angry with our govenor!

[Stray59]

I too will defend anyone's right to live as they choose, as long as that does not impose on the rights of others, but here is the rub - what if two opposing views appear to both be "in the right"? Say my right to live and love as I choose pitted against someone else's right to refuse to bake me a cake.... both sides feel the other is compromising their rights. But, should someone's right to maintain or practice their religious beliefs outweigh my right to be treated equally under the law? Again, kind of depends on which side of the fence you are on.....personally, I would not want a cake, or any other good or service, that I had to sue someone in order to get - I wouldn't trust it!
I doubt we solve this problem on this post........I wish it were that easy.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by astrid

This would be refusing to do a particular task based on the task in and of itself. They could also refuse to print a shirt with a vulgar image, a curse word, a swastika, and so on.

A cake bakery could deny making someone a giant penis-cake, too. Maybe because they are religious, maybe because they don't want to make something that may offend other clients.
These are not prejudiced acts. These are acts that the shop owner would deny to all customers.

When you deny one customer a service that you offer to all other customers based on your personal prejudice against them, that is being a bigot. If someone doesn't serve someone who is a racial minority solely based on that fact, they are racist.

Therein lies the major difference.

---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

EVERYTHING going on in Indiana right now offends me!! From the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which was amended to protect LGBT people and other minorities) to the poor woman Purvi Patel now in prison for 22 years for "feticide" (and simultaneously child endangerment? how can you be charged with both?) ... it's just astonishing me how people are being treated there.
I am feeling really upset and angry about so much of this.

In the words of the Notorious RBG, "You are free to move your arm all around, but the second your arm might hit someone's face, your freedom ends." We have so much freedom here, yet we try to restrict minority groups even in the present day.

...yet people say we live in a post-racial, post-sexist, and post-discrimination society? Not by a longshot!!

And Stray59, I know not all people in/from Indiana are responsible for this!

At any rate, I'll just publicly state here that I believe in equality for all people and fair treatment regardless of your minority status (female, religion, lgbt status, disability, socioeconomic status, mental health, and so on).

The flaw in your logic is that you equate someone holding the religious belief that marriage is solely between a man and a woman as prima facie evidence that the person is bigoted. Using the pizza shop as an example, an owner who would refuse all service to someone simply because of their sexuality would indeed qualify as a bigot. However you don't seem to accept the fact that there are many people who on a day to day basis don't really care what other people do with their genitalia. Until the concept of marriage, about which they have specific, Constitutionally protected beliefs about enters the equation. A person who refuses to serve someone based upon their sexuality within those specific circumstances is not being a bigot, they are not being a hypocrite. And again I ask, from where does the government derive its authority to force them to be a hypocrite?

[astrid]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

The flaw in your logic is that you equate someone holding the religious belief that marriage is solely between a man and a woman as prima facie evidence that the person is bigoted. Using the pizza shop as an example, an owner who would refuse service to someone simply because of their sexuality would indeed qualify as a bigot. However you don't seem to accept the fact that there are many people who on a day to day basis don't really care what other people do with their genitalia. Until the concept of marriage, about which they have specific, Constitutionally protected beliefs about enters the equation. A person who refuses to serve someone based upon their sexuality within those specific circumstances is not being a bigot, they are not being a hypocrite. And again I ask, from where does the government derive its authority to force them to be a hypocrite?

I think if you have a business open to the public, then you deny some members of the public your services based on their protected minority status, you are being a bigot.
You can't have things both ways. Either you're serving everyone equally, or you should serve only people who agree with your lifestyle/religion privately through your religious facilities. Deviation from that is treating people unequally. Period.

Believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman is a bigoted belief, imo. You shouldn't try to force your religion on others, and you shouldn't try to legislate your religious beliefs in a way that limits the freedoms and rights of others, or imposes them on others.
I support freely practicing religion, but if it prevents you from treating people with decency and equality, maybe you shouldn't participate in those activities that lead you to treat people unfairly.

In the words of Captain Picard to Worf:
"Mr. Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Starfleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?"
"No sir."

If you choose to serve the public, yet you cannot do your job because your religious beliefs are contradictory to the service you offer, you should not do that job.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by astrid

I think if you have a business open to the public, then you deny some members of the public your services based on their protected minority status, you are being a bigot.
You can't have things both ways. Either you're serving everyone equally, or you should serve people privately through your religious facilities. Deviation from that is treating people unequally. Period.

Believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman is a bigoted belief, imo. You shouldn't try to force your religion on others, and you shouldn't try to legislate your religious beliefs in a way that limits the freedoms and rights of others, or imposes them on others.
I support freely practicing religion, but if it prevents you from treating people with decency and equality, maybe you shouldn't participate in those activities that lead you to treat people unfairly.

In the words of Captain Picard to Worf:
"Mr. Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Starfleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?"
"No sir."

If you choose to serve the public, yet you cannot do your job because your religious beliefs are contradictory to the service you offer, you should not do that job.

You seem to support the right of others to freely practice their religion in ways and places you agree with. And the liberal use of force against those who don't toe your line. Too many people thinking like that is what feeds this problem. I suppose I should mention my own belief system in the interests of full disclosure. I'm an atheist who can read and understand the US Constitution. And more importantly, I can accept that the fair and just application of it may create situations with which I do not personally agree and which may not benefit my particular situation.

---------- Post added at 02:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 AM ----------

Originally Posted by astrid

I think if you have a business open to the public, then you deny some members of the public your services based on their protected minority status, you are being a bigot.
You can't have things both ways. Either you're serving everyone equally, or you should serve only people who agree with your lifestyle/religion privately through your religious facilities. Deviation from that is treating people unequally. Period.

Believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman is a bigoted belief, imo. You shouldn't try to force your religion on others, and you shouldn't try to legislate your religious beliefs in a way that limits the freedoms and rights of others, or imposes them on others.
I support freely practicing religion, but if it prevents you from treating people with decency and equality, maybe you shouldn't participate in those activities that lead you to treat people unfairly.

In the words of Captain Picard to Worf:
"Mr. Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Starfleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?"
"No sir."

If you choose to serve the public, yet you cannot do your job because your religious beliefs are contradictory to the service you offer, you should not do that job.

Consider this. Would you force an exterminator who has a soft spot for raccoons to do jobs that could bring harm to raccoons? Or would your own soft spot for furry creatures earn him a pass? Your feelings and emotions are as wholly unsuitable as a basis for law as my own, or those of any person.

[My Green Pets]

If patrons are going to be subject to a specific code of ethics in order to receive services, perhaps we might encourage the business owner to post his policy outside his shop.


"Jews are not served here"

[Stray59]

I KNEW someone was going to go there!
subrosa:
I am confused as I read back over one of your posts where you say that a person standing on their Constitutional right not to respect a marriage between the same sexes is not hypocritical or bigoted, they are just exercising their Constitutional rights. The flaw that I see in your argument is that hypocrisy goes to a moral and ethical issue and the law is neither moral or ethical...it is suppose to be founded on a sense of justice and equality.
Sorry, but in my book, if you are discriminating against a group based on specific traits, then you are discriminating plain and simple. If that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot, well that is your choice to make, isn't it? Plus that is a totally different argument.
In my opinion, when I do open a business I will understand that I will be serving "the public" and all that entails. If I do not not feel that I can serve the entire public, as it is, I should choose a different business where I would not be dependent on the public, rather than feel I could pick and choose my customers.

[astrid]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

You seem to support the right of others to freely practice their religion in ways and places you agree with. And the liberal use of force against those who don't toe your line. Too many people thinking like that is what feeds this problem. I suppose I should mention my own belief system in the interests of full disclosure. I'm an atheist who can read and understand the US Constitution. And more importantly, I can accept that the fair and just application of it may create situations with which I do not personally agree and which may not benefit my particular situation.

---------- Post added at 02:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 AM ----------


Consider this. Would you force an exterminator who has a soft spot for raccoons to do jobs that could bring harm to raccoons? Or would your own soft spot for furry creatures earn him a pass? Your feelings and emotions are as wholly unsuitable as a basis for law as my own, or those of any person.

The exterminator should not be an exterminator if he cannot do his job. I will not work in a biology lab where I am forced to kill or harm animals, even if this sort of research can lead to improved medicines for humans and non-human animals alike. So I will not do the job because I could not accept the job description.

As for me – I am also an atheist.
And as for "You seem to support the right of others to freely practice their religion in ways and places you agree with" - yeah. I do. Because "in ways and places I agree with" means "in ways and places that do not actively oppress other people."

I'm sorry, I don't want to argue with you anymore because you have a very frustrating way of thinking.

Like I quoted RBG before: “We have the right to swing our arm until it hits the other fellow's nose.”

When bigoted beliefs cause others to feel marginalized, not accepted, afraid, suicidal, and actively oppressed, I do not support those beliefs. Arm meet nose.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by CambriaWhat

If patrons are going to be subject to a specific code of ethics in order to receive services, perhaps we might encourage the business owner to post his policy outside his shop.


"Jews are not served here"

I was wondering if someone would stoop to the point of playing the Nazi card. Hopefully the post was alcohol induced. Probably time to go before I say something even a fraction as reprehensible as this person just did. Forum rules prevent any reply that even approaches expressing the level of contempt such simple minded comments on such important matters elicits in me.

---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 AM ----------

Originally Posted by astrid

The exterminator should not be an exterminator if he cannot do his job. I will not work in a biology lab where I am forced to kill or harm animals, even if this sort of research can lead to improved medicines for humans and non-human animals alike. So I will not do the job because I could not accept the job description.

As for me – I am also an atheist.
And as for "You seem to support the right of others to freely practice their religion in ways and places you agree with" - yeah. I do. Because "in ways and places I agree with" means "in ways and places that do not actively oppress other people."

I'm sorry, I don't want to argue with you anymore because you have a very frustrating way of thinking.

Like I quoted RBG before: “We have the right to swing our arm until it hits the other fellow's nose.”

When bigoted beliefs cause others to feel marginalized, not accepted, afraid, suicidal, and actively oppressed, I do not support those beliefs. Arm meet nose.

Saying that an exterminator who doesn't want to harm raccoons can't or shouldn't be an exterminator seems a bit harsh to me me. Sorry if my way of expressing my opinion on the subject makes you feel uncomfortable enough to not wish to continue without providing any real satisfaction to you.

[Stray59]

I think I am bowing out of this for a while....I would suggest that others do also. I never intended for a thread to cause hard feelings on the Board and I do hope that this all stays right here and does not somehow translate into negative interactions on the rest of the Board.
As I said earlier - we will not settle this debate here. I was initially just venting and upset over a large step back in our state's culture and a huge blow to our economy.....this topic could really careen out of control and if it goes that way I will request the thread be deleted.
I think I will go back to orchids now......I am not as pissed off at Pence, but I am concerned that this will go into some really ugly places.
Please do not allow that to happen.........

---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------

I have asked a super moderator to review this post and to block or remove it if she deems it appropriate to do so.
I do regret if I brought any friction to members of the board - we have enough of that in life as it is.
Have a good week everyone!

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by Stray59

I think I am bowing out of this for a while....I would suggest that others do also. I never intended for a thread to cause hard feelings on the Board and I do hope that this all stays right here and does not somehow translate into negative interactions on the rest of the Board.
As I said earlier - we will not settle this debate here. I was initially just venting and upset over a large step back in our state's culture and a huge blow to our economy.....this topic could really careen out of control and if it goes that way I will request the thread be deleted.
I think I will go back to orchids now......I am not as pissed off at Pence, but I am concerned that this will go into some really ugly places.
Please do not allow that to happen.........

---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------

I have asked a super moderator to review this post and to block or remove it if she deems it appropriate to do so.
I do regret if I brought any friction to members of the board - we have enough of that in life as it is.
Have a good week everyone!

Any discussion on legal matters such as this causes hard feelings only among those who see their feelings as sound basis for laws. The law is like a house. It's built from the ground up, and the foundation of that house in the US is the Constitution. That foundation clearly states that it is the final arbiter of what the law in the US is. Every other legal process, other than those of amendment and repeal build upon that foundation without negating it.