I am sooo angry with our govenor!

[Subrosa]

Hmmmmmm.....should a Muslim owner of a t shirt store be compelled by law to fill an order for a t shirt depicting the prophet Mohammed, in direct conflict with his religion?

[Stray59]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Hmmmmmm.....should a Muslim owner of a t shirt store be compelled by law to fill an order for a t shirt depicting the prophet Mohammed, in direct conflict with his religion?

No, Subrosa, but the fact is, prior to this law the store owner had the right to say "No, I can't fulfill that order for you! Sorry." We all have the right to say "No", for whatever reason, UNLESS we are denying a group of people based, not on an individual, case-by-case scenario, but to openly discriminate against an entire group. Some of that MAY have occurred prior to this law, but we did not have any reported issues of such. Personally, if someone does not want to serve me, for whatever reason, I would not give them my money or my trust that they will do the job correctly.
But now, you can say "no", not just to an individual, but to an entire group. Now, under law, if a store owner decides not to serve a particular GROUP of people, he can exclude them from receiving services. Under this law, if a Muslim emergency room physician decides he will not operate on Christians, based solely on their religious differences, he cannot be forced to do so. Personally, I would not WANT a physician that does not WANT to operate on me to be forced into it, as he may decide to "re-assign" some body parts that I like right where they are! But, the spirit of this law allows such discriminatory practices.
A side note - a loophole in the law was found by a gentleman who immediately opened the "Church of Cannabis", which is legally protected under this law. It would not have been prior to this law being enacted.
Again, we already had the ability to refuse to provide service, so this was simply a conservative backlash to the majority decision to allow the LGBT community to marry, a law that WAS voted into being. Pence was against passing the law, and when it passed he and his minority of conservatives immediately went into action to curtail the new law to the best of their ability.
But no, prior to this law you could not force a person to create something they did not wish to.
But, we were not having such issues prior. There was nothing really gained by this bills passage into law. It just looks like we are ignorant, backwoods people who want to return to the pre-civil rights passage.
It just speaks volumes of the Govenor's ability to heed warnings and protect the State, which is his job. He protected nothing, and instead set us back several decades in human rights.
You cannot legislate morality - our past has shown that this never works. That is why we have "seperation of Church and State".

[orchidsarefun]

Stray59 - I believe the Governor has signed an amendment to the law and that everything should....belatedly...now be OK ?
I have an interesting story to tell regarding business flexibility. I like to think of myself as a curry afficianado and make a point of trying out local curries wherever I am at the time. I have travelled to most States in the USA and I have only found a few Indian Restaurants that serve beef curry or any kind of beef dish. ( look up the Hindu religion and you will know why ). The latest was in Little Rock AR - Star of India Restaurant. It has a wonderful beef curry and ( as usual ) I asked the Owner why he serves beef and how he reconciles it with his religion. I get one of 2 stock answers - either the Owner is actually Christian ( rarely ) or that the business wouldn't survive in that area without serving Beef Curry as a dish. He has a separate chef to prepare the beef curry.
Now one can have doubts or be sceptical, whatever, but I say this is a fantastic example of how businesses should be. They either survive....or make a plan to survive. That's the way it should be. No judgements on their customers. If I don't find beef, I just have lamb instead.
Funnily enough in other countries that I have travelled in, the serving of beef in Indian Restaurants doesn't seem to be that much of a noticeable issue. The USA has this beef issue and also the issue of selling goat curry as lamb curry, which really does get my goat......

[astrid]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Hmmmmmm.....should a Muslim owner of a t shirt store be compelled by law to fill an order for a t shirt depicting the prophet Mohammed, in direct conflict with his religion?

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).

[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.

[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.