Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Well, the question of whether simply being a person entitles you to anything is a whole different debate, but again, that was not my question. My question did not petain to the veracity of the arguments of the pro and anti-bill sides on this matter. Instead, it pertained to your original point, which appeared simply to be; because they are losing, and because society as a whole is no longer favourable to them, they should just give up. Now, again, I put it to you, if you and your people were losing on whatever issue, would you just give up in order to avoid 'lashing out'?

That wasn't my point, though.

My point is that discrimination is objectively wrong, and people who feel they need to do so and have done so for plenty of time are now angry that society has finally realized that there is an injustice to be fixed and will no longer enable them to do so, so they lash out and pass legislation like this that creates a state-sanctioned opportunity to hide behind their religion and business entities and continue to discriminate.

My point is not detached from the context of this situation. You cannot decontextualize this so you can say, "AHA! You hypocrite! You want others to give up when you won't!" when I say what you want me to say.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What a wonderful fantasy world some posters live in where anti-discrimination laws are no longer needed! If only the real world were so perfect!

Define "needed".

If you mean that there would be no discrimination if the civil rights laws were repealed, then quite obviously that's not the case and I don't think anyone here has asserting such a ridiculous strawman.  This is the Atlas Forum, not Fox News.

If you mean that the level of discrimination would be so minor as to make such laws on private businesses unnecessary, then maybe.  The homogenization of American society along with the franchizification of American commerce mean that the public accommodation laws aren't strongly needed,  Shame and boycotts can probably deal with that area of commerce.  Housing and employment are areas where a stronger case can be made, certainly strong enough that I see no reason to repeal such laws, and a partial repeal for just public accommodations would be more trouble than it would be worth.

Still, let me point out that I don't think zero tolerance for intolerance is a desirable goal.  Only when the effects of intolerance rise to the level of causing economic or physical harm to people.  But preventing hurt feelings aren't enough in my opinion to justify such laws.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My point is that discrimination is objectively wrong,

Objectively?  It certainly is subjectively wrong in general, and not just for those discriminated against, but also those who do the discriminating.  However objectively wrong is a stronger statement and one that I don't see as obviously true.  But even if it be objectively wrong, it is not the function of government to address every wrong, but only those which society has determined to be wrong enough to be worth the attention of the blunt instrument.  That determination is inherently a subjective one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

"Religious freedom" means the freedom to practice your religion, things like building a church, attending religious services, observing certain holy days and such. 

"Religious freedom" does not mean this freestanding right to divest yourself of any contact with people you dislike.  I would hope we all agree for example: A religious person could not create a taxi service or an airline that banned Jews or Catholics.

It certainly would be against current law.  It certainly would be economically stupid to limit one's market, even without taking into consideration the boycott of such a business by those who would object to such discrimination despite not being personally affected.  However, the prevention of stupidity by itself is insufficient to pass a law banning a practice however much even a majority finds objectionable.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If you mean that the level of discrimination would be so minor as to make such laws on private businesses unnecessary, then maybe.  The homogenization of American society along with the franchizification of American commerce mean that the public accommodation laws aren't strongly needed,  Shame and boycotts can probably deal with that area of commerce.  Housing and employment are areas where a stronger case can be made, certainly strong enough that I see no reason to repeal such laws, and a partial repeal for just public accommodations would be more trouble than it would be worth.

I think that's an incredibly naive way of thinking. Yes, there are many parts of the country where actively discriminating against gay people in the name of "religious freedom" would drive a company out of business. But there are plenty of regions where that's not the case. A town in rural Texas could easily have a supermarket, doctor's office, drug store and restaurants that proudly flaunt their "religious freedom," and because they live in a town that may oppose gay marriage by 80% or more, face little consequence. Quite the opposite -- there are many scenarios where a conservative Christian community would come together to protect such a business from harm.

Don't think this will happen? There are a stunning number of towns and communities that are actively working to skirt federal discrimination laws to keep black people out. This is not about protecting people's feelings. This is about protecting people from real financial harm in the name of a perversely twisted religious freedom to discriminate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If you mean that the level of discrimination would be so minor as to make such laws on private businesses unnecessary, then maybe.  The homogenization of American society along with the franchizification of American commerce mean that the public accommodation laws aren't strongly needed,  Shame and boycotts can probably deal with that area of commerce.  Housing and employment are areas where a stronger case can be made, certainly strong enough that I see no reason to repeal such laws, and a partial repeal for just public accommodations would be more trouble than it would be worth.

I think that's an incredibly naive way of thinking. Yes, there are many parts of the country where actively discriminating against gay people in the name of "religious freedom" would drive a company out of business. But there are plenty of regions where that's not the case. A town in rural Texas could easily have a supermarket, doctor's office, drug store and restaurants that proudly flaunt their "religious freedom," and because they live in a town that may oppose gay marriage by 80% or more, face little consequence. Quite the opposite -- there are many scenarios where a conservative Christian community would come together to protect such a business from harm.

Don't think this will happen? There are a stunning number of towns and communities that are actively working to skirt federal discrimination laws to keep black people out. This is not about protecting people's feelings. This is about protecting people from real financial harm in the name of a perversely twisted religious freedom to discriminate.

What does religious objection to gay marriage have to do with a drug store or a supermarket?

[bedstuy]

"Religious freedom" means the freedom to practice your religion, things like building a church, attending religious services, observing certain holy days and such. 

"Religious freedom" does not mean this freestanding right to divest yourself of any contact with people you dislike.  I would hope we all agree for example: A religious person could not create a taxi service or an airline that banned Jews or Catholics.

It certainly would be against current law.  It certainly would be economically stupid to limit one's market, even without taking into consideration the boycott of such a business by those who would object to such discrimination despite not being personally affected.  However, the prevention of stupidity by itself is insufficient to pass a law banning a practice however much even a majority finds objectionable.

Insufficient by what metric?  You seem to think discrimination isn't a big deal.  You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way.  

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.  There's a basic right to be treated like a normal member of society, regardless of your race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.  That's a norm we ought to enforce, even as we allow people to make up their own mind and conscience.  

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way.  

that's a pretty huge assumption to make about someone you only know from online conversation.

[bedstuy]

You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way.  

that's a pretty huge assumption to make about someone you only know from online conversation.

Ah, you're right.  He's not someone who is unfairly discriminated against in any way.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way. 

that's a pretty huge assumption to make about someone you only know from online conversation.

Ah, you're right.  He's not someone who is unfairly discriminated against in any way.

You say this how?  Because he's not on your short list of approved discriminated against identities so therefore he must never have experienced any prejudice? That's incredibly small minded.

And what is this that some discrimination against people is fair? It's okay if its groups of people you don't like?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I know of a good solution to this bill:

[bedstuy]

You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way. 

that's a pretty huge assumption to make about someone you only know from online conversation.

Ah, you're right.  He's not someone who is unfairly discriminated against in any way.

You say this how?  Because he's not on your short list of approved discriminated against identities so therefore he must never have experienced any prejudice? That's incredibly small minded.

And what is this that some discrimination against people is fair? It's okay if its groups of people you don't like?

He's a straight white Christian man in America.  Ergo, not discriminated against.

And, yes, I differentiate between the two major definitions of "discrimination."  One is unfair discrimination, IE unfairly treating a person on account of race, gender, sexual orientation.  The other is distinguishing two things.  

So, perhaps people treat you differently if you're a pedantic weirdo.  You may know the sting of that discrimination.  But, it's totally fair.  People can treat you differently based on how you act, or your character.  That's fair.  Get it?  

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way. 

that's a pretty huge assumption to make about someone you only know from online conversation.

Ah, you're right.  He's not someone who is unfairly discriminated against in any way.

You say this how?  Because he's not on your short list of approved discriminated against identities so therefore he must never have experienced any prejudice? That's incredibly small minded.

And what is this that some discrimination against people is fair? It's okay if its groups of people you don't like?

He's a straight white Christian man in America.  Ergo, not discriminated against.

And, yes, I differentiate between the two major definitions of "discrimination."  One is unfair discrimination, IE unfairly treating a person on account of race, gender, sexual orientation.  The other is distinguishing two things.  

So, perhaps people treat you differently if you're a pedantic weirdo.  You may know the sting of that discrimination.  But, it's totally fair.  People can treat you differently based on how you act, or your character.  That's fair.  Get it?  

So "weird" stuff people do is okay to discriminate against - So if people thought of gay sex as being weird is that okay to discriminate against?  Or is it just what you think is weird?

I'm guessing people with disabilities or health issues or just look or talk kinda funny are also ok to discriminate against because that doesn't fall into your race/religion/gender/sexual orientation classification.

[Brittain33]

I've see variations on this argument on the Internet for 20 years. Trust me, people like Ernest and Shua are not going to change their minds on this or come around on the Indiana law.

[Brittain33]

The ink is barely dry on the law...

http://nationalreport.net/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.

Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

[Brittain33]

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.

Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

You're absolutely right, a law protecting gays from discrimination is exactly like a law empowering the state to discriminate against or criminalize gays. It's remarkable that more of us whiny gays don't see this clearly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The ink is barely dry on the law...

http://nationalreport.net/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/

I realize that the National Report isn't as (in)famous as The Onion, but you do realize that was a satirical piece, not a real piece of journalism, right?

[Brittain33]

The ink is barely dry on the law...

http://nationalreport.net/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/

I realize that the National Report isn't as (in)famous as The Onion, but you do realize that was a satirical piece, not a real piece of journalism, right?

No, I had absolutely no idea.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.

Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

You're absolutely right, a law protecting gays from discrimination is exactly like a law empowering the state to discriminate against or criminalize gays.

Only exactly the same in the sense that lying and murder are both sins. But of equal degree, clearly not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 Not at all remarkable.  It would be remarkable if those that had suffered from an attempt to impose social limits refrained from doing the same when it had the chance.

[Brittain33]

Ernest, to be clear, when Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated for anti-discrimination laws, you apply the same logic to him? He should have known better than to have the government force public accommodations to take down their whites only signs, because that was equivalent to discrimination itself?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 

Assuming I was bigoted against gay people (which I am not, and never was, even when I was a douche), I'd say we won. The law was signed. The right to discriminate is freedom of association. The right to be a douche is protected. Get over it.

You sound like a mentally disturbed 9th grader in this post, but then again, maybe you are just being yourself.

Not getting it.  I'm directing "you lost" to the anti-LGBT agenda; which is a real thing.  They fought hard for the minds of America to be with them on this issue and they lost.  Gay marriage is legal in most states and will be in all of them once the SCOTUS tackles the issue. 

These laws are not in any way being written to protect people's right to discriminate.  Do you really think if I refused to have Christians served in my place of business that these people would support that?  Hell friggin no.  Religious conservatives are furious that they lost and they lost AGAIN.  Of all people to make this point, the most poignant was Jerry Springer on the Howard Stern show. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNBEG0Omf7M

Why is the religious right so angry?  Because you lose on every social issue.  Abortion, segregation, gay rights, separation of church/state... all losses when presented to Constitutional interpretation.  You are constantly reminded that this is a secular nation no matter how hard you try to paint it as a bastion of Judeo-Christian sentiment.   You don't think these laws will get struck down in the Supreme Court?  They will.  And you can put another one in the "L" column.

The point is this: If you want to do business in the United States, use the protections of the laws of the United States on your ability to do business, and use the land of the United States on which to build your place of business; you may not refuse to serve based on non-compelling interests.  Refuse of service based on race, gender, etc. has been unanimously struck down by the highest court.  These laws will not survive the federal test. 

So much like Jim Crowe these are. 

[Simfan34]

The ink is barely dry on the law...

http://nationalreport.net/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/

I realize that the National Report isn't as (in)famous as The Onion, but you do realize that was a satirical piece, not a real piece of journalism, right?

No, I had absolutely no idea.

A positive development this is.

[Smash255]

By the way, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are the law in 19 states now, with some of these laws being 2 decades old, in addition to the Federal version of the statute. Can anyone point to a single case where any of these laws have been successfully used to uphold people throwing gay people, or anyone, out of an establishment? 

This isn't really an valid argument that deserves any consideration. You're basically saying that any law is fine as long as it's not put in practice.

No, these laws have been put in practice as they are the basis for numerous court cases against state and federal government, some of them successful.  I'm saying that those who claim that what these laws are really about is allowing discrimination against homosexuals need to put forward some actual legal evidence. 

I guess its just one big coincidence that these laws are coming about during a time when the ssm bans are getting overturned one after the other.....

[bedstuy]

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.

Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

Anti-discrimination laws led to the Nuremberg laws.  No...  That didn't happen.

Listen, everyone's freedom is to an extent reciprocal.  As a member of the public, you depend on being treated with a basic measure of human dignity, IE like a member of the general public.  You take that for granted, but it's very important.

You just can't put someone being black or gay on a par with someone hating blacks or gays and wanting to discriminate against them.  Nobody moved to America from Discrimination-vania.  It's amazing that you can't see the irony.  "I want to have the freedom to impose my hatred on other people!  Not fair!"