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

[cinyc]

Most likely, swastika cakes are not a service that any bakeries (Jewish or otherwise) offer to anybody. The issue here is a minority getting the same service already offered to everybody else.  Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

Some bakeries will put whatever you want on a cake, no questions asked.  Why shouldn't gays or Jewish bakers be held to the same standards?  The issue is forcing someone to do something they find offensive, ratifying, under penalty of law, something they don't believe in.  

And when a gay bakery, who writes messages on cakes, (rightfully) refuses to put a pro-tradtional marriage message on a cake, why isn't that issue a minority - religious people who think gay marriage is a sin - getting the same service already offered to everybody else, too?  Are some minority groups more special than others?

[afleitch]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

[afleitch]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

What about other belief systems? Nationalism, Anarchism, Fascism, Nilhilism, Racial Superiority? I have no doubt that there are people who genuinely and in accordance with their conscience believe in the superiority of the white race. Why aren't they afforded protection in law if the right of a person to live, associate and do business in accordance with his own conscience is the reason why there are conscience clauses within the legal framework in the first place?

[Brittain33]

Most likely, swastika cakes are not a service that any bakeries (Jewish or otherwise) offer to anybody. The issue here is a minority getting the same service already offered to everybody else.  Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

Some bakeries will put whatever you want on a cake, no questions asked.  

Is it your belief that if one bakery does this, it compels all bakeries, in states in the absence of RFRA, to put naked pictures on cakes or make swastika cakes? Is that really your understanding of how anti-discrimination laws work?

You're smarter than this. Think it through.

[Brittain33]

I'll remind people that the issue with bakeries isn't having to bake a special kind of cake for gays, it's not wanting a cake you'd bake for anyone to be bought by people you find icky who will serve that cake at a same-sex wedding that your church doesn't recognize as a valid ceremony.

[muon2]

I'll remind people that the issue with bakeries isn't having to bake a special kind of cake for gays, it's not wanting a cake you'd bake for anyone to be bought by people you find icky who will serve that cake at a same-sex wedding that your church doesn't recognize as a valid ceremony.

The issue for bakers is usually not the cake and to whom it will be served, it's the decorations on the cake. They'll sell a standard unadorned cake to anyone, but some don't want to adorn it with a same-sex couple in wedding garb.

[afleitch]

I'll remind people that the issue with bakeries isn't having to bake a special kind of cake for gays, it's not wanting a cake you'd bake for anyone to be bought by people you find icky who will serve that cake at a same-sex wedding that your church doesn't recognize as a valid ceremony.

The issue for bakers is usually not the cake and to whom it will be served, it's the decorations on the cake. They'll sell a standard unadorned cake to anyone, but some don't want to adorn it with a same-sex couple in wedding garb.

The issue for bakers is that what offends them is based on anything they can find an excuse for. Some of the examples of refusals when it came to gay couples, include wedding style cakes with no writing, no imagery, no message. Nothing. Just white icing and flowers. You could even use that style of cake for first communions or golden wedding anniversaries or just because you want to eat cake. It's nothing to do with the message, it's to do with the fact that two men or two women want a cake made (because fresh cakes are made to order) for their wedding and people have taken objection to that and refused to serve them.

The good thing about this furore is that it has finally raised this matter into the conscience of the greater majority, rather than just reactionary Christian activists and may see steps at state and hopefully at federal level to provide legal civil rights, in the spirit of the 1964 act, to LGBT people. Which is a good thing.

[Brittain33]

I'll remind people that the issue with bakeries isn't having to bake a special kind of cake for gays, it's not wanting a cake you'd bake for anyone to be bought by people you find icky who will serve that cake at a same-sex wedding that your church doesn't recognize as a valid ceremony.

The issue for bakers is usually not the cake and to whom it will be served, it's the decorations on the cake. They'll sell a standard unadorned cake to anyone, but some don't want to adorn it with a same-sex couple in wedding garb.

Do you have any links or resources that show that the plastic topping is usually the issue when bakers have turned down same-sex couples? Adding a cake-topper is literally a few seconds' worth of work, and the same-sex couples I know who have gotten married in Massachusetts have bought their own to provide to the baker. A baker who is interested in providing the cake but not the cake topper because they don't lake gay couples or gay marriage would be easily able to make that compromise... a waiter at the wedding facility can add it. The stories I've read indicate not wanting to serve gay couples at all.

I think this is an interesting theory but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, much like the concern that same-sex marriage should remain illegal and same-sex couples denied legal protections because of the risk of bogus "Chuck and Larry" marriages for health care benefits.

[Brittain33]

Here's a link to the Oregon case where a bakery was fined for not providing a cake to a couple—specifically, they called their wedding "an abomination unto the lord" so at least you can't call them insincere. I'm not able to find any reference to a two-bride cake topper or even generic decorations (do people put icing on a cake in the shape of two tuxedos?) being the crux of the issue.

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/02/02/ruling-gresham-bakery-discriminated-against-same-sex-couple/22760387/

Here is a case in Colorado where the baker objected to "baking a cake" for the wedding, not to decorating it with a two-groom cake topper.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/colorado-baker-shut-shopp-serve-gay-couples-article-1.1815868

[muon2]

I don't have links because it is based on the statements by individuals made in IL to me a couple of years ago. Decorations (including names as well as figures) and delivery to a wedding site during a ceremony were the only bakery concerns I heard, but we have a strong Human Rights Act in IL, so the sale of a basic cake to a gay couple at a shop would be unlikely to come up. I agree that some compromises such as you suggest are the right way to resolve that, and it's similar to what was worked out for the pharmacists here in regards to the morning after pill. I'm not surprised to find that in other states where the history of their Human Rights Act might be different, other issues arise.

[memphis]

Most likely, swastika cakes are not a service that any bakeries (Jewish or otherwise) offer to anybody. The issue here is a minority getting the same service already offered to everybody else.  Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

Some bakeries will put whatever you want on a cake, no questions asked.  Why shouldn't gays or Jewish bakers be held to the same standards?  The issue is forcing someone to do something they find offensive, ratifying, under penalty of law, something they don't believe in.  

And when a gay bakery, who writes messages on cakes, (rightfully) refuses to put a pro-tradtional marriage message on a cake, why isn't that issue a minority - religious people who think gay marriage is a sin - getting the same service already offered to everybody else, too?  Are some minority groups more special than others?

Find me a bakery who will make a swastika cake. I triple dog dare you. There's not one. It'd be all over the news and they'd be out of business immediately. You are so full of shenanigans on this one! And as for comparing gays to Nazis, there aren't enough emoticons in the world for that.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't have links because it is based on the statements by individuals made in IL to me a couple of years ago. Decorations (including names as well as figures) and delivery to a wedding site during a ceremony were the only bakery concerns I heard, but we have a strong Human Rights Act in IL, so the sale of a basic cake to a gay couple at a shop would be unlikely to come up. I agree that some compromises such as you suggest are the right way to resolve that, and it's similar to what was worked out for the pharmacists here in regards to the morning after pill. I'm not surprised to find that in other states where the history of their Human Rights Act might be different, other issues arise.

I am sure many Christians would draw the line there. Many others would draw the line elsewhere, as is the case of the "pro-family" interest groups that wrote the first law.

[Indy Texas]

Most likely, swastika cakes are not a service that any bakeries (Jewish or otherwise) offer to anybody. The issue here is a minority getting the same service already offered to everybody else.  Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

Some bakeries will put whatever you want on a cake, no questions asked.  Why shouldn't gays or Jewish bakers be held to the same standards?  The issue is forcing someone to do something they find offensive, ratifying, under penalty of law, something they don't believe in.  

And when a gay bakery, who writes messages on cakes, (rightfully) refuses to put a pro-tradtional marriage message on a cake, why isn't that issue a minority - religious people who think gay marriage is a sin - getting the same service already offered to everybody else, too?  Are some minority groups more special than others?

Find me a bakery who will make a swastika cake. I triple dog dare you. There's not one. It'd be all over the news and they'd be out of business immediately. You are so full of shenanigans on this one! And as for comparing gays to Nazis, there aren't enough emoticons in the world for that.

And why not? If I were a baker, I'd bake someone a cake with swastikas on it if they wanted one. I'd bake someone a cake with a Confederate flag on it. I find those things offensive, but running a business is not the same as acting in a personal capacity.

This is where I tend to disagree with both the cultural Left and Right. A for-profit business serves no purpose other than the maximize the financial returns of its owners. It serves no social purpose. It serves no cultural purpose. When you deviate from maximizing profits, you get into issues like this.

Some liberals try to square the circle by promoting "social responsibility" and "environmental responsibility." If pursuit of profit creates negative social externalities, the answer is to tax the businesses and regulate them in such a way that they bear the cost of those externalities. It's not to try to change the very nature of what a for-profit business is.

Some conservatives have taken corporate personhood to a new extreme and decided businesses can have morality and values. They don't and they shouldn't. There is no such thing as a Christian business or a Jewish business or a Buddhist business.

[TJ in Oregon]

This is where I tend to disagree with both the cultural Left and Right. A for-profit business serves no purpose other than the maximize the financial returns of its owners. It serves no social purpose. It serves no cultural purpose. When you deviate from maximizing profits, you get into issues like this.

A publicly traded for-profit business serves only to maximize profits. But if you own the joint, you can spend the proceeds on whatever cultural purpose you like as long as its otherwise legal.

The point in granting business religious freedom rights (see Hobby Lobby) isn't because the impersonal  bundle of contracts has a conscience, it's because the people in it do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

What about other belief systems? Nationalism, Anarchism, Fascism, Nilhilism, Racial Superiority? I have no doubt that there are people who genuinely and in accordance with their conscience believe in the superiority of the white race. Why aren't they afforded protection in law if the right of a person to live, associate and do business in accordance with his own conscience is the reason why there are conscience clauses within the legal framework in the first place?

Traditionally there has been a greater deference given to philosophical views than to political views. However that was also back in the day when not every facet of life was potentially a political topic governments might get involved in. Those days are long gone tho the pendulum has swung back some from the days when the core antidiscrimination laws were passed in this country.  I don't think we'll ever return to 18th century liberalism nor should we. Still, as I've expressed before, my personal views on the appropriateness of antidiscrimination laws doesn't depend upon why people wish to discriminate but whether such discrimination is pervasive enough to lead to economic or physical harm.

Right now I think access to wedding cakes doesn't meet that standard while access to jobs and housing does.  If the excessive hyperbole expended on frosting leads to some long delayed needed protections finally being enacted, I suppose the mess would be worthwhile, but I'm doubtful that will be the case.

[pbrower2a]

Most likely, swastika cakes are not a service that any bakeries (Jewish or otherwise) offer to anybody. The issue here is a minority getting the same service already offered to everybody else. 

Conscience must trump greed if we are to remain human. Although there may be no specific prohibition of the creation of pro-Nazi images in any canonical Jewish text as there might be against a pork sandwich (there might be some tolerance for ironic use, as in some movies by Mel Brooks, who is Jewish), I can imagine just about everyone doing a double-take. I would and I am not Jewish.

Company policy may prohibit offensive images, the use of profane words, and (most likely) violations of copyright laws. There might be a prohibition in a bakery against the creation of birthday cakes with Disney characters because the bakery has not gotten permission to use such images -- and not because of any other offense. 

If I owned a bakery I would preclude pornographic images, overt profanity, statements of potential for political offense (the hammer-and-sickle or a burning cross would be in the same category as Nazi $#!+), religious affront, or (most likely to create problems) violations of copyright laws.

... There are people who consider working on the Sabbath or dealing in such commodities as pornography, liquor, tobacco, or firearms violations of their morals... but such personal restrictions largely precludes one from some low-paying jobs in retailing.     

[memphis]

Yeah, no. In the real world, no bakery is going to bake a swastika cake. Not because of laws. Because the public relations Inksstrorm would be swift, brutal, and intense. It's great to sit around on the internet and talk about conscience and rights and freedom or whatever, but making a swastika cake would instantly destroy not just the bakery, but the baker as well. Nobody in America is going to want to touch that with a 10 foot pole. Just because you can do something, doesn't make it a good or even a reasonable idea. A Confederate flag would be much more of a gray area than a swastika. I have my doubts that a commercial bakery would do it, but it's somewhat within the realm of possibility that somebody, somewhere might be crazy enough to do it. I would say, though, that the Confederate flag worshippers, seem unlikely to want to put the flag on a cake. It seems a bit unseemly (to me at least) to eat your flag.

[memphis]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

What about other belief systems? Nationalism, Anarchism, Fascism, Nilhilism, Racial Superiority? I have no doubt that there are people who genuinely and in accordance with their conscience believe in the superiority of the white race. Why aren't they afforded protection in law if the right of a person to live, associate and do business in accordance with his own conscience is the reason why there are conscience clauses within the legal framework in the first place?

Traditionally there has been a greater deference given to philosophical views than to political views. However that was also back in the day when not every facet of life was potentially a political topic governments might get involved in. Those days are long gone tho the pendulum has swung back some from the days when the core antidiscrimination laws were passed in this country.  I don't think we'll ever return to 18th century liberalism nor should we.

Your historical narrative is extremely problematic. Early America was hardly a libertarian paradise.  In the 18th century, government actively protected the right to own other humans. Several states had official religions. Government granted monopolies were a commonplace thing in commerce. To say that government didn't get intimately involved in people's day to day lives is either a complete misunderstanding of history or a deliberate distortion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

What about other belief systems? Nationalism, Anarchism, Fascism, Nilhilism, Racial Superiority? I have no doubt that there are people who genuinely and in accordance with their conscience believe in the superiority of the white race. Why aren't they afforded protection in law if the right of a person to live, associate and do business in accordance with his own conscience is the reason why there are conscience clauses within the legal framework in the first place?

Traditionally there has been a greater deference given to philosophical views than to political views. However that was also back in the day when not every facet of life was potentially a political topic governments might get involved in. Those days are long gone tho the pendulum has swung back some from the days when the core antidiscrimination laws were passed in this country.  I don't think we'll ever return to 18th century liberalism nor should we.

Your historical narrative is extremely problematic. Early America was hardly a libertarian paradise.  In the 18th century, government actively protected the right to own other humans. Several states had official religions. Government granted monopolies were a commonplace thing in commerce. To say that government didn't get intimately involved in people's day to day lives is either a complete misunderstanding of history or a deliberate distortion.

Did I say that it was a libertarian paradise?  No, I said, there was general agreement as to which topics were political and which were not.  Granted, that 18th century liberal practice and 21st century libertarian theory are one and the same is a common misperception of 21st libertarians. It's not one I share.

[Torie]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

What about other belief systems? Nationalism, Anarchism, Fascism, Nilhilism, Racial Superiority? I have no doubt that there are people who genuinely and in accordance with their conscience believe in the superiority of the white race. Why aren't they afforded protection in law if the right of a person to live, associate and do business in accordance with his own conscience is the reason why there are conscience clauses within the legal framework in the first place?

Traditionally there has been a greater deference given to philosophical views than to political views. However that was also back in the day when not every facet of life was potentially a political topic governments might get involved in. Those days are long gone tho the pendulum has swung back some from the days when the core antidiscrimination laws were passed in this country.  I don't think we'll ever return to 18th century liberalism nor should we.

Your historical narrative is extremely problematic. Early America was hardly a libertarian paradise.  In the 18th century, government actively protected the right to own other humans. Several states had official religions. Government granted monopolies were a commonplace thing in commerce. To say that government didn't get intimately involved in people's day to day lives is either a complete misunderstanding of history or a deliberate distortion.

Did I say that it was a libertarian paradise?  No, I said, there was general agreement as to which topics were political and which were not.  Granted, that 18th century liberal practice and 21st century libertarian theory are one and the same is a common misperception of 21st libertarians. It's not one I share.

If there was a general agreement as to which was which, it is not one we share now as to the choices made. Many colonies still operated a theocratic regime, for example.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I may be going out on a limb here but I'm interested in testing this argument out. My claim is that discrimination against the LGBT community is not religious but rather that is cloaked in the language of religion. Obviously, it's hard to make a distinction between religious norms and social norms but I'd argue that social norms drive religious rhetoric against the LGBT community. There is no Christian consensus on the LGBT community. Mainline Protestants tend to tacitly endorse the rights of the LBGT community, Catholics are silently against the LGBT community and Evangelical Christians are loud activists. With that in mind, I cannot comprehend the claim that "forcing" businesses to engage in commercial transactions is religious discrimination. There is no theological "line in the sand" on this issue. We are not forcing Islamic vendors to serve pork or to abstain from serving halal meats.  However, there is a social "line in the sand" on this issue, in which the elderly oppose gay rights not because of their religious affiliation but rather because of the social context in which they grew up.

In short: this bill gives bigots the ability to discriminate by allowing them to reference their "religion", which is a terrible idea because of the diversity contained within various theological doctrines. Frankly, some Christian theology is incompatible with liberal democracy.

[Oak Hills]

Obviously, it's hard to make a distinction between religious norms and social norms but I'd argue that social norms drive religious rhetoric against the LGBT community.

I would go one step farther than saying it's hard to distinguish between religious and social, by saying that it is impossible, for no such distinction exists.