The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[chipbennett]

Hypothetically, if an atheist opposed the gay lifestyle for philosophical but not religious reasons, and refused to make an Adam & Steve wedding cake, would the law allow him to defend his choice of associations?

Well, first, you moved the goalposts here, in a seemingly minor but significant way. You originally said:

It only protects business owners who don't want to serve social entities because of religious reasons. It does not protect everyone's right to choose associations for any reason.

There is a difference between the decision to sell or not to sell a cake to someone, and the decision not to create a cake for someone. In that difference you will find the primary grounds for a religious reason for doing one but not the other. I have maintained several times that if a homosexual person walks into a bakery, and asks to purchase a cake in the display case, and the baker refuses, then that is discrimination, and potentially actionable. (Bonus: to the extent that it IS actionable, this new law does absolutely nothing to change that.)

Nevertheless, I'm sure there is legal precedent that considers the relevance of first-amendment protections for religious beliefs to non-religious ideological beliefs. Were I making the rules, I would extend first-amendment protection the same to both religious and non-religious ideological beliefs.

I don't think this law moves the ball in either direction in this regard, though.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Well, first, you moved the goalposts here, in a seemingly minor but significant way. You originally said:



There is a difference between the decision to sell or not to sell a cake to someone, and the decision not to create a cake for someone. In that difference you will find the primary grounds for a religious reason for doing one but not the other. I have maintained several times that if a homosexual person walks into a bakery, and asks to purchase a cake in the display case, and the baker refuses, then that is discrimination, and potentially actionable. (Bonus: to the extent that it IS actionable, this new law does absolutely nothing to change that.)

Nevertheless, I'm sure there is legal precedent that considers the relevance of first-amendment protections for religious beliefs to non-religious ideological beliefs. Were I making the rules, I would extend first-amendment protection the same to both religious and non-religious ideological beliefs.

I don't think this law moves the ball in either direction in this regard, though.

I hadn't thought of it in that way. So, you believe that a business owner would not be able to prove that his/her religion has been substantially burdened in providing the same service to a gay person or couple that the business would provide to anyone else?

Like, for example, a hotel owner who chose not to allow a gay couple to stay in an otherwise vacant and available room?

 

[DanSwanky]

Ha, yeah should have put restaurant.

I think a bacon serving shoe store, muslim or otherwise may give me pause to consider upping my footwear collection.

 

[PistolBob]

I have maintained several times that if a homosexual person walks into a bakery, and asks to purchase a cake in the display case, and the baker refuses, then that is discrimination, and potentially actionable. (Bonus: to the extent that it IS actionable, this new law does absolutely nothing to change that.)

How the hell does the bakery owner know the person he's selling cake to is a homosexual or not? Typically they don't ask. Now, many homosexuals wear their sexual preference on their sleeve, they really want to the world to know how special and unique they are...and many just can't wait to tell you all about their coming out and all that crap...but I think the majority of homosexuals are like the majority of heterosexual...in that they just don't talk about it in public and feel their sexuality is a private thing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The trolls are ... well.... trolling the situation now.

 

[chipbennett]

I hadn't thought of it in that way. So, you believe that a business owner would not be able to prove that his/her religion has been substantially burdened in providing the same service to a gay person or couple that the business would provide to anyone else?

Like, for example, a hotel owner who chose not to allow a gay couple to stay in an otherwise vacant and available room?

I think that's a very fair statement. And the law in question does not provide that sort of protection.

 

[chipbennett]

How the hell does the bakery owner know the person he's selling cake to is a homosexual or not? Typically they don't ask. Now, many homosexuals wear their sexual preference on their sleeve, they really want to the world to know how special and unique they are...and many just can't wait to tell you all about their coming out and all that crap...but I think the majority of homosexuals are like the majority of heterosexual...in that they just don't talk about it in public and feel their sexuality is a private thing.

Again: the violation of conscience has nothing to do with mere engagement in a business transaction with a homosexual person. There's a difference between purchasing a pre-made cake, and ordering a custom-made cake. Consider the difference between the two transactions.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

How the hell does the bakery owner know the person he's selling cake to is a homosexual or not?

Guessing it's the litigious-type that walk in, and work it into the conversation hoping to illicit a negative response.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I think that's a very fair statement. And the law in question does not provide that sort of protection.

It seems that no matter how you look at it, any business that decides to "test" the new law will almost surely do so at some peril.

I would also think that there will be winners and losers on both sides before the definition of a person's religion being "substantially burdened" is fully decided by precedent.

 

[miguel]

Says the cartoon face wearing a sombrero.

Hey, I didn't claim not to be a weirdo, I was just singling out the other weirdos!

Note I have nothing against cartoon gals wielding weapons, I just don't want them running my state!

 

[D-Ric902]

What ever happened to the signs saying

we reserve the right to refuse service for any reason

 

[rhino]

Hey, I didn't claim not to be a weirdo, I was just singling out the other weirdos!

Note I have nothing against cartoon gals wielding weapons, I just don't want them running my state!

When I attended GenCon in 1980, the few girls in attendance did not bear much resemblance to the girl in your picture or photos of many of the other girls who attend contemporary conventions.

I hereby call FOUL!!! Either use Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine to improve my experience in 1980, or make all the nerds of today suffer as I did back then!

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Hey, I didn't claim not to be a weirdo, I was just singling out the other weirdos!

Note I have nothing against cartoon gals wielding weapons, I just don't want them running my state!

To the first statement, I'm right there with you.

To the second one, I'll have to give it more thought.

 

[MisterChester]

Out of all of this, it's not so much me having to defend something I wasn't sure if I supported or not, it's having to support and defend it against the insane, misguided, shrill, out of control, mob rule style tactics that were used to try to defeat it.

My goodness, people! This scorched-earth approach by the LGBT supporters is scary to watch. We'd all better hope we never do anything to cause them to place us in their cross-hairs...and their sycophant followers--geez, they try to tear down everything in their path.

If you're a religious person, join me and pray for a return to Constitutional rule.

Next thing you know they are going to be speaking in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

 

[jamil]

Well, first, you moved the goalposts here, in a seemingly minor but significant way. You originally said:



There is a difference between the decision to sell or not to sell a cake to someone, and the decision not to create a cake for someone. In that difference you will find the primary grounds for a religious reason for doing one but not the other. I have maintained several times that if a homosexual person walks into a bakery, and asks to purchase a cake in the display case, and the baker refuses, then that is discrimination, and potentially actionable. (Bonus: to the extent that it IS actionable, this new law does absolutely nothing to change that.)

Nevertheless, I'm sure there is legal precedent that considers the relevance of first-amendment protections for religious beliefs to non-religious ideological beliefs. Were I making the rules, I would extend first-amendment protection the same to both religious and non-religious ideological beliefs.

I don't think this law moves the ball in either direction in this regard, though.

I didn't really move the goal posts as much as I didn't take the time to define the real location of the goalpost to begin with. The location of the goalpost is always freedom to associate. I think society isn't so fickle that it couldn't handle that bit of liberty.

 

[MisterChester]

Hypothetically, if an atheist opposed the gay lifestyle for philosophical but not religious reasons, and refused to make an Adam & Steve wedding cake, would the law allow him to defend his choice of associations?

That is an excellent point. Well, if it is based on religious grounds, what about lack of religious grounds? Does that make the religious owner protected and the irreligious not? I don't see the word philosophical in the bill...

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

What ever happened to the signs saying

we reserve the right to refuse service for any reason

Liberals would love to say something like:

Maybe it's because the acid in old paper causes it to be brittle and it crumbles after a century or so.

But they're not all as clever as I am.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

That is an excellent point. Well, if it is based on religious grounds, what about lack of religious grounds? Does that make the religious owner protected and the irreligious not? I don't see the word philosophical in the bill...

I believe that the very ambiguity of the language in the bill points to it being mostly symbolic. Like I said before, any small business who decides to be the first one to test it will do so at considerable risk, perhaps even banking the future of the business on the "friendliness" of the court to the matter.

 

[hoosierdoc]

For those who still have not yet read the law: Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

What's the text have to do with my pitchfork need?!?!?!

 

[bmbutch]

For those who still have not yet read the law: Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Thank You for posting, read it 2x, reinforcing that it in no way, shape or form allows for discrimination, YMMV.