Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[ccgr]

http://wgntv.com/2015/03/26/indiana-gov ... customers/

[Sstavix]

I'm kind of disappointed that a law like this would need to be enacted in the first place.

Note that I don't condone discrimination of any form. Frankly, if I were a business owner, it wouldn't matter to me what a person's orientation is - their money is as good as anyone else's. But if a business owner wants to discriminate against other people based on whatever (whether it's a Christian baker refusing to make cakes for gay weddings, or a Muslim butcher refusing to serve Jews, or whatever scenario you can think of), then they have the right to do so. However, they should also be prepared for the ramifications of such a decision as well (e.g. people boycotting their businesses for their beliefs - on a personal level, I wouldn't go to the aforementioned butcher because of his anti-Semitic beliefs).

We have the right in this nation to be jerks. We also have the right to avoid being friends with jerks, too. We shouldn't allow the government to take either of these rights away from us.

[ArcticFox]

So it seems to me this bill isn't about letting someone refuse to service a gay customer as it is protecting a business from being forced to break its moral code.

For example:

If a gay man walks into a bakery and wants to buy cupcakes, they can't turn him away because he's gay. Selling a cupcake - to anyone - doesn't violate your beliefs.

If a gay couple wants the baker to do a wedding cake (thus participating in the event) they can refuse to do so, because to be involved in an event they see as immoral DOES violate their beliefs.

The same would hold true for caterers, photographers, etc.

I hope the language in the bill is specific enough about that otherwise it'll get shot down for being too vague.

[storm]

So it seems to me this bill isn't about letting someone refuse to service a gay customer as it is protecting a business from being forced to break its moral code.
..........
I hope the language in the bill is specific enough about that otherwise it'll get shot down for being too vague.

Hopefully someone with a talent for wording and punctuation will write it It would be a shame for it to not be taken serious because it wasn't readable to some, or is shot down solely based on grammar, or one or two words. Or overturned later in the courts on same basis. It does happen in our legalistic and law based society
It is the case sometimes in so many things that one or more ultraist types will go after how someone states something so as to take away from what was stated

[ChickenSoup]

So it seems to me this bill isn't about letting someone refuse to service a gay customer as it is protecting a business from being forced to break its moral code.
..........
I hope the language in the bill is specific enough about that otherwise it'll get shot down for being too vague.

Hopefully someone with a talent for wording and punctuation will write it It would be a shame for it to not be taken serious because it wasn't readable to some, or is shot down solely based on grammar, or one or two words. Or overturned later in the courts on same basis. It does happen in our legalistic and law based society
It is the case sometimes in so many things that one or more ultraist types will go after how someone states something so as to take away from what was stated

This is important, though. You need to be specific when legislating.

[Guardian]

^What C$ said. A former lawyer turned pastor and bible college professor told me, "A country's laws are the height of its literature. Every phrase, every punctuation mark, each word choice matters." Cases are won or lost based on the tense of a verb.

[storm]

^What C$ said. A former lawyer turned pastor and bible college professor told me, "A country's laws are the height of its literature. Every phrase, every punctuation mark, each word choice matters." Cases are won or lost based on the tense of a verb.

so very true wander how often common sense is replaced with proper wording ? One can only hope and pray that that law makers can find the two compatible.

[Sstavix]

The Connecticut governor has issued an executive order banning state travel to Indiana over this law.

... even though Connecticut passed a similar law in 1993.

[ArcticFox]

Who needs the truth when you can score a few cheap political points?

[storm]

The Connecticut governor has issued an executive order banning state travel to Indiana over this law.

... even though Connecticut passed a similar law in 1993.

how childish of Connecticut governor to make such a order where does he think he is in facebook?

[RoosterOnAStick]

Well I have two parts to my response and I will put them in separate posts.

First, regarding this law in particular, while there are laws with similar names and similar purposes (even at the federal level) this version in Indiana is different. It allows for-profit businesses to use a defense based on the vague definition of a "substantial burden" among other things. This isn't just against government intervention but also against private lawsuits. When you look at the provisions in the Indiana version the net is made so broad that pretty much any business of any religion or worldview can use it to their advantage. A die hard anti-theist could then deny services in their for-profit business to Christians cause it creates a "substantial burden" to their convictions. Considering that this has been attempted in other areas already I can see the people who would do such a thing jumping all over this. This won't just extend to merely wedding cakes either since it has been extended to any for-profit business.

We have to ask ourselves whether this would still be acceptable if the two sides were flipped. What if we were the ones being barred from services such as this? What if it was Christians who were on the receiving end? Would it still be fair?

My answer is no. Our faith is a part of who we are and something we identify with. Doing this would be clear discrimination. Even though we can choose our religion, it is still a part of who we are as people. We wouldn't just give that up just so we could get a bite to eat or get something as simple as a wedding cake.

[RoosterOnAStick]

So next I will establish my view on the whole wedding cake issue that spawned all these messes in the first place. This is a view from a friend of mine that is more or less the same to my own:

"About the bakeries and non-traditional marriages... The argument is quite simple even if you don't support non-traditional marriages.
When you deny customers based on intrinsic attributes of the customer or what the product will ultimately be used for, you are discriminating against the customer. Wedding cakes are often "blank" in the sense that they contain no writing or message. The only thing you can discriminate against is a class of people.

When you deny customer requests based on the content of the product, you are discriminating against the product. In contrast to wedding cakes, hate cakes intrinsically contain a message, which is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against. I'm sure they'd be willing to bake a blank cake for you so you can write your hateful message yourself."

So to add to that, this is how I apply it from a practical standpoint:

If a request for a cake at a for-profit business owned by Christians is meant to broadcast an explicit pro-LGBT message or an explicit anti-Christian one, then I would say denying the request due to religious objections is the right thing to do. That would be according to the above discriminating against the content of the product, not the customers. They are asking you to put something in the cake that would be an explicit message that goes against the Faith.

On the other hand, if a couple just wants a plain old cake without any explicit anti-Christian message (and most likely no message at all), then there is no reason to deny them that. Just like any other food product you would make at a bakery, it would just be baking a cake. It would be a regular cake that is in itself a neutral item. It has no intrinsic message or anything, it is just a blank slate. To deny a gay couple a plain old cake based on the fact that they are a gay couple is discrimination against the couple.

What the couple decides to use the cake for after the purchase is made is not relevant. Once that plain old cake is theirs they are free as American Citizens to do what they wish with it, just as we would be. You wouldn't deny a non-Christian straight couple a wedding cake even though they may do something with it later that is contrary to the Faith once they have it. That it would be supporting a non-Church blessed marriage among various possible sins would be of no consequence. Why would a gay couple be any different in this regard? What makes gay couples so special that they are the ones singled out for denial of services? Why is it considered ok to use religious freedom as a rationale for denying gay couples when you do not see it invoked for any other couples that may do things contrary to the Faith?

[ccgr]

One place is already closing it's doors because of this: http://www.tmz.com/2015/04/01/memories- ... y-wedding/

Businesses should have the right to refuse service. Restaurants should have the right to refuse catering if they don't wish to do it. What if a restaurant owner was African American, he should have the right to turn down a KKK reunion...

[LegoFan560]

Well, closing its doors because of the angry comments it got when it announced that it would not cater gay weddings. Not because of the law itself.

Why would you say that as a public service announcement? Just do it quietly when someone comes in and asks. Then you are less likely to get death threats.

[RoosterOnAStick]

Businesses should have the right to refuse service. Restaurants should have the right to refuse catering if they don't wish to do it. What if a restaurant owner was African American, he should have the right to turn down a KKK reunion...

The ability to deny service as I said before has its limits, depending on the reason for the denial. To address this question, it again depends on what they are being asked to provide. Assuming that the KKK would want such a business to do the catering in the first place, are they asking the business to just provide the food or are they being asked to serve or otherwise have their staff participate directly in the event? I've seen both happen regarding catering. If it is the former, then I would say they do not have a right to refuse service cause again, all they are doing is making food. What happens to it after it is delivered is not up to them and they bear no direct responsibility for it. In the case of the latter I think there would be a good case for refusing service. The reason is again, that they would be asked to directly participate in the event itself, not just provide the food. The product in the former case is just the food which in itself is neutral. That is not the case in the latter.

To bring it back to wedding cakes, is the product a plain old cake given to a couple or are they being asked to put an explicit message or directly participate in the actual wedding event? They have no right to refuse service in the case of the former. If they are being asked to do the latter then as I said before, that would be a good reason to object. To be asked to put an objectionable message or to directly participate in the wedding event would constitute a concelebration or at least that the business is ok with directly participating in the event that it otherwise finds objectionable. That would be the type of product being offered and goes beyond just providing the wedding cake itself.

Also, the question itself I find a tad problematic as it implies an equivalency between the two types of groups that isn't really there. While there are definitely those within the LGBT community that do want to force their views on others, I am pretty sure the vast majority of gay people are not homosexual supremacists.