There is an expectation in this country; an expectation affirmed by thousands who challenged bus lines, lunch counters and school boards that denied equal service based on the color of skin.
This country has a History of injustice- whether based on race, religion, ethnic background, but we have progressed beyond such bias at least in terms of law. Maryland enacted a law in 1704 forbidding Catholic priests from saying Mass. The Massachusetts Bay Colony banished or executed Quakers. The Virginia Colony outlawed Baptists. California offered a 25 cent bounty for Native-American scalps. In mid-19th Century Boston employment ads in newspapers had the common post script: "None Need Apply but Americans." The prohibition was aimed at Irish Catholics.
One can't eradicate personal prejudice. Distrust of those who are different seems to be a part of the human condition. Codifying distrust in laws designed to discriminate is another story. As Tammy suggests, let the customer choose; she's right. Let the public weed out the unethical businesses. However, the issue is not whether individual businesses might be unethical. The issue is whether a state (or federal) government should write laws that protect unethical practices.
Anything that I have earned, and own, is under my absolute control.
Definition of OWN
1
: belonging to oneself or itself —usually used following a possessive case or possessive adjective <cooked my own dinner>
Since i OWN my business, and its under my absolute control, i get to choose who i do business with and, for.
I even have a sign “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service.” You know who i refuse service to? Loud groups of teenage girls babbling on their cellphones disturbing others, and douchy drunk frat boys in tap out shirts.
Its kind of the whole point of running YOUR OWN business. SO you can run it the way you like and not as someone else tells you, otherwise who would do it?
The whole issue came about when a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. A birthday cake for a gay customer would have been no problem but a wedding cake was. The gay customer threw a fit and sued. Now folks who agree that the baker is guaranteed the freedom to exercise his or her faith need to write special laws to ensure no one is confused about the first amendment. Are bakers not free to follow the tenets of their faith? Again, it was a weding cake. What do you expect?
Should a black baker be forced by law to bake a cake for a KKK celebration? Should a gay baker be forced by law to make cup cakes for a Westboro Baptist Church celebration? Should a feminist baker be forced by law to bake a cake for a wedding at the Playboy Mansion?
Forced By Law to endorse and facilitate activities that they find morally unacceptable?
In a free society, no. But, that is the point: There is a strong movement in this country to grant government control to all aspects of an individual's life. They wrap it up in all kinds of pretty language, but they want to control you in every detail of your life. Don't worry, though, it is for your own good.
My guess is that a vast majority of those** who are for (at whatever level) this "religious freedom" law has never had to face bigotry at this level. White, middle-class (or close enough), christian.... They are unable or willingly blind to the effects that bigotry has on others.
The only difference between these laws and Jim Crow laws is that these are less honest. At least 50+ years ago bigots were honest enough to declare "no blacks" or "no niggers" on their storefronts. Now? Oh, folks will get mad if you post "no faggots" in your window, so the brave bigots decry that their "deeply held religious beliefs" hold that homosexuality is a sin, and as they cannot condone sin they cannot serve gays.
I'm sorry, but until these brave bigots hiding behind their holy books start stoning adulterers, or stop wearing cotton wool next to linen, or start forcing their raped daughters to marry their rapists, those "deeply held religious beliefs" aren't truly deeply held beliefs - they are simply cover for avoiding those ("ewwwwwww") gays.
**Please note - my original comment used the phrase "every person", rather than "a vast majority of those". It was a mistake to use an absolute in this situation, as there are bound to be folks who have felt the sting of bigotry who are themselves bigots.
People have to learn to keep their mouths shut. If you don't want to deal with any of this....sorry I can't do that on that day, I have another commitment. I can't do that for that kind of money, I can't rent you that apartment...it's already rented.
No matter what kind of business or service, there are ways to deal, so you don't get it stuck to you. ( and don't tell me this doesn't happen everyday)
Kyle - yes, yes they should. The ACLU fought for neo-nazis to parade through a predominantly jewish community. What is good for the goose is good for the gander - if you choose to do business in this society, you have chosen to do business in society, regardless of what you think of your customers.
One clarification - if a customer is making a scene or disrupting your business, you have the right to kick them out and not serve them.
I just want people to know that I am not Richard L. Hale. I am Ricky G. Hale. I am not saying I agree or disagree with Richard's post. I'm just saying I am not him. I know people have confused us in the past.
For the record, I am Rick Hale, the plumber from Genesee plumbing.
I can only assume that the prompting for the question is the law enacted by the state of Indiana. Just to be certain I tried something unique, I read the entire bill instead of accepting someone's opinion, take, angle, interpretation, etc. In the entire bill there is no mention of the words gay, homosexual, sexuality, gender, gender identity, sex, sexual, lesbian, transgender, or any other term associated with the preponderance of attention given to the bill and the debate surrounding it.
Does the First Amendment have any relevance in today's world?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You may not like what other people believe. You may not like what they say. You may not think they should be allowed to follow their conscience. You are free to do that. AND SO ARE THEY.
In a free society, differences are celebrated. In a statist utopia nobody shall voice any objection to the wisdom provided by their betters.
If you need examples of statist utopias, just think of everywhere in the world where dissidents are imprisoned, homosexuals are imprisoned, or stoned, and religious minorities live at the pleasure of their betters (ie.: Most of the Middle East, Southwest Asia, Cuba, Venezuela and most US College Campi).
That is not America, regardless of what "progressive" media would like you to think. Sorry.
Kyle - that 1st Amendment means quite a lot to me, and should to everybody. It is why I still support places of worship being untaxed - the easiest way to for a government to wipe something out is to tax it to death. It is why I'm not imprisoned or stoned for not believing in the predominant mythology. It is why I could apply for a state job and not be turned away just because I don't kneel at the image of that predominant mythology's idols (even though my current state, NC, still has a law on the books requiring belief in that mythology).
However, religious freedom does not grant somebody a blank check to do as they wish, just cuz they believe their mythology's figurehead said they could. Some feel it is their deep religious belief that races shouldn't mix, or that non-believers are effectively sub-human and not entitled to the same rights as others, or that gays should be killed (see the amendment proposal submitted in California). Shoot, one of the most vocal "deeply religious" person lately has been adamant about folks like her being discriminated against becuase others dare to not believe what she does (yet, surprisingly, failed to stone her adulterous daughter when it became apparent I've a 9-month period that the unwed child had become pregnant out of wedlock).
If you want to be a member of society, then be a member of society and treat others with the respect they are entitled to. There is nothing respectful about "ewwww - gay!" or declaring somebody is not worthy of doing business with you simply because they don't bow down at your mythology's figurehead or follow the tenets of your mythology.
While all this discourse has been educational and entertaining. It looks like the great State of Indiana has blinked and will water down the law that I felt was kinda idiotic in the first place.
It appears that the law will specificially not allow refusal of service or other discrimination. And will just refocus on not allowing Govt to force churches and religion specific organization to recognize or support things against it's beliefs.
ie A priest cannot be forced to marry a same sex couple.... or a religious organization cannot be forced to cover abortion services.
I don't know why all this bs
I don't know why all this bs is happening. I thought everybody was suppose to be treaty EQUALLY. What ever happened to common morals
Exactly, Denise. Better yet
Exactly, Denise. Better yet - - Whatever happened to minding your own BUSINESS ? Love who you love, and let others love who THEY love.
If you have to make laws to
If you have to make laws to hurt a group of people just to prove your morals and faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove.
-George Takei (I think...it IS the Internet, after all)
i say let them pick and
i say let them pick and choose patrons--- and see how much business they do ---- people can also pick and choose where to shop
A private business should be
A private business should be free to refuse any customer they want. They should also be free to face the societal consequences of doing so.
There is an expectation in
There is an expectation in this country; an expectation affirmed by thousands who challenged bus lines, lunch counters and school boards that denied equal service based on the color of skin.
This country has a History of injustice- whether based on race, religion, ethnic background, but we have progressed beyond such bias at least in terms of law. Maryland enacted a law in 1704 forbidding Catholic priests from saying Mass. The Massachusetts Bay Colony banished or executed Quakers. The Virginia Colony outlawed Baptists. California offered a 25 cent bounty for Native-American scalps. In mid-19th Century Boston employment ads in newspapers had the common post script: "None Need Apply but Americans." The prohibition was aimed at Irish Catholics.
One can't eradicate personal prejudice. Distrust of those who are different seems to be a part of the human condition. Codifying distrust in laws designed to discriminate is another story. As Tammy suggests, let the customer choose; she's right. Let the public weed out the unethical businesses. However, the issue is not whether individual businesses might be unethical. The issue is whether a state (or federal) government should write laws that protect unethical practices.
Anything that I have earned,
Anything that I have earned, and own, is under my absolute control.
Definition of OWN
1
: belonging to oneself or itself —usually used following a possessive case or possessive adjective <cooked my own dinner>
Since i OWN my business, and its under my absolute control, i get to choose who i do business with and, for.
I even have a sign “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service.” You know who i refuse service to? Loud groups of teenage girls babbling on their cellphones disturbing others, and douchy drunk frat boys in tap out shirts.
Its kind of the whole point of running YOUR OWN business. SO you can run it the way you like and not as someone else tells you, otherwise who would do it?
The whole issue came about
The whole issue came about when a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. A birthday cake for a gay customer would have been no problem but a wedding cake was. The gay customer threw a fit and sued. Now folks who agree that the baker is guaranteed the freedom to exercise his or her faith need to write special laws to ensure no one is confused about the first amendment. Are bakers not free to follow the tenets of their faith? Again, it was a weding cake. What do you expect?
Should a black baker be
Should a black baker be forced by law to bake a cake for a KKK celebration? Should a gay baker be forced by law to make cup cakes for a Westboro Baptist Church celebration? Should a feminist baker be forced by law to bake a cake for a wedding at the Playboy Mansion?
Forced By Law to endorse and facilitate activities that they find morally unacceptable?
In a free society, no. But, that is the point: There is a strong movement in this country to grant government control to all aspects of an individual's life. They wrap it up in all kinds of pretty language, but they want to control you in every detail of your life. Don't worry, though, it is for your own good.
My guess is that a vast
My guess is that a vast majority of those** who are for (at whatever level) this "religious freedom" law has never had to face bigotry at this level. White, middle-class (or close enough), christian.... They are unable or willingly blind to the effects that bigotry has on others.
The only difference between these laws and Jim Crow laws is that these are less honest. At least 50+ years ago bigots were honest enough to declare "no blacks" or "no niggers" on their storefronts. Now? Oh, folks will get mad if you post "no faggots" in your window, so the brave bigots decry that their "deeply held religious beliefs" hold that homosexuality is a sin, and as they cannot condone sin they cannot serve gays.
I'm sorry, but until these brave bigots hiding behind their holy books start stoning adulterers, or stop wearing cotton wool next to linen, or start forcing their raped daughters to marry their rapists, those "deeply held religious beliefs" aren't truly deeply held beliefs - they are simply cover for avoiding those ("ewwwwwww") gays.
**Please note - my original comment used the phrase "every person", rather than "a vast majority of those". It was a mistake to use an absolute in this situation, as there are bound to be folks who have felt the sting of bigotry who are themselves bigots.
Tim, You realize that you
Tim,
You realize that you have been living under this law at the Federal level since Bill Clinton signed it, right?
People have to learn to keep
People have to learn to keep their mouths shut. If you don't want to deal with any of this....sorry I can't do that on that day, I have another commitment. I can't do that for that kind of money, I can't rent you that apartment...it's already rented.
No matter what kind of business or service, there are ways to deal, so you don't get it stuck to you. ( and don't tell me this doesn't happen everyday)
Keep your prejudices/ beliefs to yourself period.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/30/3640374/big-lie-media-tells-in…
http://www.theatlantic.com/po
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas…
Your claim is incorrect. The
Your claim is incorrect. The Indiana law goes beyond the federal law signed by President Clinton.
Kyle - yes, yes they should.
Kyle - yes, yes they should. The ACLU fought for neo-nazis to parade through a predominantly jewish community. What is good for the goose is good for the gander - if you choose to do business in this society, you have chosen to do business in society, regardless of what you think of your customers.
One clarification - if a customer is making a scene or disrupting your business, you have the right to kick them out and not serve them.
I just want people to know
I just want people to know that I am not Richard L. Hale. I am Ricky G. Hale. I am not saying I agree or disagree with Richard's post. I'm just saying I am not him. I know people have confused us in the past.
For the record, I am Rick Hale, the plumber from Genesee plumbing.
I can only assume that the
I can only assume that the prompting for the question is the law enacted by the state of Indiana. Just to be certain I tried something unique, I read the entire bill instead of accepting someone's opinion, take, angle, interpretation, etc. In the entire bill there is no mention of the words gay, homosexual, sexuality, gender, gender identity, sex, sexual, lesbian, transgender, or any other term associated with the preponderance of attention given to the bill and the debate surrounding it.
Jeff, Prepare for your "two
Jeff,
Prepare for your "two minute hate". How dare you introduce reality into a discussion of a media-driven circus? What are you, some kind of reactionary?
Tim, Does the First Amendment
Tim,
Does the First Amendment have any relevance in today's world?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You may not like what other people believe. You may not like what they say. You may not think they should be allowed to follow their conscience. You are free to do that. AND SO ARE THEY.
In a free society, differences are celebrated. In a statist utopia nobody shall voice any objection to the wisdom provided by their betters.
If you need examples of statist utopias, just think of everywhere in the world where dissidents are imprisoned, homosexuals are imprisoned, or stoned, and religious minorities live at the pleasure of their betters (ie.: Most of the Middle East, Southwest Asia, Cuba, Venezuela and most US College Campi).
That is not America, regardless of what "progressive" media would like you to think. Sorry.
Kyle - that 1st Amendment
Kyle - that 1st Amendment means quite a lot to me, and should to everybody. It is why I still support places of worship being untaxed - the easiest way to for a government to wipe something out is to tax it to death. It is why I'm not imprisoned or stoned for not believing in the predominant mythology. It is why I could apply for a state job and not be turned away just because I don't kneel at the image of that predominant mythology's idols (even though my current state, NC, still has a law on the books requiring belief in that mythology).
However, religious freedom does not grant somebody a blank check to do as they wish, just cuz they believe their mythology's figurehead said they could. Some feel it is their deep religious belief that races shouldn't mix, or that non-believers are effectively sub-human and not entitled to the same rights as others, or that gays should be killed (see the amendment proposal submitted in California). Shoot, one of the most vocal "deeply religious" person lately has been adamant about folks like her being discriminated against becuase others dare to not believe what she does (yet, surprisingly, failed to stone her adulterous daughter when it became apparent I've a 9-month period that the unwed child had become pregnant out of wedlock).
If you want to be a member of society, then be a member of society and treat others with the respect they are entitled to. There is nothing respectful about "ewwww - gay!" or declaring somebody is not worthy of doing business with you simply because they don't bow down at your mythology's figurehead or follow the tenets of your mythology.
While all this discourse has
While all this discourse has been educational and entertaining. It looks like the great State of Indiana has blinked and will water down the law that I felt was kinda idiotic in the first place.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/02/indiana-religious-…
It appears that the law will specificially not allow refusal of service or other discrimination. And will just refocus on not allowing Govt to force churches and religion specific organization to recognize or support things against it's beliefs.
ie A priest cannot be forced to marry a same sex couple.... or a religious organization cannot be forced to cover abortion services.