Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Tassman]

Never mind the fact there is a distinct, Biblical difference between being black or female, and homosexuality.

Whether or not you personally agree with the interpretation, the fact is that biblical passages have been used historically to enforce the subordination of women, oppose miscegenation and support slavery, just as they are being used today to promote faith-based bigotry against homosexuals. And just as the former have been relegated to the dustbin of history for good reason so the new Indiana laws appear to be going the same way. The Church, despite its posturing, usually seems to get it right in the end.

[Darth Executor]

Whether or not you personally agree with the interpretation, the fact is that biblical passages have been used historically to enforce the subordination of women, oppose miscegenation and support slavery, just as they are being used today to promote faith-based bigotry against homosexuals. And just as the former have been relegated to the dustbin of history for good reason so the new Indiana laws appear to be going the same way. The Church, despite its posturing, usually seems to get it right in the end.

I dunno what you're smoking but the subordination of women, opposition to miscegenation and support for slavery have not been relegated to the dustbin of history. The hubris of the most dysgenic socio-religious group in the history of humanity never ceases to amaze me.

[Tassman]

This says it all right here:

Source: Breitbart

Memories Pizza is owned by the O’Connor family. According to the local ABC affiliate, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Crystal O’Connor said. However, the O’Connor family says they would never deny service inside their establishment to a gay couple coming in to eat.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...s-liberty-law/

© Copyright Original Source

The Indiana law is not about wanting to unfairly discriminate against gays, it's about not wanting to be a party to their sin.

What about being a party to sin by serving an adulterous man: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery" (Luke 16.18)?

I dunno what you're smoking but the subordination of women, opposition to miscegenation and support for slavery have not been relegated to the dustbin of history. The hubris of the most dysgenic socio-religious group in the history of humanity never ceases to amaze me.

In the eyes of the law they have been regardless of your personal biases on the subject.

[Darth Executor]

In the eyes of the law they have been regardless of your personal biases on the subject.

You realize there is more to this planet that the West, whose population relative to the rest of the world has cratered, right?

[Tassman]

You realize there is more to this planet that the West, whose population relative to the rest of the world has cratered, right?

Given that the context of this topic is the legislation in the state of Indiana my comments were directed towards US law in particular and Western attitudes in general as should have been obvious.

[Mountain Man]

Whether or not you personally agree with the interpretation, the fact is that biblical passages have been used historically to enforce the subordination of women, oppose miscegenation and support slavery, just as they are being used today to promote faith-based bigotry against homosexuals. And just as the former have been relegated to the dustbin of history for good reason so the new Indiana laws appear to be going the same way. The Church, despite its posturing, usually seems to get it right in the end.

What you mean is that "biblical passages have been used incorrectly to enforce the subordination of women, oppose miscegenation and support slavery". Show me someone who uses scripture to support the subordinatinon of women and I will show you someone who is misusing scripture.

Homosexuality is a whole different matter because the Bible explicitly calls it a sin, period. End of argument. Whether American churches swing one way or the other on the issue, the Word of God won't say anything different.

[Mountain Man]

What about being a party to sin by serving an adulterous man: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery" (Luke 16.18)?

You really don't get it. Serving a meal to someone is one thing, and nobody has a problem with that. This pizza shop even said they welcome homosexual diners. What they won't do is be party to their abominable activities by catering a gay wedding. And according to the First Amendment, they shouldn't have to. But who follows the Constitution any more, right?

[Sparko]

You really don't get it. Serving a meal to someone is one thing, and nobody has a problem with that. This pizza shop even said they welcome homosexual diners. What they won't do is be party to their abominable activities by catering a gay wedding. And according to the First Amendment, they shouldn't have to. But who follows the Constitution any more, right?

yup. And if they were asked to cater to some Adultress' Orgy Party they would refuse to do that too.

[lilpixieofterror]

What you mean is that "biblical passages have been used incorrectly to enforce the subordination of women, oppose miscegenation and support slavery". Show me someone who uses scripture to support the subordinatinon of women and I will show you someone who is misusing scripture.

Homosexuality is a whole different matter because the Bible explicitly calls it a sin, period. End of argument. Whether American churches swing one way or the other on the issue, the Word of God won't say anything different.

It is too bad, for Tazzy Wazzy, that the most passionate anti slavery advocates of the era were Christian clergy and the first women's rights convention was held in a church. I've already informed him of those facts before and he just choose to accuse me of having a serious psychological disorder that he is unable to prove I actually have. Prove him wrong long enough and and you too can be accused of having a serious psychological disorder that the 'psychologist' is unable to show, in any measurable way, that you actually have!

[Sam]

It appears that the Indiana legislature will modify Indiana law to prevent the RFRA from being used as a civil defense for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. It will also codify that the RFRA doesn't authorize employment or housing discrimination on that basis.

Read the proposed rule change here.

[RumTumTugger]

It appears that the Indiana legislature will modify Indiana law to prevent the RFRA from being used as a civil defense for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. It will also codify that the RFRA doesn't authorize employment or housing discrimination on that basis.

Read the proposed rule change here.

So the intolerant bigoted Bullies won again.

[Sparko]

It seems the law in Sam's world says, "Commissioned works are protected by the First Amendment, and no business owner can be forced to create a commissioned work that contradicts their core values. Unless you're a Christian."

That seems to be the general liberal view.

In case anyone missed my posting in the thread about the pizza shop owners:

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christ...hocking-video/

[Sam]

That seems to be the general liberal view.

In case anyone missed my posting in the thread about the pizza shop owners:

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christ...hocking-video/

Contains speech. First Amendment protections. Distinct from "vanilla" services. Dealt with numerous times.

[Sparko]

Contains speech. First Amendment protections. Distinct from "vanilla" services. Dealt with numerous times.

wrong. You might want to actually check the laws and the situations. Several of the cases where Christian businesses were fined was because they refused to put pro-gay marriage slogans on a cake. And the "anti-discrimination" laws say nothing about "free speech" exceptions or "vanilla" services. They simply say you can't refuse service to protected classes. You might want to stop just making things up and pretending you know what you are talking about. If the first amendment clause on Free Speech was a valid reason not to comply then it would also mean that the First Amendment protection of the free practice of religion would also apply. It doesn't seem to.

[Sam]

wrong. You might want to actually check the laws and the situations. Several of the cases where Christian businesses were fined was because they refused to put pro-gay marriage slogans on a cake. And the "anti-discrimination" laws say nothing about "free speech" exceptions or "vanilla" services. They simply say you can't refuse service to protected classes. You might want to stop just making things up and pretending you know what you are talking about. If the first amendment clause on Free Speech was a valid reason not to comply then it would also mean that the First Amendment protection of the free practice of religion would also apply. It doesn't seem to.

I'd need to see examples. I'm familiar with only two: the shirt-printing business in KY that refused to print shirts for a Gay Pride Parade and the baker who refused to write anti-gay remarks on a cake for some chairman of a local Christian group who was trying to make a point. I don't think the latter case resulted in fines.

In any event, I noted before that I expect the KY case to be reversed on appeal, as it should be. The freedom to not say something has long been protected in the judicial system and there's no legislative or judicial reason that won't continue. Anti-discrimination laws can't trump the 1st Amendment, the right to not speaking is protected by the 1st Amendment, therefore anti-discrimination laws cannot compel someone's speech.

The only way this doesn't make sense is if someone, for sincere or disingenuous purpose, tries to conflate any service or production into being protected "speech." There are only a few "borderline" cases I'm aware of and they mostly deal with whether the person refusing service offers very similar products (e.g., wedding photo "packages").