२ एप्रिल, २०१५
The Indiana RFRA "does not... authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of... sexual orientation [or] gender identity..."
According to the text of the amendment proposed by Indiana Republicans.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५४ टिप्पण्या:
So, if a gay couple wants something, the provider HAS to give it to them.
The artist is REQUIRED to give their services.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what the word "authorize" means in this context.
Does this mean people can't use the RFA to defend themselves if they do something the bill doesn't "authorize"?
How does this differ from a positive protection against discrimination?
This is very clever by the left. Attack, attack, attack.
This way, your critics will shut up. And when they shut up, you win. Anyone who doesn't shut up becomes stigmatized. Otherized. Yes, I know, I just made up that word.
Let's hope we American's have enough of a spine to stand up to this nonsense. Every business should be allowed to discriminate. However, since that battle has been lost, the next line of defense should be, sure, we'll serve everyone, but why should we be forced to celebrate your ceremonies?
Not only will we not serve alternative weddings, we also won't serve KKK rallies, Devil Worshipping functions, and any other sorts of get togethers that we object to.
If you're a KKK member and want to come in and sit down and eat pizza, great. You're welcome here. If you have an alternative sex life and you want pizza here, come on in. If you worship satan and want pizza, enjoy.
But don't expect us to be involved in your celebrations of those things.
Double down on the mistake. It's the way of the law.
They can't discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That does not mean that they can't discriminate based on the activity the customers are engaged in.
So you can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay man marrying a lesbian. But you could for two men ( or two women ) getting 'married', whether those men were gay or straight.
Sounds right.
Paranoia runs deep, Bliss.
For it to be paranoia wouldn't I have to think that reading of the law was a bad thing?
Shouldn't it say the law doesn't authorize a provider to discriminate against every protected category. Folks might get the wrong idea.
Idiot politicians need to just stop. Stop making things worse.
No church or religious persons -- none -- have heretofore claimed a right to discriminate based on someone being gay, etc. The protesters, however, were falsely characterizing the issue and the law as a claimed right to discriminate. So what do the idiot politicians do? They exclude churches, etc. from the definition of "provider," thereby creating a license for churches, etc. to discriminate!
Not only have they now made explicit what was not there in the first place, they continue to confuse the issue of denying service to a person based on some personal characteristic, which everyone agrees is WRONG, and declining to participate in, being involved with, or otherwise associated with some agenda, message, event, activity, etc. that is against what the person believes.
The artist can always paint in the shadow of the blue dress. All it takes is a smidgeon of creativity.
Never mind. I clicked the link and it covers the waterfront of discrimination.
Part 2 is troubling: how does it not provide a defense in a civil action or criminal prosecution?
Isn't that the whole point of these laws.
I think the law is (supposed to be) a shield, not a sword. In the business context, the pain point is services not products. Who is going to refuse to sell a hammer to some guy because he is gay, questioning, black, Hispanic, whatever?
It's just the personalized wedding cake thing that has been hyped into the Generalized Problem. It's not.
Also, as noted in prior threads, any business can (and must) discriminate on dimensions relevant to its legal operation. If you are at capacity you cannot promise to deliver more. If your customer is getting violent, you need to escort him off premises. If somebody wants to consummate their marriage (same sex or otherwise) in your public space, you may have to intervene.
This is not rocket science, but there is a big noise machine here trying to score points for an election that is now only about 18 months away...
eric said...
This is very clever by the left. Attack, attack, attack.
It only works because most of America is on the side of history, not bigotry like you.
Two scenarios -
An over-the-top gay guy comes to a bakery and asks for a chocolate cake. Baker knows this guy is gay and says, "Absolutely. Here you go. Thanks for coming."
A heterosexual wedding planner comes to the bakery and identifies as heterosexual and asks for a cake to be delivered by the baker to a gay wedding with these words printed on the cake: "This baker and his church are hateful bigots for not embracing gay marriage." Baker says to the heterosexual wedding planner, "No thanks. Would you like a chocolate cake like the one I just sold to the gay guy?"
Has the baker engaged in discrimination against gays?
"So, if a gay couple wants something, the provider HAS to give it to them."
Not according to that language--that simply states that the law doesn't authorize the provider to refuse; that's not the same as saying the provider is required to refuse.
Has any crusading reporter gone to a bakery owned by a Moslem and asked whether they would bake a cake for a gay wedding?
RFRA was intended to protect neato PC religions, not icky flyover Jeebus cultists.
It is the refuse to "offer" that I am curious about.
Does this mean that the pizza parlor or baker must now put out a "Gays welcome! We are happy to cater gay and lesbian weddings!"
Sound like they want not just passive acceptance but positive embracement of gay marriage.
Another question: Do they have to be nice about it? Could put a sign up saying "We don't like homosexual marriage between two men or two women. We think it is deviate and wrong.
You would probably get better pizza at ABC Pizza where they do embrace it.
If you still want us to cater it, we will, but only because the law says we have to. Enjoy!"
Or maybe they could just paper the shop with the passage from Leviticus?
As a liberal I never cared much about whether folks were gay. Their business is their business as far as I am concerned. I'm getting tired of this shit, though and am starting to actively dislike gays who take this attitude. Fuck 'em.
John Henry
so people are free to be religious in the privacy of their own homes (unless gay people exist). Good to know.
Another thought (An idle mind is the devil's workshop)
If I am a gay friendly bakery, can I give a discount for same sex weddings?
John Henry
As I understand Indiana law, and from a previous post, there is no general law against discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.
So the RFRA says you can't do it on religious grounds.
But as long as you don't state a religious basis, you just say you find SSM offensive and won't be part of it I think you are OK.
Right?
John Henry
Can I turn down a photography gig of a wedding of one man & two women? How about a nudist wedding?
Am I discriminating against the PEOPLE or the EVENT?
so people are free to be religious in the privacy of their own homes
The Left Fascists are working on that.
Let's hope we American's have enough of a spine to stand up to this nonsense.
Not to give a spoiler, but we don't. We're pussies in this country.
Hell, the pizza company (and, seriously, fuck that useless TV station that first ran this "news" story) specifically said they'd serve gay customers.
They said it quite explicitly. And their own state Senator is slamming them.
so people are free to be religious in the privacy of their own homes (unless gay people exist). Good to know.
You might "ruin" your kids with your "bigotry", so no, you can't do it in your own home, either.
I wonder if the Founding Fathers, if they could travel forward in time, would rethink the Revolution.
@Mark Brilliant. Let me add another to your examples. A Catholic baker, very serious about her religion, takes her faith seriously when it says that remarriage after non-annulled divorce is sinful. A heterosexual couple comes in, blithely saying they need a cake for their second marriage. She says, "I'm sorry, I can't be a part of that. Here are 4 other bakeries that can serve you."
Is she guilty of bigotry against that heterosexual couple?
But all of these logical things are beside the point. What nobody, even the conservative commentators, seems willing to put out into the open is that this is obviously an orchestrated campaign backed by Soros and all that ilk, the successor to Journalist, whatever that is. That's the reason for all the vitriol. A gullible left-wing populace willingly falls in line.
Darleen -
It is pretty obvious that if an elderly, gay, black, handicapped, Hindu woman from South America wants to hire you to film a porno movie with her wife, and you declined, that that would be discrimination based on age, sexual orientation, race, color, disability, religion, sex and national origin.
If you don't shoot the porno film, Darleen, that means you're a hater.
What a terrible amendment.
The editors of The Weekly Standard anticipated this wretched development:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416288/dont-fix-indianas-rfra-editors
Is the Althouse Blog a public accommodation? Must she accept all viewpoints, however outrageous she thinks them?
No need to get into hypotheticals here. I have never taken divorce case to prosecute (I've defended against one once, mostly to protect the property assets since anyone who wants a divorce automatically gets one).
I don't do divorce cases. I won't do divorce cases.
Many, many, many lawyers will decline to take a case that they do not want to be associated with. That does not constitute an invidious, discriminatory animus against the potential client. It is the issue, not the person, that is the matter.
Yes, but lawyers benefit by having written most of the laws.
This saga is reading more and more like 1984. "That is permitted is mandatory"
Special Snowflakes indeed.
Sexual orientation or gender identity... and what else? There is a difference between orientation (i.e. bias) and behavior (i.e. expression). Don't submit to the selective exclusion supported by the trans-equality movement. It's principled tolerance or selective exclusion (i.e. pro-choice).
Is there nothing the government may not compel us to do? Are we citizens, or subjects?
Christian Man Denied Service By THIRTEEN Pro-Gay Bakeries
It only works because most of America is on the side of history, not bigotry like you.
Oh, up yours, Alex. I'm so sick of the righteous indignation.
soooo....staging the Bill signing with anti-LGBT activists was for what purpose again?
Just to make the point, they should have prefaced it:
"For those of you who cannot comprehend the legislative language, the Indiana RFRA does not..."
machine said...
soooo....staging the Bill signing with anti-LGBT activists was for what purpose again?
Was it was to tell people they have free exercise rights when targeted for legal harassment by "LGBT activists"?
"It only works because most of America is on the side of history,"
Yes, most of us are on the side of history, unlike gay marriage zealots who are on the side of phony history. I don't care what you do but it is not history. It is invention.
Alex,
whatever gave you the idea that history has "sides?"
Alex thinks history began in 2013 when Hillary "evolved" on gay marriage.
I think I've pointed this out before, but 'Alex' is a troll. He never, ever, ever, ever writes anything that isn't completely idiotic. Sometimes from the left, sometimes from the right – I think he flips a coin. But it's always mindless and not worth reading or responding to.
The fix sounds as poorly written as DOMA. (Yes, I'm in favor of one man/one woman model of marriage, but the NOT way or reasoning it is written DOMA)
It's ashame culture wars are forming our legie.
Legislation.
When are these guys gonna learn?
The worst thing you can do in crisis management is to try to "walk back" or "moderate" your position. That just throws fuel on the fire and encourages your detractors to keep pushing.
For instance, have you ever heard the president try to walk back the ACA? Or Hillary! admit she did anything wrong with her emails?
If Pence and the Indiana legislature want this to blow over the best thing to do is to simply endure the criticism and wait until the next straw man pops up at which time it will be forgotten and the critics move on to another target.
I'm really disappointed in the leadership in Indiana. First, the RFRA was unnecessary. Second, the "fix" is even more unnecessary and counterproductive.
Pence could learn something from Obama in this case.
I have no big problem with the idea in the abstract of this amending language - except that it is redundant. It protects what is not threatened anyway. I do have a VERY strong objection to attaching this language to this law now, ESPECIALLY after this frenzied mob attack on the tiny Indiana pizza joint. That attack is fascism, pure and simple. It is disgusting and ought to be opposed vigorously. To alter the law now is to legitimize the ugliest and worst side of our social life, a side frighteningly dominant in our media especially.
The addition is probably unnecessary, depending upon other state law. But it is unobjectionable. It does not mean that any service can be demanded in the context of a religiously oriented activity. That was the whole point of the RFRA.
Seems fairly simple to me.
But if a baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding he wouldn't be refusing to provide services to any member of the general public on the basis of their gender. Rather it would be on the basis of their request.
If a straight man was in charge of buying the cake for a gay wedding and a baker refused to bake him the cake would he be discriminating against gays? Gays wouldn't even be making the request.
Stephen Crowder brought a hidden camera into some muslim bakeries to see if they would refuse to bake a cake (half tongue in cheek as he does):
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/
Why is the issue only christian bakers, and not say Muslim Bakers?
Are gays going to target bomb the muslim bakery on Yelp with negative comments until he shuts down the business if he even says he would refuse IF a gay person asked him to cater his wedding? Not that a gay person actually did.
Is the suggestion that you would enough to destroy your business even if there is no indication that you did.
How is denial of service the same as denying a person?
I didn't realize gay weddings were persons and had rights or opinions.
@jr565. ,
My mom and dad ordered my wedding cake. The baker had no idea if their daughter was gay or straight. It was a very specific cake, as well.
Wedding planning can be a nightmare, and I let my parents and in-laws just run the show. Thank God we had only for 7 months.
Bakers sell not to the couple marrying all the time.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा