The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[Lebowski]

I support gay rights in the sense that I don't care what my neighbors are up to. It really has no impact on me what-so-ever if I live nextdoor to a gay couple, my life is not impacted in that in any way, shape or form. If they're in love, want to get married, cool. Go for it. I don't care... why should I? With any luck they'll have better success than the majority of straight couples who get divorced and they'll be happy.


With that said, I support the bill too. Business owners should be able to choose who they do business with. Maybe they don't like you wearing a blue hat in their store. Maybe they don't like your glasses. Maybe your jeans are too baggy. Maybe your jeans are too tight. It's their business, if they don't wish to serve you, they shouldn't have to.

At the end of the day they're potentially losing a lot more than just a single sale, and if business is so good that they can deny people based on criteria that doesn't impact the store (like a gay couple shopping there) then so be it. The market will speak and that couple can go shop elsewhere and if the issue is great enough the store will lose lots of business from others who support the LGBT community or support whoever was denied service for whatever reason.

 

[jd4320t]

You'd think a group of people who are into gun rights wouldn't be for any law allowing businesses to refuse customers for any reason.

Come on INGO.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If we're to be a truly free people, we should reserver the right to work for whomever we choose. Laws requiring people, with their private businesses, to do work for others should be repugnant to every freedom loving people. But the various news outlets and Facebook is all spinning this that the only possible reason for this is to screw homosexuals. Let the free market work. There's nothing in this bill forcing anybody to do anything.

There's already a federal version of this that's been on the books for years--no "No Gays" signs in the windows yet. There's double digit states that already have a version of this on their books--no "No Gays" signs in the windows yet.

If there weren't such a movement afoot to force people to act against their beliefs across the country, there'd probably not be this sort of thing being contemplated.

 

[OneBadV8]

I think the aim of the bill was to not allow customers to force business to serve them. Like the whole wedding cake thing that happened a while back.

I don't think the bill accomplishes that very well though.



I think as a business I should have the right to refuse service to anyone I choose for any reason. Just because you can pass a background check doesn't mean I should be forced to sell you a gun if my spidey sense and/or your behavior makes me question your motives.

 

[printcraft]

.....Laws requiring people, with their private businesses, to do work for others should be repugnant to every freedom loving people. .......

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[eldirector]

You'd think a group of people who are into gun rights wouldn't be for any law allowing businesses to refuse customers for any reason.

Come on INGO.

Pretty sure it is exactly the opposite. As in , against governments forcing private business to sell goods/services even if the business owner doesn't want to.

I'm sure this is a knee-jerk to the "gsy cake" fiascos. Laws like this should not be needed.

 

[dmazzio]

You'd think a group of people who are into gun rights wouldn't be for any law allowing businesses to refuse customers for any reason.

Come on INGO.

Not sure I understand that logic. Don't business owners have the right to do business with whom they choose. It's their gain or lose depending on the situation. Why do we need the government telling them what they can and can't do? Don't we have enough government intrusion into our lives.

 

[Lebowski]

You'd think a group of people who are into gun rights wouldn't be for any law allowing businesses to refuse customers for any reason.

Come on INGO.

Even though I disagree with store owner's requests to not have guns on premises, I respect their right to make that request and generally just shop elsewhere.

 

[Dead Duck]

So this law will help business owners from being forced to make and sell cakes for certain individuals that they choose not to deal with?

Would it be the same for print companies forced to print anti-gun literature that the owner doesn't believe in?


One is religious based as the other is opinion or politically based. How much freedom will business owners get here. I can see how people might think it can go too far but again it is their business and not any of our business.

 

[printcraft]

Even though I disagree with store owner's requests to not have guns on premises, I respect their right to make that request and generally just shop elsewhere.

and ..... This ^^^^^^^^


How hard is it to just go somewhere else to get what you want?
You can't get a Whopper at McDonald's, if you want a Whopper go to BurgerKing.
You don't have a right to demand that McDonald's make you a Whopper.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So this law will help business owners from being forced to make and sell cakes for certain individuals that they choose not to deal with?

Would it be the same for print companies forced to print anti-gun literature that the owner doesn't believe in?


One is religious based as the other is opinion or politically based. How much freedom will business owners get here. I can see how people might think it can go too far but again it is their business and not any of our business.

Whatever it is, it should be maximized.

This bill doesn't make anything legal that is currently illegal. It only prevents Kokomo or Bloomington or Orleans from passing a law that forces business (people) to act or preventing them from acting in ways that prevent them from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

 

[LP1]

Many of Indiana's largest employers have warned Pence and the legislature about this piece of crap. They have refused to listen, as usual. It not only makes Indiana look like a backwards assed state, it enshrines discrimination into law. I can well imagine the howls from the right if a muslim business owner denies access to christians based on their religion. Or someone denies medical aid to someone because of the status of their parents being gay (which has already happened).

This bill carves out special rights for the religious in Indiana, not everyone. They've just made a special class of people in Indiana with special made up rights. The very things that opponents of gay marriage have been accusing the other side of wanting. If they had crafted a bill that anyone could refuse service to anyone else for any reason, and carved out a right for everyone, this wouldn't have been as large an issue. But they didn't. They just instituted sharia light.

+1
Amen! (ah, the irony)

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

and ..... This ^^^^^^^^


How hard is it to just go somewhere else to get what you want?
You can't get a Whopper at McDonald's, if you want a Whopper go to BurgerKing.
You don't have a right to demand that McDonald's make you a Whopper.

I wouldn't go to a Muslim printer and insist that they print Easter pamphlets, if they refused.

 

[LP1]

In my opinion, a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Even if that reason is none.

So did folks in the South before 1964 (and some to this day).

We just cemented Indiana's reputation as a backwards state, and did it by a landslide.

Who elected these clowns, anyway?

Hate and discrimination are always repugnant, and doubly so when they hide behind the guise of religion.

 

[printcraft]

I wouldn't go to a Muslim printer and insist that they print Easter pamphlets, if they refused.

Yes, but you have common courtesy and nothing to prove......... its a hard way to go through life.

 

[PaulF]

This bill is bait for the federal courts...at the expense of Indiana's taxpayers.

What does the bill actually do? "Protect" business owners from potential customers who...wait for it...want to use the same product or service that is offered to their neighbors. The horror!

You don't want to bake that cake? Fine, send them my way. I like money, and I don't care who wants to give it to me.

I am a small-government conservative...what about this bill creates a smaller government? Who will pay for the lawsuits this bill will create? Is this really what our legislators do all day?

Indiana has a real need for good governance...not half-baked idealistic battles paid on the public dime, with dubious benefit to the paying public.

I can't wait to see this blow up in Pence's face...that POS RINO ideologue deserves to be out on his ass.

 

[steveh_131]

This bill carves out special rights for the religious in Indiana, not everyone. They've just made a special class of people in Indiana with special made up rights. The very things that opponents of gay marriage have been accusing the other side of wanting. If they had crafted a bill that anyone could refuse service to anyone else for any reason, and carved out a right for everyone, this wouldn't have been as large an issue. But they didn't. They just instituted sharia light.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. A certain group was using the government to infringe upon the property rights of another group. This bill prevents it.

This is a good bill, in terms of liberty.

 

[Jomibe]

You don't want to bake that cake? Fine, send them my way.

I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of the bill.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, but you have common courtesy and nothing to prove......... its a hard way to go through life.

I try. I'm not perfect.

What amazes me is the number of people that confuse voluntary treating people properly, with dignity, respect, etc. and the blatant support for the government to force them to...even among those that claim the "liberty minded" mantel.

The 1st Amendment is quite clear. The freedom to practice one's religion is specifically enumerated in our Constitution. In my view, that doesn't mean I get to treat people in an ugly manner just because they don't believe the same as me. But I shouldn't have to act in ways that are counter to the practice of my relgion--even if I have no religion at all. If I had a service station and a car load of folks whose behaviors, bumper stickers, conversation, etc. that I would find disagreeable came in and needed a flat fixed, I don't see a moral reason to refuse their business. On the other hand if I had a bible book store with an adoption reference section in it and somebody wanted me to sell their pro-abortion book in it, I should have that freedom to reject their requests.

The Constitution is good. If we follow it, I'm positive we'd all be better off.

 

[mrjarrell]

I'm going to have to disagree with you. A certain group was using the government to infringe upon the property rights of another group. This bill prevents it.

This is a good bill, in terms of liberty.

Nope. It only carves out an exemption for the religious. Creating a special class of people and protecting them from something they were already protected from by existing law. This doesn't cover every business owner. Just the religious.