The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[jamil]

That's CO. They also have legal weed....neither affect us. We are just making a statement that makes this state look unflattering...

It only looks unflattering to people who already think that way about Indiana. And I don't care.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Personally, I would rather have businesses post their bigotry on the front door (or website) than let them hide behind bad legislation. At least then I can opt out of their "service" as well.

You don't want to serve "my kind"? Fine, just make sure I know it before I slap my money down.

I would too. But these laws have not resulted in the widespread pestilence in other states. Bigots have rights too.

 

[rob63]

I thought he was asking about the Indianapolis case.

I apologize for not understanding what he was asking about. Very sorry I bothered to get involved with any of this.

 

[OneBadV8]

I assumed the CO case also.

I thought he was asking about the Indianapolis case.

 

[jamil]

I apologize for not understanding what he was asking about. Very sorry I bothered to get involved with any of this.

No need to apologize. It's just discussion. We don't always understand what's said the same ways. And we certainly don't all agree.

 

[steveh_131]

This anger might be more properly directed at the original attention whoring statement-makers who sue folks that don't want to serve them instead of acting like grown-ups and finding another establishment that will.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Gonna be interesting to see some of them refuse service to the Children of Ham.

This has no effect on federal law.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This anger might be more properly directed at the original attention whoring statement-makers who sue folks that don't want to serve them instead of acting like grown-ups and finding another establishment that will.

Yep.

 

[jamil]

I assumed the CO case also.

The colorado thing was over a wedding cake. The indy thing was cupcakes. I just read about the cupcake ordeal in Indianapolis and when Denny mentioned cupcakes I assumed he meant the indy thing.

 

[jamil]

This anger might be more properly directed at the original attention whoring statement-makers who sue folks that don't want to serve them instead of acting like grown-ups and finding another establishment that will.

Thank you. You've somewhat satisfied my curiosity about what normal (as opposed to progressive) libertarians might think about this.

 

[Denny347]

You asked the question about the case in CO, I just answered it.

Actually, I thought there was a specific case here in Indiana like this one that this was meant to address (I said I did not know much about the incident). In Indiana, was the business forced to make the gay baked goods (lest I confuse anyone between cake and cup cakes).

 

[printcraft]

Regardless the Colorado event started this ball rolling.

 

[jamil]

Actually, I thought there was a specific case here in Indiana like this one that this was meant to address (I said I did not know much about the incident). In Indiana, was the business forced to make the gay baked goods (lest I confuse anyone between cake and cup cakes).

The business wasn't "forced" in a legal sense. They decided to retire and closed the shop. According to what I've read, they were in kind of a gay-ish neighborhood, so, there's that.

 

[jamil]

Regardless the Colorado event started this ball rolling.

Yep. The left gets lefter and the right gets righter.

 

[MisterChester]

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.

!

 

[mrjarrell]

Thank you. You've somewhat satisfied my curiosity about what normal (as opposed to progressive) libertarians might think about this.

Actually, most Indiana libertarians I know are against this bill. I've only seen one other person come at this from Steve's POV and he's more republican leaning.

 

[PistolBob]

I think that's a sure thing.

Nope. Indiana ACLU says it is not worth the time....this law brings Indiana in line with federal law that is already in place. ACLU thinks the law will stand and has little chance of being overturned.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Regardless the Colorado event started this ball rolling.

Yep. The left gets lefter and the right gets righter.

Yep...if folks would minimize wanting to ban the things they dislike; mandating the things they think everybody else ought to like; and regulating everything else, these things would not be such issues.

 

[MisterChester]

I think this: why do we even need this bill? What purpose does it serve?

Why can't we treat this like we do with at-will employment? Where you can be fired for no reason at any time. Shouldn't a business owner be able to refuse service for no reason too? Why do we need legislation for people to hide behind? I don't understand.

If if I walked into a shop and they refused service to me, I'd ask why, and then leave. They don't have to give me a reason. If they don't want my business, they don't want it, end of story. I'll go somewhere else. Seems like all this bill does is it validates dumb reasoning when a reason shouldn't have to be given to begin with!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think this: why do we even need this bill? What purpose does it serve?

Why can't we treat this like we do with at-will employment? Where you can be fired for no reason at any time. Shouldn't a business owner be able to refuse service for no reason too? Why do we need legislation for people to hide behind? I don't understand.

If if I walked into a shop and they refused service to me, I'd ask why, and then leave. They don't have to give me a reason. If they don't want my business, they don't want it, end of story. I'll go somewhere else. Seems like all this bill does is it validates dumb reasoning when a reason shouldn't have to be given to begin with!

Why? Because there exist two types of people. Those that are logical and able to make decisions on their own about patronizing a business.

And those that can't, and need to vilify anyone that disagrees with them. Again, I say, fascists.