The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[halfmileharry]

Seems like this bill just makes it legal to run your business as you see fit. The Govt has stuck their nose into everyone's business way too deep.
I see this as giving a business owner the freedom to run his business as they see fit.
IF a customer isn't welcome in one shop I'm sure they'll be welcome in another.

 

[PistolBob]

The homosexual community is blowing it big time with this deal...all they have to do is find the businesses that will refuse them for being homosexuals, and just open up a business next door that does cater to the homosexual community...and see who is still in business in a year. OBVIOUSLY the community will band together and buy all their fishing worms from the store owned and operated by homosexuals for homosexuals...and now, with this new law...the homosexual business owners can refuse to serve people that can't or won't show how homosexual they are.

It's a big old win win.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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!

We should be able to. But the feds crossed that bridge back in the 60s.

 

[halfmileharry]

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.

No lawyer but I think I can refuse to serve you just because I don't like you.

 

[rob63]

Regardless of which side of this you are on, you have to admit that there is considerable irony in businesses protesting the law by threatening to refuse to do business with people in a state that would pass a law saying that you can refuse to do business with people.

 

[Jomibe]

The homosexual community is blowing it big time with this deal...all they have to do is find the businesses that will refuse them for being homosexuals, and just open up a business next door that does cater to the homosexual community...and see who is still in business in a year. OBVIOUSLY the community will band together and buy all their fishing worms from the store owned and operated by homosexuals for homosexuals...and now, with this new law...the homosexual business owners can refuse to serve people that can't or won't show how homosexual they are.

It's a big old win win.

Some people see a regular dress here, some people see a purple one. I'm not sure which one it really is.

 

[MisterChester]

We should be able to. But the feds crossed that bridge back in the 60s.

It happened because the racism was blatant and out in the open. Would you think things would have worked differently if instead of having "no blacks allowed" signs everywhere, all the businesses refused service quietly and said "it's my business, I refuse to serve, the reason is none of your beeswax"?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It happened because the racism was blatant and out in the open. Would you think things would have worked differently if instead of having "no blacks allowed" signs everywhere, all the businesses refused service quietly and said "it's my business, I refuse to serve, the reason is none of your beeswax"?

Who knows. But I do believe that with the videos on the news showing those folks getting sprayed by fire hose and having dogs sicced on them would have resulted in the needed changes. And it probably would have happened a lot quicker than folks think...all without giving the government deep inroads into private property rights and government sponsored reverse discriimination. But we'll never know now and in the mean time we've grown comfortable with the government telling us what we can do with our property.

 

[Dead Duck]

The homosexual community is blowing it big time ....

 

[MisterChester]

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.

When a shop comes up that refuses service to the majority religion here, and they'll be vilified by you know who, does that make them (ones who were refused service and complain) fascists too?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

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.

I disagree. I am surprised that so many people oppose the right of the business owner to do business as they see fit.

I do not inherently have a right to make someone bake me a cake, the baker inherently has a right to refuse to use his labor to bake me a cake.

Don't get me wrong, I might boycott a business for refusing to serve christians/homosexuals/muslims/hillbillies, but I do not want the government dictating terms, I want to let the market do it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

When a shop comes up that refuses service to the majority religion here, and they'll be vilified by you know who, does that make them fascists too?

That's the market. As long as it's a bunch of folks doing the vilifying and not seeking to enact laws, that's OK in my book.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

When a shop comes up that refuses service to the majority religion here, and they'll be vilified by you know who, does that make them (ones who were refused service and complain) fascists too?

Yes. It's the business/owners right to serve whoever they choose... at least, that's how it should be.

But the types of people that sue over things like this tend to come from one side of the issue.

 

[jd4320t]

I guess I'm on my own with this one. Hopefully it doesn't amount to anything

 

[MisterChester]

I guess I'm on my own with this one. Hopefully it doesn't amount to anything

You're not alone. I think the bill is unecessary.

 

[OneBadV8]

You're not alone. I think the bill is unecessary.

the bill is very unnecessary. We dont need to have bills for everything.be nice if for one session they repealed things.

 

[bwframe]

I'm sure if there is any even perceived discrimination, it will be screamed from the rooftops. The market will dictate the direction the market goes without government intervention.

If Gencon chooses to be political and go away we don't need them anyway.

 

[MisterChester]

the bill is very unnecessary. We dont need to have bills for everything.be nice if for one session they repealed things.

My sentiments exactly... A creation of a law to restore some kind of freedom? That doesn't make much sense to me. In order to restore something, that means that it had to have been taken away to begin with. When was this religious liberty taken away? 1st amendment says you can't take it away.

so... This bill is supposed to restore a liberty that was never taken away because the law of the land forbids it to be taken away in the first place? Something doesn't add up.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

More information is usually better. Folks that would leave/avoid Indiana had better check their refuge states. According to this source, Indiana already had in place strict scrutiny for this type of stuff. So, with my layman's legal understanding this bill will neither hurt nor help Hoosiers (of any ilk). But if people think we're the backwater bigots of the country, almost 60% of the rest of the country is too for they either have outright RFRAs of their own or they interpret that way in the constitutions.

1A. What Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? - The Volokh Conspiracy

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Edit: nevermind