Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:13 pm

Moving Sale wrote:Good grief. For the 20th time, the kosher deli would have to go out and get ham. The fucking "gay" cake ingredients are in the shop. Get a better analogy.

Double bullshit.

It isn't a matter of ingredients MS, it's about what is and isn't offensive.

Thus, the funeral service story.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:16 pm

mvscal wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:Good grief. For the 20th time, the kosher deli would have to go out and get ham. The fucking "gay" cake ingredients are in the shop. Get a better analogy.
So what?

So it's a shitty analogy.

J, the punks were disruptive and breaking he law. Another shitty analogy.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:27 pm

mvscal wrote:Both refuse to provide service based on their religious beliefs.

Bullshit. The kosher deli refuses to provide a specific product based on religion. It won't sell pork to anyone, but it will sell whatever it does have on hand to any customer who'll pay for it. (It is a Jewish establishment, after all.) It provides the same products and service to all customers, and is not refusing anyone. No business carries every product every potential customer may want. This is not discrimination. The baker is choosing to deny selling what it has on hand to a specific group of prospective customers based on religious beliefs. While religion may be a factor common to both examples, the way it is being exercised is completely different in these two cases.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:31 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
mvscal wrote:Both refuse to provide service based on their religious beliefs.
Bullshit. The kosher deli refuses to provide a specific product based on religion.

So does the baker and the florist, idiot. The specific product not be sold is floral arrangements and cakes for gay weddings.

The deli sells sandwiches but not all types of sandwiches based on their religious beliefs.

The florist provides flowers for special occasions but not all special occasions based on their religious beliefs.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:34 pm

The have the flour eggs irises and roses on hand you stupid racist fuck.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:38 pm

Moving Sale wrote:The have the flour eggs irises and roses on hand you stupid racist fuck.

You keep saying that like it actually means something other than the fact that you're fucking idiot.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:53 pm

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:
mvscal wrote:Both refuse to provide service based on their religious beliefs.
Bullshit. The kosher deli refuses to provide a specific product based on religion.
So does the baker and the florist, idiot. The specific product not be sold is floral arrangements and cakes for gay weddings.

The deli sells sandwiches but not all types of sandwiches based on their religious beliefs.

The florist provides flowers for special occasions but not all special occasions based on their religious beliefs.

You're seriously trying to sell this load of crap? You know it's a lame argument as much as I do. Baker sells cakes. Florist sells flowers. Deli sells sammiches. The deli owner doesn't give two shits what the "special occasion" is for which he's selling his products. Nor does he care what the religion or sexual orientation of his customers are. All he cares about is does the customer have money to pay for what he's offering, irrespective of what products he doesn't offer - you can't sell what you don't have, and the reason for not stocking a particular product is irrelevant.

I agree that businesses should be free to discriminate - let the market sort it out. But to say, "Well, religion is a factor is both these examples so it makes the analogy valid" is utterly ludicrous. And you know it, too.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:00 pm

Cut him some slack, Smackie. It's difficult carrying water for bigoted assholes and successfully selling it to the public, as Mike Pence has discovered over the past couple of days.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:08 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:...and the reason for not stocking a particular product is irrelevant.

You seem unusually desperate to make it so, however, it is central to the point. It is a religious choice as is the choice of a florist to decline to cater an event that is morally repugnant to their religious beliefs. The only problem with this law is that it is limited to religion.

Under your idiotic "logic," I should be able to hire a kosher deli to cater my wedding and then sue them when they refuse to provide ham sandwiches, right?

atmdad · Post by **atmdad** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:15 pm

What is getting lost in all this is the distinction between selling a product and providing a service.

Making a wedding cake is typically a custom order prepared by the baker and his/her experience is providing a service. As for the florist it is not just selling a bunch of cut flowers but typical involves putting together the arrangements in a an aesthetically pleasing way, also providing a extra service. There is going to be an extra premium on the cost based on the service provided by the florist or baker. The government has no business forcing private individuals to provide services to people they do not want to work for.

If a baker or florist refuses to sell flowers or cakes etc. that is in their existing stock that is fucked up on their part, forcing someone to provide extra service against their beliefs is fucked up on the hypersensitve pc nazis part.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:16 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:Good grief. For the 20th time, the kosher deli would have to go out and get ham. The fucking "gay" cake ingredients are in the shop. Get a better analogy.
So what?
So it's a shitty analogy.

J, the punks were disruptive and breaking he law. Another shitty analogy.

So the punks doing some blow makes it all illegal then ?? Leave out the blow and what part is illegal ??

Here is a hint midget....the funeral home fucked up...I worked in that business and what the family wants, the family gets. I had to herd some spics out one day because they were huffing in the casket room.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:51 pm

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:...and the reason for not stocking a particular product is irrelevant.
You seem unusually desperate to make it so, however, it is central to the point. It is a religious choice as is the choice of a florist to decline to cater an event that is morally repugnant to their religious beliefs. The only problem with this law is that it is limited to religion.

Look, leave being a dipshit for the sake of being a dipshit to Moving Sale. It's what he does, he's good at it, and he takes pride in his dipshitedness. I would normally give you the benefit of the doubt that you're really not as retarded as you're portraying yourself to be in this thread, but I'm beginning to wonder if I should. Has living in the midwest really been killing off brain cells?

Under your idiotic "logic," I should be able to hire a kosher deli to cater my wedding and then sue them when they refuse to provide ham sandwiches, right?

Damn, you really are a moron. That is not my logic, and I clearly explained why. To stretch your idiocy further, I should be able to sue a caterer of Italian food for refusing to provide tacos. No business has any obligation to stock or sell what it chooses not to stock or sell for any reason, religious or otherwise, and should be under no fear of litigation for its refusal to do so.

Your repeatedly unsuccessful and incredibly weak attempts to say the deli example is exactly the same as the baker and the florist because religion is involved in all of them is tantamount to saying that green and gray are the same color because they both start with "gr." I mean, really, how can two things with that much in common not be the same? Seem stupid to you? Your analogy is every bit as imbecilic.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:04 pm

Moving Sale wrote:So it's a shitty analogy.

J, the punks were disruptive and breaking he law. Another shitty analogy.

An analogy yes, a shitty one, no.

You keep talking about ingredients, yet this is no way the point, and you know it. It's about providing a service, as Rooster pointed out. If creating and baking a style of cake, let's say it was one consisting of body parts, then that business can certainly claim said cake as being offensive, or even disruptive to business if other customers saw it and were put off. Now they can refuse to help, especially true if said cake offends religious sensibility (an oxymoron if there was one).

This has been played out more and more frequently: the clash between businesses’ “right to refuse service,” the religious freedoms of business owners, and anti-discrimination laws protecting gay and lesbian couples. As same-sex marriage and civil unions have become legal in several states, and recognized by the federal government, several businesses have refused service to homosexuals on the grounds that they don’t agree with or support same-sex marriage. On one side, business owners claim the right to practice their religion in good conscience. On the other, same-sex couples are protected from discrimination in public accommodations. Liberty of conscience is protected by the First Amendment, but freedom from discrimination is protected by the Civil Rights Act. Like many areas of the law, the issue of discrimination and freedoms is constantly evolving, but the first few decisions in cases involving same-sex couples have found that businesses do not have the right to refuse service to gay or lesbian customers any more than they do to those of certain races or nationalities.

So for now, a business cannot refuse service just because someone is gay. But a business can refuse service if they believe a customer is being abusive or disruptive and when combined with religious "beliefs", these waters are going to get muddier. As mvscal has pointed out, this issue is currently limited to religion. Laws are made to be changed, even broken and time will tell on this.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:19 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: To stretch your idiocy further, I should be able to sue a caterer of Italian food for refusing to provide tacos.

Actually, it's your idiocy. Own it. At least, the bulb is starting to flicker a bit. Yes, according to your logic you would sue an Italian caterer for refusing to provide tacos.

My logic is, "Why the fuck would I go to Italian caterer for tacos?" Similarly, "Why the fuck would I go to a fundy Christian florist to cater a gay wedding?"

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:38 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:I agree that businesses should be free to discriminate - let the market sort it out.

How well did the market deal with Jim Crow laws?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:54 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:I agree that businesses should be free to discriminate - let the market sort it out.
How well did the market deal with Jim Crow laws?

Jim Crow laws were government interference in the private sector which prevented the free market from working, you shit-dicked dumbfuck.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:04 pm

mvscal wrote:according to your logic you would sue an Italian caterer for refusing to provide tacos.

You continue to project others' logic on me, when I have stated this is not my belief nor the logic I'm employing.

I wrote:I agree that businesses should be free to discriminate - let the market sort it out.

In one case, a business will sell whatever it has to whomever is willing to buy it. In another case, a business refuses to sell what it has to certain clientele - it happens to be for religious reasons, but it could be for anything. You're trying to sell the story that these two cases are the same because religion is a common thread between them. And I'm saying you're full of horseshit because simply having something in common does not in and of itself make the two cases analogous.

Neither business sells everything; a florist doesn't sell every type of flower (probably not for religious reasons, but that's immaterial), and a deli doesn't sell every type of meat (for whatever reason). So what? Again, you can't sell what you don't carry, and no one is forcing anyone to carry or sell something they choose not to. The only common thread is that religion plays a role in each case, but not the same role, and it is insufficient to use religion as the sole basis on which to make the claim that these two examples represent the same thing. They clearly don't.

My logic is, "Why the fuck would I go to Italian caterer for tacos?" Similarly, "Why the fuck would I go to a fundy Christian florist to cater a gay wedding?"

On that we agree, except my guess is that the caterer likely advertises and promotes itself as one that slings dago food, so only an idiot would go in and ask for tacos. The florist likely advertises and promotes itself as a business that sells flowers, and probably (but not definitely) has a sign out front saying "Florist" as opposed to "Fundy Christian Florist." A 'mo wanting to buy flowers for a gay wedding would not be an idiot for walking into that florist shop to get them - it's what florists sell. Once it's made clear to the packer that his business is unwelcome there, the proper thing to do would be to find one that has no such objections and take his business there.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:24 pm

The problem is that you seem to think that you just walk in to a flower shop and walk out with your wedding arrangement in a bag. It doesn't work that way. A fag could walk in to a flower shop and walk out with a dozen roses for his boyfriend. That isn't an issue. Using the force of law to compel someone to cater a gay wedding is something completely different.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:31 pm

mvscal wrote:The problem is that you seem to think that you just walk in to a flower shop and walk out with your wedding arrangement in a bag. It doesn't work that way.

What did I post that would lead a semi-literate person to believe that's what I think?

Using the force of law to compel someone to cater a gay wedding is something completely different.

Point to where I indicated the the force of law should be used.

You're simply and deliberately dodging the crux of my argument - that you used a crappy analogy to illustrate a point with which we both agree.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:17 pm

The analogy is completely accurate. The businesses in question do not provide products or services for reasons of religious bias. You don't go to a kosher deli for a ham sandwich and you don't go to a Christian florist for a gay wedding arrangement. Neither one provides the desired product or service. It's the exact same fucking thing.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:23 pm

mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:I agree that businesses should be free to discriminate - let the market sort it out.
How well did the market deal with Jim Crow laws?
Jim Crow laws were government interference in the private sector which prevented the free market from working, you shit-dicked dumbfuck.

Jim Crow laws were local laws and rules which sought to enforce bigotry. The "government interference" came in the form of federal legislation which sought to eliminate them. As for the is Indiana nonsense, why would the individual states want to replicate the federal law in the first place? Well, because despite Pence's confused explanation, the laws are crucially different. Pence's law has language that is not contained in the federal RFRA. For starters, the Indiana law defines a "person" as including "a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company," effectively granting companies a right to religious exercise. Further, adding that a person -- which again, could be a for-profit company -- may use religion as a claim or a defense in a proceeding "regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."

It's the typical current sleazy backdoor machinations that the GOP is using in various state houses. And make no mistake, Pence is squirming and dead on the run as we speak.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:29 pm

Still waiting for an example from Nicky or Jsc.

Meanwhile Arkansas passed a similar bill today.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:43 pm

Example of what, fakeseat? You mean of religious zealots imposing their fundamentalist beliefs into the laws of the land in a direct effort to subvert the secular design of America's constitution? Or do you mean an example of a "757" just disappearing into a small hole in the ground (or a building) with nothing left to suggest there was ever a plane in the first place. Sure, there's examples of all of this.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:47 pm

Left Seater wrote:Here is a simple question for Jsc or Nicky:

Provide one documented example where a religious Freedom Restoration Law was used to deny service to a gay person or couple...I was able to find 25 plus uses of these laws to help prisoners, American Indians, Muslims, and religions I had never heard of in about 5 seconds. I have yet to find a single instance where one of these laws directed a court to uphold a business owner refusing service to gays.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:25 pm

Left Seater wrote:
Left Seater wrote:Here is a simple question for Jsc or Nicky:

Provide one documented example where a religious Freedom Restoration Law was used to deny service to a gay person or couple...I was able to find 25 plus uses of these laws to help prisoners, American Indians, Muslims, and religions I had never heard of in about 5 seconds. I have yet to find a single instance where one of these laws directed a court to uphold a business owner refusing service to gays.

The 1993 law didn't have the new expanded provisions. And so of course it wasn't used to discriminate. This new one (several actually) have the new additions, as noted, and being brand new of course haven't been used yet. Are you always so sleazy and deceptive? I assume you also support the Citizens United ruling? It would follow.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:47 pm

Jsc810 wrote: Can you show any instance of someone's religious freedom that needs restoring?

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterpris ... again.html

Bonus instance

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02 ... hats-next/

But wait...there's more

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ul/284224/

You're kind of a dumbfuck, aren't you?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:51 pm

mvscal wrote:The analogy is completely accurate...It's the exact same fucking thing.

And you're exactly retarded if you truly believe a business willing to sell whatever it has to anyone willing to pay for it is the same as a business that is not willing to sell what it has to certain individuals willing to pay for it. Straight up, that's what we're dealing with here. Spin it all you want, use religion as the glue holding your argument together if it makes you feel better - it is not the same, and the analogy isn't even close to being accurate.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:06 pm

mvscal wrote:
Jsc810 wrote: Can you show any instance of someone's religious freedom that needs restoring?
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterpris ... again.html

Bonus instance

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02 ... hats-next/

But wait...there's more

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ul/284224/

You're kind of a dumbfuck, aren't you?

I guess "the market" has spoken.. :)
Aside from not being very nice, it could lead to a sudden decline in business, which happened to Sweet Cakes. The Kleins were forced to close up shop when the orders stopped coming in and they stopped getting referrals. The next stop for the Kleins is a hearing set for March 10.

Roger_the_Shrubber · Post by **Roger_the_Shrubber** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:18 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:discrimination against gays has been determined to be unconstitutional, i.e., participation in the military, etc.

Way to be a retard, with your complete inability to distinguish between restrictions that the government can engage in, and a private citizen.

Guess what? You don't have a right to free speech in my house. Say something offensive (to me), and I'll ask you to leave ("Hi, my name it LTS" would be an example). In a public park, government employees can do no such thing.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's pretty black-and-white shit.

I like Indiana's law. At no point in our history has anyone had a "right" to enter your premises when they weren't wanted (without probable cause or warrant or whatsuch). Since when does anyone's "right" to do business with you trump the right to one's castle?

That's some fucked up shit.

I believe a business should be allowed to refuse service/entry to anyone, based on anything. And if they did, say for example, refuse service/entry to an African-American, I'd be offended, and help publicize the slight, and help put the place out of business.

Funny how the Free Market works when the government gets out of the way... has for thousands of years.

Shit, shit SHIT!!!!!!

Stings a bit but.....:

Rack Dins.

He's dead on.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:24 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Are you really trying to deny the motivation behind the law?

Behind the law Clinton signed, or the one Obama voted for or just the Indiana law?

Jsc810 wrote:Can you show any instance of someone's religious freedom that needs restoring?

Sure. Plenty

Lipan Apache Tribe uses Religious Freedom Restoration Act to get eagle feathers back

Inmate forced state to settle lawsuit over kosher meals

Muslim prisoner allowed to grow beard per SCOUS

There are more like that.

But now back to the original question. Please link us up to one court ruling that used Religious Freedom Restoration laws as the basis for an individual or business to deny service to a gay person or couple.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:32 pm

Left Seater wrote: Inmate forced state to settle lawsuit over kosher meals

Interesting story. Deviating from a kosher diet is an affront to God, but airing out your mom and dad? Well...maybe the "big guy" can let that one slide...

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:34 pm

No kidding. I am sure the state made reference to his "airing out mom and dad" when they tried to keep from serving him Kosher meals.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:53 am

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Interesting story. Deviating from a kosher diet is an affront to God, but airing out your mom and dad? Well...maybe the "big guy" can let that one slide...

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:05 am

mvscal wrote:The analogy is completely accurate. The businesses in question do not provide products or services for reasons of religious bias. You don't go to a kosher deli for a ham sandwich and you don't go to a Christian florist for a gay wedding arrangement. Neither one provides the desired product or service. It's the exact same fucking thing.

The florist provides flowers you stupid simple fuck.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:18 am

mvscal wrote:My logic is, "Why the fuck would I go to Italian caterer for tacos?" Similarly, "Why the fuck would I go to a fundy Christian florist to cater a gay wedding?"

Care to share with us how one would know that it was a fundie florist? Unless it was called Thumper's Flowers or Fairy Tale Flowers, what was it about the shop that would establish a prima facie case for it being a fundie christian florist?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:26 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:
mvscal wrote:My logic is, "Why the fuck would I go to Italian caterer for tacos?" Similarly, "Why the fuck would I go to a fundy Christian florist to cater a gay wedding?"
Care to share with us how one would know that it was a fundie florist? Unless it was called Thumper's Flowers or Fairy Tale Flowers, what was it about the shop that would establish a prima facie case for it being a fundie christian florist?

When they were told that they don't do fag weddings it might be "a clue."

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:26 am

Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote:The analogy is completely accurate. The businesses in question do not provide products or services for reasons of religious bias. You don't go to a kosher deli for a ham sandwich and you don't go to a Christian florist for a gay wedding arrangement. Neither one provides the desired product or service. It's the exact same fucking thing.
The florist provides flowers you stupid simple fuck.

And the deli provides sandwiches you stupid simple fuck.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:03 am

The flower shop provides the flowers the gay people want (say red roses) the deli does not provide the ham sammies. Are you really that cumdrunk?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:07 am

No, all of you Indiana defenders are dodging the basic fact of this measure. It changes the meaning of "Christian" from an individual (as in the 1993 law)
to a business or corporation. it's a sleazy and sinister machination that will be reversed probably before i finish typing this..

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:15 am

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
Left Seater wrote: Inmate forced state to settle lawsuit over kosher meals

Interesting story. Deviating from a kosher diet is an affront to God, but airing out your mom and dad? Well...maybe the "big guy" can let that one slide...

Oh, a very interesting story indeed. How about the Brooklyn rabbi mohel who recently gave the baby herpes while sucking him off? Should he be assured of kosher jizz in the joint? Oh that's right, he slithered away--with a reasonable settlement to the pissed parents.