Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[Tim Steelersfan]

Very interesting how the Left is turning this around. As a means of protecting people's rights to freely practice their religion, these laws have been put into place in 17 states. In fact, one Bill Clinton once signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993.

The Left believes this is anti-LGBT. I think Todd Starnes has put it best:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/03/30/starnes-pence-defends-religious-liberty-anti-tolerant-bullies

The law ensures that Hoosiers have the ability to not only hold religious beliefs, but live by those beliefs. Over the weekend, Indiana Governor Mike Pence stood firm - and said the law will not change. His steadfastness has angered LGBT activists and those who preach so-called tolerance.

And here’s the reason why: Their true motives have been exposed. They don’t want tolerance and diversity. They want compliance and forced acceptance - and they want to silence and punish any person who opposes their beliefs.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the stop-gap. In 2010, an Indianapolis cookie shop was accused of discrimination because the Christian owners refused to make rainbow cookies for National Coming Out Day. In February, another bakery closed its doors, under fire for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Christian couple was, quite frankly, bullied out of business.

Nineteen states already have religious freedom laws on the books - and with good reason. It’s open season on people of faith in America. Bakers, photographers, wedding planners, and even pastors are facing lawsuits, government investigations and punishment simply because they choose to live out their religious beliefs.

Without that protection, I fear we are fast approaching a day when our pastors and fellow church members could face criminal prosecution for daring to follow the tenets of their faith.

From Paula Priesse:

Despite her husband's act of signing a similar law in 1993, Hildebeast stated "Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today.”

Miley Cyrus tweeted that Gov. Mike Pence is an “a**hole.”

Broadway’s Audra McDonald suggests, “MAYBE...we need to stick to singing in states that don't legislate hate?”

Star Trek’s George Takei wants a boycott.

Charles Barkley says the NCAA should pull the Final Four out of Indianapolis.

Iowahawk has the tweet of the day: “Don't let a nuclear-armed Iran distract us from America's #1 threat - Indiana bakeries” Exactly … O’s bending over backwards to appease an Iranian regime that hangs gays in public and throws them off rooftops. It’s lib hypocrisy that should be boycotted.

Isn't the Left's "tolerance" a wonderful thing?

 

[DBS1970]

The people decrying this as discrimination will be just fine until a white supremacist group sues an business owned by blacks for being refused service.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Laws like that are only made to protect minorities, not white Christian heterosexual majorities.

The people decrying this as discrimination will be just fine until a white supremacist group sues an business owned by blacks for being refused service.

 

[Stewey]

Laws like that are only made to protect minorities, not white Christian heterosexual majorities.

LOL...The Amazing Racist.
My favorite...

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

The people decrying this as discrimination will be just fine until a white supremacist group sues an business owned by blacks for being refused service.

That's right. If you think the Christian baker must make a gay wedding cake then you must also think the black baker must make the racist cake.

If the public is truly outraged then capitalism will take care of the rest. This is why they hate capitalism as well, because it really is democratic. The public did not give a **** about the big deal they tried to make about Chik-fil-a.

Liberals can't have people exercising free will. Because their agenda is counter to human nature. It depends on people being forced to comply. This is why they will try to shut down these businesses through means other than capitalism (IE the true will of the people).

 

[USDA#1]

and if the next sign says...

"we reserve the right to refuse service to Jews"

y'all ok with that?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

That's right. If you think the Christian baker must make a gay wedding cake then you must also think the black baker must make the racist cake.

If the public is truly outraged then capitalism will take care of the rest. This is why they hate capitalism as well, because it really is democratic. The public did not give a **** about the big deal they tried to make about Chik-fil-a.

Liberals can't have people exercising free will. Because their agenda is counter to human nature. It depends on people being forced to comply. This is why they will try to shut down these businesses through means other than capitalism (IE the true will of the people).

Seriously, I think two things. 1) Everyone has green money and 2) the cake is an inanimate object and doesn't know which wedding it's going to.

 

[USDA#1]

then there's this......


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/in...oses-due-controversial-religious-freedom-act/

 

[EdReed4Prez]

and if the next sign says...

"we reserve the right to refuse service to Jews"

y'all ok with that?

A better question is if a Muslim baker refuses to draw Muhammad on my birthday cake... Will the left support my lawsuit?

 

[USDA#1]

I don't support your assertion that it's a better question.

not really much of an answer, either.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

I don't support your assertion that it's a better question.

not really much of an answer, either.

It is though. This isn't banning a group of people. It's refusing a service that is against your beliefs (like rainbow cookies for coming out day). Asking a muslim to draw muhammed for money is a little more on point than ban all jews IMO. As usual the free market should decide. If enough people are pissed they'll lose too much business to continue.

 

[USDA#1]

I see yer point.

still like mine.

so you are ok with it, I presume.....all good.

 

[oneforthebus]

First off, if you refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple based on your religion, you ought to be prepared to refuse to bake cakes for every couple who is marrying against your religious beliefs. Depending on your religion that could include divorced people, people who are cohabitating before marriage, people who aren't getting married in a religious building, people who refuse to welcome children into their marriage, people who are marrying someone outside their faith, etc. etc. etc. If you are baking cakes for all of these people or not even asking them if their marriage violates your religious beliefs, and you are refusing to bake cakes for gay couples, than basically your objection is not religious. Your objection is "Ew, gay people." And that's illegal.

Second, there is a lot of misunderstanding about this law. It doesn't give blanket permission for people to discriminate against gay people. It simply says that the government has to show a compelling interest in order to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. In simple terms, it says if someone claims religious freedom, the government has to prove why it shouldn't apply in this particular case, not vice versa. That is an important religious freedom protection. It doesn't guarantee victory in an anti-discrimination lawsuit. In fact. people have lost discrimination lawsuits in states that have these legal provisions.

Incidentally it also could protect someone who wants to wear a burka to work and is told they can't. It basically just limits government's ability to restrict religious freedom without a compelling and valid reason. That's a good thing.

 

[DBS1970]

and if the next sign says...

"we reserve the right to refuse service to Jews"

y'all ok with that?

Yes.

Free association is free association.

I'm cool with a kosher deli posting a sign that says "No shiksa goyim". Its their absolute right as a private business to take or refuse the custom of anyone they choose. I'll just get my grilled Ruben and German potato salad from the place down then street. Its on them if they don't want to take my money.

The government making a law mandating I must discriminate against some group I am not okay with. The government discriminating against a group of citizens(affirmative action) I'm not okay with.

 

[bmoritz]

and if the next sign says...

"we reserve the right to refuse service to Jews"

y'all ok with that?

Yes, I am. It's their right as the owner of a private enterprise. I have the right to think they're complete and total jerks, and not spend my money there.

 

[Troglodyte]

I don't see how discrimination based on sexual preference is any different than discrimination based on race. Those are beliefs, and what is religion? So a white supremacist business owner would be allowed to hang a "No Coloreds" sign.

I suspect many people in favor of this law would struggle with that.

 

[DBS1970]

I don't see how discrimination based on sexual preference is any different than discrimination based on race. Those are beliefs, and what is religion? So a white supremacist business owner would be allowed to hang a "No Coloreds" sign.

I suspect many people in favor of this law would struggle with that.

Nope.

They would simply take their business and their money elsewhere. See that's how freedom and the exercise of rights works.

 

[Stewey]

In other words, not only can the Christian owners of a bakery refuse to write an inscription on the wedding cake of a gay couple, but the black owners of a T-shirt business don’t have to print the KKK’s burning crosses on shirts, and Jewish owners of a gift shop don’t have to put Nazi symbols on coffee cups.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/283...utcry-indianas-religious-freedom-law-one-map/

The problem I have with that rationale is that the KKK killed blacks, and the Nazis killed Jews.....what did gays do to Christians?

That said, I believe that in only in very specific cases can a business discriminate based on religious beliefs....these cases being that if the service you provide is part of the ceremony or celebration of an act you religiously object to...or requires you to attend. Having to photograph a gay wedding would gross the **** out of me. A cake and flowers decorated with gay themes are part of the celebration and ceremony.

A business cannot discriminate simply because they are gay...ie a restaurant refusing service, pet store refusing to sell a gerbil....and that is not what the Indiana law is about, which is a similar law already adopted by other 20 states.






Well, maybe not a pet store refusing to sell a gerbil.

 

[Steelerfan]

Karma, Stewey, for mentioning gays and gerbils in the same post. ROFL

 

[SCSteeler4life]

and if the next sign says...

"we reserve the right to refuse service to Jews"

y'all ok with that?

I would be totally OK with that. I don't care if it said No Niggers allowed. Because it wouldn't be in business long. People like that are not the majority anymore this isn't 1960 Alabama. I would not take my family to a place like that and spend my money there. But I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

[Spike]

Indiana’s ‘Religious Freedom’ act opens the door for the First Church of Cannabis

In a classic case of “unintended consequences,” the recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana may have opened the door for the establishment of the First Church of Cannabis in the Hoosier State.

Church founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that the church’s registration has been approved, writing, “Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana – “Congratulations your registration has been approved!” Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health.”

Levin is currently seeking $4.20 donations towards his non-profit church.

Shabazz pointed out that it is still illegal to smoke pot in Indiana, but wrote, “I would argue that under RFRA, as long as you can show that reefer is part of your religious practices, you got a pretty good shot of getting off scot-free.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/...ns-the-door-for-the-first-church-of-cannabis/

-----------------------


Rastaman!

$4.20

 

[Spike]

not really much of an answer.

how bout this one

Jewish bakers forced to make Nazi cake

 

[Troglodyte]

I would be totally OK with that. I don't care if it said No Niggers allowed. Because it wouldn't be in business long. People like that are not the majority anymore this isn't 1960 Alabama. I would not take my family to a place like that and spend my money there. But I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

That's my take but I strongly suspect double standards exist when it comes to how many people feel this law should be applied.

Is it OK for the wedding photographer to refuse to work a gay wedding, but not OK to refuse to work an inter-racial wedding?

 

[Rod Farva]

In other words, not only can the Christian owners of a bakery refuse to write an inscription on the wedding cake of a gay couple, but the black owners of a T-shirt business don’t have to print the KKK’s burning crosses on shirts, and Jewish owners of a gift shop don’t have to put Nazi symbols on coffee cups.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/2830...m-law-one-map/

The KKK and Nazism aren't religions......neither is the opposition to them.

The problem I have with that rationale is that the KKK killed blacks, and the Nazis killed Jews.....what did gays do to Christians?



A business cannot discriminate simply because they are gay

I think the law allows exactly that and I'm okay with it. Not because of any antipathy towards gays but in the interest of true religious freedom

.

Whether the lgbt community "did" anything to anyone is irrelevant in this debate, imo. The government should not be the arbiter of what rises to the level of being offensive or a religious affront.

 

[USDA#1]

how bout this one

Jewish bakers forced to make Nazi cake

linky link????

I'd send it back anyway, for obvious reasons.