Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  Viviane

  I guess from now on the florist gal will have to supply floral arrangements to the KKK Grand Event whether she wants to do it or not.

  Keep guessing.

  "White only" restaurants are all over the place in the United States, and so are "black only". They call them "private clubs" in order to get around laws.

  Name some of those places.

  I don't think the florist gal was imposing her opinion on anyone. She was having an opinion imposed on her, one she apparently did not expect and did not understand as a legal requirement.

  Correct.
• 

  Viviane

  That's not the story I read. It was not what they are that caused her refusal of service but, rather, the event they wanted her to service. She was already selling flowers to the gay customer. It was the wedding ceremony she objected to servicing.

  Agreed! It's not that the people are black, it's that they wanted a black wedding!

  Disgusting,
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  My application is that if you allow discrimination against anyone then you allow discrimination against everyone.

  So would your application of "If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all" then allow as much tolerance for one as it would for another when you strongly disagree with one (think: KKK wedding event) and not the other (think: gay wedding event)?

  If not, why not?

  I don't think I've twisted a word of what you asserted. I think you just don't like the end it leads to.
• 

  Viviane

  I don't think I've twisted a word of what you asserted. I just don't think you like the end it leads to.

  So, anyone should be able to discriminate for anything?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Viviane

  Perhaps my question for you should be what do you think of a Miss White USA, Miss White Mississippi and Miss White Teen pageants?

  I'm not a religion fan. At all!!! Insofar as I'm concerned all organized religion should be flushed down the toilet to where they all belong.

  But as I said above, I'm not so sure at this point in time burning the florist's business at the stake is any less questionable than the florist's refusal of service. Both these actions cause affront when perhaps both can be respectfully accommodated.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  So, anyone should be able to discriminate for anything?

  No. Try reading what I've written already.

  Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination. Moving forward I think resolution is in making it clear to business persons whatever are the rules regarding discrimination they must abide by. It sounds to me like the florist gal was not clear that under the law as a business owner she was required to provide a service contrary to her conscience. If this is the case then make it clear and provide folks a given period of time to get their affairs in order. Then the choice is stay in business, sell your business or close it down.
• 

  Viviane

  Perhaps my question for you should be what do you think of a Miss White USA, Miss White Mississippi and Miss White Teen pageants?

  Perhaps it should be. Why, though?

  No. Try reading what I've written already.
  Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination.

  So you think as long as there is no law against discriminating against women it's fine?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Perhaps it should be. Why, though?

  Because you injected race into a discussion regarding religious views when the particular religious view at issue is unrelated to race.

  So, back to the question asked that you avoided: What do you think of a Miss White USA, Miss White Mississippi and Miss White Teen pageants?

  So you think as long as there is no law against discriminating against women it's fine

  No. But in this instance the discussion is about compelling individuals using written statutes, otherwise known as "laws". Hence in this case the discussion is about illegal forms of discrimination and not legal forms of discrimination.

  If we are going to leverage laws to affect social change then it's only fair for judiciaries and legislators to provide clarification and time to comply for choices that have historically been left to personal choice. If a law is going to prevent a certain type of discrimination then it should be written to make that specific type of discrimination perfectly clear before someone is punished with that law. If the judiciary is going to establish common law where a statute is unclear then time for compliance should also be provided prior to issuing punitive measures.
• 

  Viviane

  Because you injected race into a discussion regarding religious views when the particular religious view at issue is unrelated to race.

  Oh, are you unaware people use Jesus to say black people are crap? Well, they do. So, no, I didn't inject it. It's been around hundreds of years.

  So, back to the question asked that you avoided: What do you think of a Miss White USA, Miss White Mississippi and Miss White Teen pageants?

  Why are you bringing up race, since you are completely unaware it's part and parcel of Christian bigotry? Maybe you should learn something about the thing you are talking about?

  No.

  BS. You said if it was legal it should be fine. Why do you think homophobia should be legal but not misogyny?'

  Hence in this case the discussion is about illegal forms of discrimination and not legal forms of discrimination.

  Yeah, too bad you said it was OK as long as the law allowed it. Try again. I am so looking forward to you explaining why discriminating against women or black people is totally not at all the same as hating gay people.

  Go ahead. Give it a try.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Why are you bringing up...

  You are prevaricating. Apparently you don't want to answer the question asked. Fine. That puts you in a class I discriminate against.

  You said if it was legal it should be fine.

  Where have I asserted such a thing? Is that what I said, or is it your preferential reading of something I said?

  Yeah, too bad you said it was OK as long as the law allowed it.

  Again, where?

  I am so looking forward to you explaining why discriminating against women or black people is totally not at all the same as hating gay people.

  I think racial or gender bias is wrong, and I think hating gay people is wrong too. And, as much as I'm not a fan of religion, I think it also wrong to hate religious people.

  That said, and to the point of the discussion at hand regarding laws and punishing with law, I think the fair thing is to make sure laws are written clear enough for individuals to have ample opportunity to know how those laws will be used against them as punishment. If a law has to be interpreted by courts to form common law then that common law should also be asserted to give time for citizens to understand what is expected of them before asserting punitive measures based on the interpretation.