Of course I am off base, I am being hyperbolic to make a point. That point being that If you follow the logic, philosophy and principles embodied in this law, eventually many steps down the road, it gets more reasonable to kill others for your faith. If you follow the philosophies and principles that reject this law, you move down the path toward peaceful civil society and justice.
Then that makes it even more puzzling that Pence et al were surprised by the uproar. They had to know this was going to happen. I'm trying to understand what their main objective was. For Pence et al to say the intent was not to allow discrimination is disingenuous as that's precisely what it meant by specifically leaving out that language.
You didn't address the issue did you??
No, if they have someone that doesn't bake their cake, then go someplace else. Pretty simple really.
Again, doesn't matter don't care. This is very simple. You go to the florist....photographer.......whatever you are using to find someone who wants to do it. PERIOD.
That is total BS. People have their principals and they stick with them. The bottom line is go find someone else to bake your cake.
However, if someone doesn't like that policy isn't it within their rights to make an example of said business? Businesses are protested against for all sorts of reasons. Why isn't it acceptable to protest one that practices discrimination?
It's more than just someone to bake a cake. The way the Indiana law was written, people could be denied things like housing or employment because of sexual orientation.
I guess you are overlooking the fact that religious freedom is specifically mentioned in the 1st Amendment to our Constitution. Our Founders thought it was so important, they included in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights that had to be passed in order for the Constitution to be acceptable and ratified by all of the States at that time. Why is religious liberty less important than other rights?
If this is true then we finally have a legitimate example of people experiencing actual harm from the law. I'm sure this is actually true, though. Housing and employment laws are reasonably airtight with regards to discrimination. Do you have a link that supports this claim?
A family-owned pizza joint in northern Indiana was forced to close down after being targeted by social media and being harassed with threatening phone calls. This after they told a reporter they would have no problem serving a homosexual in their restaurant but would not be willing to cater a gay wedding.
No it isn't, it is simple, go find someone else to bake your cake, that is what the law is about.
Good Lord man, if someone doesn't want to bake my cake because of my religious lifestyle I am fine with that, I WILL GO FIND SOMEONE ELSE.
I know that religious rights are protected by the constitution. I was just trying to point out that so many opposed to LGBT people do so by claiming it's a "lifestyle" or "choice" when, in fact, there is actually a biological basis for sexual orientation; however, there is none for religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are truly a matter of "choice."
It's one of the unintended consequences of the current Indiana law. Obviously, Pence et al didn't think this through very well.
You're the one who brought up baking a cake. I provided other tangible examples.
You haven't seen any of the baking shows on TV like Cake Boss? There are many bakers out there that make completely customized cakes. For those bakers, based on your rationale, they would be compelled to bake the cakes in my examples simply because a customer asked them to do so and they aren't allowed to refuse.
They have roughly $500,000 in donations now, so I think they're going to be fine despite their idiotic beliefs.
I'm glad to hear this. Left wing idiots literally were trying to ruin these people, threatening them with violence, etc. Really sick. Tolerance has to go both ways and if a religious businessman does not want to participate in a gay wedding, so be it.
That's been pointed out on TV often enough. And now (in theory) it's been corrected in the Indiana law and will be in the Arkansas law.
This seems to be a common misconception around here. Neither federal nor state laws in Indeana or most states protect gays in either housing or employment. Hence the stink over this issue.
If you read through it carefully it only codifies local discrimination ordinances already in place. It's not comprehensive in that it doesn't give LGBTs protected status throughout the state.
Indiana and much of the nation has a huge hole with regards to gay civil rights protections. The original religious law dug the hole deeper. With this new language they stopped digging, but they didn't do anything to fill in that hole. At best the law is now neutral to gay issues.
