Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill


Gamer Life General Discussion

451 to 500 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:
John Lance wrote:
...
Precisely. Thank you, but be prepared to be ignored by the people having the argument here. They're discussing something, but it isn't this particular law.

I am going to address his post right now, actually.

John Lance, first I want to thank you for posting links to those two laws. Here they are again, linkified, for convenience.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (Federal Act)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (State of Indiana Act)

Here is one of several distinctions between these two laws:

The federal law reads, in Section 5.(4), under Definitions

Quote:
the term "exercise of religion" means the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The state law reads, in Section 5.

Quote:
As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

(Emphasis, mine)

That is a pretty large distinction. The state law cut-and-paste the title, but the laws are substantively different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many states do not specifically define free exercise, but several are as expansive.

Texas: "Free exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. In determining whether an act or refusal to act is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief under this chapter, it is not necessary to determine that the act or refusal to act is motivated by a central part or central requirement of the person's sincere religious belief.

Arizona: "Exercise of religion" means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

Florida:(3) "Exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

Idaho:(2) "Exercise of religion" means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

New Mexico: "Free exercise of religion" means an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief;

Missouri: As used in this section, "exercise of religion" shall be defined as an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

Have these other state laws resulted in the predicted discrimination?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

New Mexico's law also specifically does not override other state laws that apply "general rules" - such as "you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation," a law also on the New Mexico books - while Indiana's law does override such laws, including Indianapolis' LGBT anti-discrimination municipal statute.

And in fact, it was only that exception that allowed New Mexico to penalize an attempted refusal of service on the basis of sexual orientation. So yes, it happens.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Duramar Bolakson wrote:
GENCON needs to come back to Philly, we have the best chessesteak shops in the the country.

You say this like it's a good thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.


Aranna wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.

How would you feel if gender and religion weren't protected by law against discrimination?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.

Religion has long been protected (more or less and sometimes in name only).

This is different. This isn't protecting the right to practice your religion, which we all agree needs protection. That's what the federal law was intended to do and was until recently used for.
This is protecting the right of the majority to discriminate against others in the name of religion. I'm a lot less happy about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actual Text:

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.
Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.

Religion isn't being protected. Nothing is keeping these people from exercising their religion. Refusing service to someone has nothing to do with their religion; show me where in the Bible/Koran/Torah it says "thou shalt not make cakes for homos, for they art icky."

And also, this is plainly and obviously the purpose of this law: to override local/county laws that provide protections for such people and to pander to the Republican base aka homophobic bigots.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.

Religion is already protected. You can't be refused service on the basis of your religion. What these people are doing are claiming a religious justification for refusing service to someone else.

This was explicitly the purpose of the law. All the supporters were saying it was necessary specifically in order to allow, for example, a bakery to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple without falling afoul of the law. You're not fooling anyone by claiming that wasn't its purpose.


Just goes to show that the most powerful consequences of laws are the unintended ones. When Ted Kennedy crafted the federal RFRA, I doubt he foresaw all this. I also doubt the people who demanded that the government coerce bakers to comply or lose their business intended this law to be the response, nor the response-to-the-response by opponents.


Aranna wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.

So, people have refused to sell you food in a restaurant because your gender and/or religion?


If I was to go back in time and describe the current dust-up over a state RFRA law to Alfred Smith and Galen Black (the defendants in this case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith), they would look at me like I had lost my ever-loving mind.

The question for the GENCON leadership now becomes, what now? I can think of all kinds of secondary and tertiary effects from that letter that will become nothing but trouble once late July/early August gets here. What will be the ultimate fallout regarding attendance? the vendors? advertising? community relations with the city and state?

I've already purchased my pass for GENCON, so I plan on being there. I'm just hoping we're still not talking about this non-stop on Day One of the actual event....

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This wouldn't be an issue, were it not for the Hobby Lobby decision.

Before then, Corporations (and all businesses) as fictitious people were not entitled to "religious beliefs".

But since that Supreme Court ruling, laws like this have to be reconsidered.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Like John Lance, I will be there. I will wear my Gaymer ribbon proudly and I will be joyous and have fun. Fortunately I have noticed that the people of Indianapolis are generally a really awesome bunch and I doubt that I would have any problems. To me, it is truly a shame that a great city like Indy is getting tarred with the stink of the religio-fascist far right that live in rural Indiana. If people want to solve these issues they must stop sitting on the sideline claiming that their vote means nothing.

This is what low voter turnout allows. The extremists vote.

Community Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Do not bring up pedophilia in this topic, not even as a response to earlier posts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Usual Suspect wrote:
This is what low voter turnout allows. The extremists vote.

So true, and makes you wonder why one side wants to make voting more inaccessible.


I have a suggestion, one I am compelled to type.

The best way I have come up with on how to approach this most unpleasant of business from the perspective of a Gen Con attendee (no matter what game I play, or any other factor period) is go about enjoying myself as much as possible, while conducting myself with the utmost civility, even towards those who may be uncivil to me. Do my very best to meet new like minded folk and enjoy our shared interests. Thereby putting forth very clearly a tone of inclusion, welcome, and ethics. With a large number of people very clearly going about their GenCon time this way, it sends a strong message to the intolerant, the bigoted, and all such xenophobic hate mongers and I suspect some of those same such people would be ashamed in the face of an act of resistance such as that.

Paizo as a company already sends a strong message about where it stands regarding issues of the type we face here, and I am sure they will continue to do so. Knit hats off to you folks!

Also need to say, hang in there Liz :)


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
This is what low voter turnout allows. The extremists vote.
So true, and makes you wonder why one side wants to make voting more inaccessible.

Well, if you're not paying attention, you wonder. Those who are paying attention don't have to, as the people in question are all but explicit about it.


Lord Fyre wrote:

This wouldn't be an issue, were it not for the Hobby Lobby decision.

Before then, Corporations (and all businesses) as fictitious people were not entitled to "religious beliefs".

But since that Supreme Court ruling, laws like this have to be reconsidered.

If that is what this is about then there is no real need to worry, the Hobby Lobby decision ONLY applied to closely held companies NOT big corporations. So no McDonald's in Indiana is going to refuse to serve gays, even if the Ma and Pa Deli next door does refuse them.

Also none of the big hospitals are closely held companies with religious leanings either so no worries over health care either.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

This wouldn't be an issue, were it not for the Hobby Lobby decision.

Before then, Corporations (and all businesses) as fictitious people were not entitled to "religious beliefs".

But since that Supreme Court ruling, laws like this have to be reconsidered.

If that is what this is about then there is no real need to worry, the Hobby Lobby decision ONLY applied to closely held companies NOT big corporations. So no McDonald's in Indiana is going to refuse to serve gays, even if the Ma and Pa Deli next door does refuse them.

Also none of the big hospitals are closely held companies with religious leanings either so no worries over health care either.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. :(


JGray wrote:
Do you honestly believe that Jim Crow laws would have changed if it had been left to market forces like that?

Jim Crow laws were the polar opposite of liberty. It is a ludicrous comparison. On one hand you have government enforced, institutionalized racism, and on the other you have freedom to run your business any way you please.


The bolded question below still hasn't been tackled by anyone on Team Pro-Liberty, and I'd really like someone to give it a crack, hence this little bump...

littlehewy wrote:
Kysune wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Being refused service would hurt, I imagine.
Do we need to form the "Emotion Police" for people's feelings now? We're all adults here. If a restaurant is an asshat to you then go to a different restaurant. It's call customer satisfaction and if you're not satisfied then you have the freedom to complain or go elsewhere. How is this so hard to understand?
It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

Silver Crusade

Zedth wrote:
JGray wrote:
Do you honestly believe that Jim Crow laws would have changed if it had been left to market forces like that?
Jim Crow laws were the polar opposite of liberty. It is a ludicrous comparison. On one hand you have government enforced, institutionalized racism, and on the other you have freedom to run your business any way you please.

I'm having trouble seeing why the comparison is ludicrous. I would like to offer you the opportunity to explain this, please.

Say someone posts a sign in their restaurant window which reads "We do not provide service to X customers here."

If X is any race you wish to insert, then bigotry.
If X is "homosexual", then freedom.

Three open questions:
1. Why is the comparison ludicrous?
2. Why did "market forces" fail to curtail the "Whites Only" signs?
3. Why should we expect "market forces" are sufficient to curtail "Straights Only" signs?


littlehewy wrote:

The bolded question below still hasn't been tackled by anyone on Team Pro-Liberty, and I'd really like someone to give it a crack, hence this little bump...

littlehewy wrote:
Kysune wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Being refused service would hurt, I imagine.
Do we need to form the "Emotion Police" for people's feelings now? We're all adults here. If a restaurant is an asshat to you then go to a different restaurant. It's call customer satisfaction and if you're not satisfied then you have the freedom to complain or go elsewhere. How is this so hard to understand?
It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

Because social stigma hasn't made it unpalatable to be anti-gay in all the corners of the country yet.


The Fox wrote:
Zedth wrote:
JGray wrote:
Do you honestly believe that Jim Crow laws would have changed if it had been left to market forces like that?
Jim Crow laws were the polar opposite of liberty. It is a ludicrous comparison. On one hand you have government enforced, institutionalized racism, and on the other you have freedom to run your business any way you please.

I'm having trouble seeing why the comparison is ludicrous. I would like to offer you the opportunity to explain this, please.

Say someone posts a sign in their restaurant window which reads "We do not provide service to X customers here."

If X is any race you wish to insert, then bigotry.
If X is "homosexual", then freedom.

Three open questions:
1. Why is the comparison ludicrous?
2. Why did "market forces" fail to curtail the "Whites Only" signs?
3. Why should we expect "market forces" are sufficient to curtail "Straights Only" signs?

I think the point was with Jim Crow laws, even if you didn't want to have a segregated business, you weren't given that choice. These were laws that forced business to behave in certain ways. So you can't say, "See it wasn't fixed by market forces" because market forces weren't allowed to be played at the time.


BigDTBone wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

The bolded question below still hasn't been tackled by anyone on Team Pro-Liberty, and I'd really like someone to give it a crack, hence this little bump...

littlehewy wrote:
Kysune wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Being refused service would hurt, I imagine.
Do we need to form the "Emotion Police" for people's feelings now? We're all adults here. If a restaurant is an asshat to you then go to a different restaurant. It's call customer satisfaction and if you're not satisfied then you have the freedom to complain or go elsewhere. How is this so hard to understand?
It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?
Because social stigma hasn't made it unpalatable to be anti-gay in all the corners of the country yet.

Yeah fair enough :) However, I was posing the question in the interest of getting an ethical justification (or more honestly, to demonstrate that there isn't an ethical justification), rather than to get a bald description of why some people actually think it's okay :)


littlehewy wrote:


It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

There's a problem with your question.

To a libertarian there is a difference between "Something is ok to do" and "something should be LEGAL to do". It is entirely possible that discrimination is seriously not ok, but that its still not as not ok as government intruding into how people conduct their business.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

There's a problem with your question.

To a libertarian there is a difference between "Something is ok to do" and "something should be LEGAL to do". It is entirely possible that discrimination is seriously not ok, but that its still not as not ok as government intruding into how people conduct their business.

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I'm having trouble finding exactly where in this law that allows a person to discriminate someone on basis of religion. All it says that a government cannot "burden" a person or organization's ability to exercise their religion. The law only seems to concern government entities affecting how people exercise their religion, not private businesses.


Littlehewy wrote:

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

I believe the answer for a libertarian s both should be legal, not because its ok, but because government interference in private matters is worse (and how an individual decides how to run their business IS a private matter)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Littlehewy wrote:

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

I believe the answer for a libertarian s both should be legal, not because its ok, but because government interference in private matters is worse (and how an individual decides how to run their business IS a private matter)

Yes, I believe this is what many actually believe, but are afraid to say.

It's certainly not what I believe.

Do you have a personal view?


Cyrad wrote:
I'm having trouble finding exactly where in this law that allows a person to discriminate someone on basis of religion. All it says that a government cannot "burden" a person or organization's ability to exercise their religion. The law only seems to concern government entities affecting how people exercise their religion, not private businesses.

The government can't "burden" a business by curtailing that business's right to exercise its religion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:


Do you have a personal view?

My view is that while I would like the government to not manage peoples businesses, when we actually tried that it hurt a lot of people. At one point I thought we were past needing it, but a number of events convinced me otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
The government can't "burden" a business by curtailing that business's right to exercise its religion.

They indeed can burden the business. It just has to be either a non-substantial burden or in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means.

"Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

The law essentially creates the means for a particular person or business to go to court to challenge a particular law for itself and get injunctive relief. They must prove that they have been substantially burdened. That means it will be (a) public, (b) slow, (c) considerably harder than simply posting a sign or refusing someone at the door. Anyone who is likely to try to take advantage of this law will have to have the resources to start a legal battle with the jurisdiction in question, as well as care about the issue enough to do so. Any general-service restaurant or hotel will have extreme difficulty in proving that it is a substantial burden, that non-discrimination is not a compelling government interest, or that there is a less-restrictive means.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


Do you have a personal view?

My view is that while I would like the government to not manage peoples businesses, when we actually tried that it hurt a lot of people. At one point I thought we were past needing it, but a number of events convinced me otherwise.

Given the basic tribal nature of humanity, I doubt it will ever be past needing this kind of regulation.


littlehewy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

There's a problem with your question.

To a libertarian there is a difference between "Something is ok to do" and "something should be LEGAL to do". It is entirely possible that discrimination is seriously not ok, but that its still not as not ok as government intruding into how people conduct their business.

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

There's a problem with your question.

To a libertarian there is a difference between "Something is ok to do" and "something should be LEGAL to do". It is entirely possible that discrimination is seriously not ok, but that its still not as not ok as government intruding into how people conduct their business.

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.

You realize there are other religions than Christianity, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?
The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.
You realize there are other religions than Christianity, right?

There are several denominations of Christianity who believe the Bible does not say LGBT relations are a sin. Even Roman Catholicism doesn't believe being LGBT is a sin (only acting on it).

---

Roman Catholicism believes that only an annulment or the death of your spouse ends a marriage. So, outside of a Roman Catholic religious ceremony, why should Roman Catholics who own businesses be allowed to refuse people services or goods for being divorced?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

There's a problem with your question.

To a libertarian there is a difference between "Something is ok to do" and "something should be LEGAL to do". It is entirely possible that discrimination is seriously not ok, but that its still not as not ok as government intruding into how people conduct their business.

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.
You realize there are other religions than Christianity, right?

More importantly... Religion is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card to justify going against the law. There are all sorts of rules in the bible that are illegal. You can't, for example, stone people because they were unfaithful to their husband/wife. You can't sell people into slavery. Not even those from other "tribes". You can't kill people because they worked on Sundays either...

So why is bigotry allowed to break the law?

And what comes next? Do we write a law allowing people to deny service to customers who wear clothes of mixed fabrics? What about customers who eat shrimp?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

There's a problem with your question.

To a libertarian there is a difference between "Something is ok to do" and "something should be LEGAL to do". It is entirely possible that discrimination is seriously not ok, but that its still not as not ok as government intruding into how people conduct their business.

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.
You realize there are other religions than Christianity, right?

More importantly... Religion is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card to justify going against the law. There are all sorts of rules in the bible that are illegal. You can't, for example, stone people because they were unfaithful to their husband/wife. You can't sell people into slavery. Not even those from other "tribes". You can't kill people because they worked on Sundays either...

So why is bigotry allowed to break the law?

And what comes next? Do we write a law allowing people to deny service to customers who wear clothes of mixed fabrics?...

The Bible is just as harsh when dealing with "mixed marriages" as it is with homosexuals. So it's okay to refuse service to a married couple if one is black and one is Chinese? If not, why is it okay to refuse service to LGBT folks? Both the "mixed" couple and the LGBT folks are called out in the Bible as sinners.

Morality based on the Bible is cherry-picked according to which era you live in. It isn't absolute, and is often simply used to justify pre-existing bigotry. Sorry, but that sucks, and no law should keep that ideal safe.


That honestly wasn't even my point. I was saying just because Christianity didn't consider being black as sinful, what if other religions did? Should they be able to discriminate against black people under the guise of freedom of religion? Are you only allowed to discriminate against gays or are Christians the only ones allowed freedom of religion?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
That honestly wasn't even my point. I was saying just because Christianity didn't consider being black as sinful, what if other religions did? Should they be able to discriminate against black people under the guise of freedom of religion? Are you only allowed to discriminate against gays or are Christians the only ones allowed freedom of religion?

This is where they bring up the "America is a Christian Nation" thing.


LazarX wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
That honestly wasn't even my point. I was saying just because Christianity didn't consider being black as sinful, what if other religions did? Should they be able to discriminate against black people under the guise of freedom of religion? Are you only allowed to discriminate against gays or are Christians the only ones allowed freedom of religion?
This is where they bring up the "America is a Christian Nation" thing.

This is where we bring up "Do you really want the courts to decide what is a Christian belief and what isn't?"


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?
The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.
You realize there are other religions than Christianity, right?

There are several denominations of Christianity who believe the Bible does not say LGBT relations are a sin. Even Roman Catholicism doesn't believe being LGBT is a sin (only acting on it).

---

Roman Catholicism believes that only an annulment or the death of your spouse ends a marriage. So, outside of a Roman Catholic religious ceremony, why should Roman Catholics who own businesses be allowed to refuse people services or goods for being divorced?

Oook? Why would anyone who is from a denomination OR religion that doesn't believe LGBT is sinful have any reason to deny a gay service?! As for Roman Catholics denying service to divorced people... ok that is their right. But considering how many marriages end in divorce they may be turning away a lot of customers. If they can stay in business then whatever... it doesn't hurt anyone. If I ever get divorced I will shop elsewhere no big deal (other than the brief annoyance at having to go to a better competitor). Heck my b#@&@ing about it to just my friends would probably cost them 8 more customers (based on a Pepsi Co. study) and possibly many many more if I take it to social media.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

So it's no big deal because you don't belong to any group small enough to be discriminated against without consequences?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?
The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.
You realize there are other religions than Christianity, right?

There are several denominations of Christianity who believe the Bible does not say LGBT relations are a sin. Even Roman Catholicism doesn't believe being LGBT is a sin (only acting on it).

---

Roman Catholicism believes that only an annulment or the death of your spouse ends a marriage. So, outside of a Roman Catholic religious ceremony, why should Roman Catholics who own businesses be allowed to refuse people services or goods for being divorced?

Oook? Why would anyone who is from a denomination OR religion that doesn't believe LGBT is sinful have any reason to deny a gay service?! As for Roman Catholics denying service to divorced people... ok that is their right. But considering how many marriages end in divorce they may be turning away a lot of customers. If they can stay in business then whatever... it doesn't hurt anyone. If I ever get divorced I will shop elsewhere no big deal (other than the brief annoyance at having to go to a better competitor). Heck my b+#@~ing about it to just my friends would probably cost them 8 more customers (based on a Pepsi Co. study) and possibly many many more if I take it to social media.

Obviously they wouldn't. The point was "It says so in the Bible" is disputed. There are sects that believe blacks are a lesser race and purer races shouldn't marry them. There are sects that believe women should never be in a position of authority over men. All of them think it "says so in the Bible". And that's just looking at Christianity. Other religions have their own texts and dogmas and schisms and theological disputes.

Personally, I think it's all nonsense. What I don't want and what the religious shouldn't want is for the courts to be determining what is valid religious doctrine and what isn't.

As for the Catholics, you may not have a choice but to do business with them. Roman Catholic hospitals are common and in an emergency you might wind up at one unintentionally. They already try to claim exemptions from rules about offering "morning after" pills to rape victims, for example.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
That honestly wasn't even my point. I was saying just because Christianity didn't consider being black as sinful, what if other religions did? Should they be able to discriminate against black people under the guise of freedom of religion? Are you only allowed to discriminate against gays or are Christians the only ones allowed freedom of religion?

Of course you seem confused, Freedom of Religion means freedom of ALL religions. Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful. If an Islamic shop turned away a Christian customer for violating some Muslim tradition I would equally support them in doing so.

As for being gay being sinful... I am personally on the fence on that issue. I have seen the text in the Bible, and I know that it is in a part that doesn't hold sway any more... But one of God's original commandments was to breed and create many children. Isn't being gay ignoring that part of God's message? My gay friends tolerate my indecision and I don't hold it against them either way. After all IF this is a sin it is certainly one that doesn't hurt anyone other than the person themselves and so it is no business of mine to condemn it. There ARE faiths that accept it and they are no less faithful than I am, I have to accept that we each find our own way to God's love and know that "faith alone in Jesus Christ saves us from hell" if a gay man can have faith then I know he will stand by my side in heaven and although many faithful would be shocked. I have done things that are sinful, Be Wary faithful for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Should someone from a faith that believes gay is sinful then let him find his own way to the truth whether he is wrong or right is God's call. Trust that he is faithful in his own way and just wave to him after judgement day when he stands next to the gay man he refused service to. On that day Jesus will tell us who was right and who was wrong. The ones who were wrong will repent and accept the truth because their faith is strong.

451 to 500 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill All Messageboards