http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/23/indiana-house-oks-controversial-religious-freedom-bill/70336706/

 

Sb 101 allows buisness owners to deny service to people if they violate their religious belefs. Many people are targeting Christians like myself, when in reality this bill is meant for all religions. Many big corporations (NCAA, SalesForce, GenCon) are considering moving operations out of the state, but I think that they're blowing this bill out of proportion. They claim that they want all of their customers to feel included. But let's be honest, when is this bill really going to be used? People are acting as if every buisness is run by Christians, and a majority of the customers are part of the LGBT community (if you get the analogy). Although this bill is for every religion, many people think this is targeted towards gays. So. Muslim and Christian buisness owners are allowed to refuse service. How many buisness really care? Not a whole lot. I bet that this bill will rarely be exercised. Buisness don't care about your views, they just want money! I do approve of this bill, because I believe that private buisness owners should be allowed tod deny service to someone because it's theirs. I see a few situations on which this bill can be exercised.

 

-Let's say I am a Christian wedding photographer, an I am self employed. A gay couple (or lesbian) asks me to photograph their wedding. Should I be able to deny them because their marriage violates me religion? I think that this is an appropriate reason to use this bill. It would make me uncomfortable, and I would kindly refer them to other photographers.

 

-Let's say I am a muslim and I run a catoring buisness and I am asked to cator an event. The cutomers have already paid and they ask me to serve them pork. Should I be allowed to refuse this because of me religious beliefs? I believe that this is another reasonable situation.

 

There are many situations I can think of, but there are also a few situation that I find not acceptable.

 

-I am a  Christian cashier at a store and a gay couple asks me to scan their groceries. Can I deny them service? Yes. Should I? No. This is a situation in which denying them service is not acceptable in my opinion. First off, because it does not really involve me seeing them do anything such as kissing (which would be done at a wedding), and therefore would not make me feel like I am violating my religion. Also, Jesus served everyone, so this would be contradictory to teaching.

 

I know someone will say that the same logic should be applies to the wedding scenario. Regarding the wedding situation, sending them to another photographer in a kind way is accpetable. Yes, you are denying them service, but you are being kind and helping them, just as Jesus did when he walked Earth.

 

What is everyon's thoughts? (Please remain respectful, or at least somewhat respectul in this debate. Thanks!)

 

(I aplogize if my long rant is confusing, If you need clarification, I'd be glad to clarify.)

Edited March 27, 201511 yr by 1ian20

At first glance, this seems like another state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which makes me skeptical of claims that this is somehow unprecedented.

At first glance, this seems like another state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which makes me skeptical of claims that this is somehow unprecedented.

It is. A majority of the states have made up their own laws after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by Clinton in 93'.

 

-I am a  Christian cashier at a store and a gay couple asks me to scan their groceries. Can I deny them service? Yes. Should I? No. This is a situation in which denying them service is not acceptable in my opinion. First off, because it does not really involve me seeing them do anything such as kissing (which would be done at a wedding), and therefore would not make me feel like I am violating my religion. Also, Jesus served everyone, so this would be contradictory to teaching.

De lege lata a cashier at a store has no right to refuse anyone anything since the law mentions only business owners. Which makes me wonder if an internal order of a company's owner is enough to restrict the application of this law, or would angry workers sue the owners?..

Edited March 27, 201511 yr by Hastings

De lege lata a cashier at a store has no right to refuse anyone anything since the law mentions only business owners. Which makes me wonder if an internal order of a company's owner is enough to restrict the application of this law, or would angry workers sue the owners?..

Well, since it's a law, would the customers legally be allowed to sue? Or would it fit under the law?

Well, since it's a law, would the customers legally be allowed to sue? Or would it fit under the law?

I guess customers will have no legal claim under this, unless they manage to prove that they were refused on some different grounds such as discrimination. I'm more interested in how this all would work in huge corporations like McDonalds, which owners don't reside in this state. 

 

American law is fascinating, I wish my university had more courses about it lol. 

McDonald's actually uses franchising in the US; a typical McDonald's is actually an independent business, which contracts with the national company to use their business model and serve their food at their prices with their branding (but which is owned locally, as a rule). However, McDonald's corporate policy could still forbid discrimination. AFAIK, these laws only prevent government interference on religion; if reasonable job duties conflict with your religious beliefs, you generally have to find a different job.

Also, the law *doesn't* mention business owners. It has nothing to do with business owners. The law says that government may not substantially burden a person's religious exercise, unless it is the most narrow way of achieving a compelling government interest. Nothing *at all* to do with whether someone is a business owner or not; it applies to everyone. It also only restricts the government; Section 11 says it doesn't let current, prospective, or former employees sue private employers (so private employers aren't bound by it at all).

I guess customers will have no legal claim under this, unless they manage to prove that they were refused on some different grounds such as discrimination. I'm more interested in how this all would work in huge corporations like McDonalds, which owners don't reside in this state. 

 

American law is fascinating, I wish my university had more courses about it lol. 

It is very interesting. Too bad they don't teach us much in High School about law. Although, it's not really part of the standard curriculum.

 

McDonald's actually uses franchising in the US; a typical McDonald's is actually an independent business, which contracts with the national company to use their business model and serve their food at their prices with their branding (but which is owned locally, as a rule). However, McDonald's corporate policy could still forbid discrimination. AFAIK, these laws only prevent government interference on religion; if reasonable job duties conflict with your religious beliefs, you generally have to find a different job.

Also, the law *doesn't* mention business owners. It has nothing to do with business owners. The law says that government may not substantially burden a person's religious exercise, unless it is the most narrow way of achieving a compelling government interest. Nothing *at all* to do with whether someone is a business owner or not; it applies to everyone. It also only restricts the government; Section 11 says it doesn't let current, prospective, or former employees sue private employers (so private employers aren't bound by it at all).

So technically any employee can refuse to serve, unless it's against coorporate rules?

Edited March 27, 201511 yr by 1ian20

I'm pretty sure "refusing a paying customer" is *normally* against corporate rules -- someone who does that without explicit policy supporting it is likely to end up disciplined or fired, with the company scrambling to apologize for the person refused service. The *government* can't make an employee serve someone against their religious beliefs (unless it's the least intrusive way to fulfill a compelling government interest; an EMT who refuses to help a gay patient is not likely to find any help under this law); private employers generally do expect employees to accept customers who are willing to pay.

I personally don't even understand what religion has to do with laws. It should remain a private thing, practiced in privacy or in dedicated places like churches, and shouldn't at any point impact the everyday life of another person than you.

 

I personally don't even understand what religion has to do with laws. It should remain a private thing, practiced in privacy or in dedicated places like churches, and shouldn't at any point impact the everyday life of another person than you.

I partially agree. According to the Christian faith, God asks that Christians only educate those about Christianity that choose to accept it. God says to spread the word of Christianity, make it known to the general public. Whether or not people accept the Christian belief is entirely their decision, and we are not permitted to try and force Christianity on said people.

I think parents should be able to teach their children whatever religion or beliefs they want. You can't control what a parent teaches their children, and thus it will remain so. If I have a child, I am going to educate them about Christianity. Why? Because that's my child, and I can educate them about whatever religion I want under US federal law. The right to religious freedom. I'm not sure about any other country, so it may be different in France. However in the United States, I have every right to do so, and it should remain that way. If my child decides to become an atheist, even after all I've taught them, then that's their decision.

I partially agree. According to the Christian faith, God asks that Christians only educate those about Christianity that choose to accept it. God says to spread the word of Christianity, make it known to the general public. Whether or not people accept the Christian belief is entirely their decision, and we are not permitted to try and force Christianity on said people.

I think parents should be able to teach their children whatever religion or beliefs they want. You can't control what a parent teaches their children, and thus it will remain so. If I have a child, I am going to educate them about Christianity. Why? Because that's my child, and I can educate them about whatever religion I want under US federal law. The right to religious freedom. I'm not sure about any other country, so it may be different in France. However in the United States, I have every right to do so, and it should remain that way. If my child decides to become an atheist, even after all I've taught them, then that's their decision.

 

Nah, everywhere in Europe parents are free to teach their children the way they want, this picture was mostly used in an humoristic way (with a hint of reality behind it). I just think it's a bit wrong to turn the kids to look a certain way about life without giving them the choice, like for example baptism. I've never been christened as a baby or kid because my parents wanted to give me the choice of if I wanted to believe in a god or not. Turned out I didn't, but I think it was very fair of them to give me the choice of my beliefs regardless of theirs. But it's my opinion, obviously.

Edited March 27, 201511 yr by Hystery

I'm supportive of the theory behind the notion that you should be allowed to determine who can be your customers are and are not, but the realities of this are not so great. It's a legal out for discrimination. I don't see how this could stand up to a legal challenge against the Civil Rights Act of '64.

And let's not kid ourselves. This sole intention of this bill is to allow assholes who hate members of the LGBT community to discriminate.

Edited March 27, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

Religion was originally to give people an answer about how life works. At least, that's what I've learned. Now there's so many religions and they hate each other, and that's fucking everything up.

Religion was originally to give people an answer about how life works. At least, that's what I've learned. Now there's so many religions and they hate each other, and that's fucking everything up.

And there's one religion that's being a tad more aggressive than the others, but that's a different topic! ;)

Getting back to this "issue", all people should be eligible for public services, basic services such as restaurants and stores.

I am christian, but I do believe in LGBT Marriage, with that being said, I don't believe this bill is correct, plus we as a state will be losing a lot of money from many people, GenCon, has plans to move out of state now, NCAA brought it up that they will be thinking about moving out of state and into another state, he just put our state into a death of money for the state, losing people that bring us a lot of money a year, possibly causing us to lose many other things as well.

McDonald's actually uses franchising in the US; a typical McDonald's is actually an independent business, which contracts with the national company to use their business model and serve their food at their prices with their branding (but which is owned locally, as a rule). However, McDonald's corporate policy could still forbid discrimination. AFAIK, these laws only prevent government interference on religion; if reasonable job duties conflict with your religious beliefs, you generally have to find a different job.

Also, the law *doesn't* mention business owners. It has nothing to do with business owners. The law says that government may not substantially burden a person's religious exercise, unless it is the most narrow way of achieving a compelling government interest. Nothing *at all* to do with whether someone is a business owner or not; it applies to everyone. It also only restricts the government; Section 11 says it doesn't let current, prospective, or former employees sue private employers (so private employers aren't bound by it at all).

Nothing is better than a word of a professional. Guess I should have read the exact text rather than a newspaper article. Thanks for clarifying! 

 

On a side note: not all do support this law. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/san-francisco-joins-planning-boycott-indiana/70531518/

 

San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee announced that he is banning all city-funded trips to Indiana in light of the passing of what some call discriminatory legislation.

"We stand united as San Franciscans to condemn Indiana's new discriminatory law, and will work together to protect the civil rights of all Americans including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals," Lee said in a statement.

 

 

On the one hand, California is the place where leftism flourishes like never else. On the the other, choosing between protecting beliefs and individual rights is hard. 

On the the other, choosing between protecting beliefs and individual rights is hard. 

Well, technically, not really. Believing in a god/religion (or not) is part of individual rights. Thus, either one believes in a religion or not shouldn't impact anything other than themselves. People wishing to give the right to people to discriminate others just because they have different beliefs are just willing to either force their own beliefs onto others or just to divide population so they don't pay attention to other problems. Divide and rule.

 

About San Francisco, only one thing comes in mind to me:

 

Nothing is better than a word of a professional. Guess I should have read the exact text rather than a newspaper article. Thanks for clarifying! 

 

On a side note: not all do support this law. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/san-francisco-joins-planning-boycott-indiana/70531518/

 

 

On the one hand, California is the place where leftism flourishes like never else. On the the other, choosing between protecting beliefs and individual rights is hard. 

Well, San Fran is a LGBT habitat pretty much. I've hear that some....interesting...things can be seen there. But it's pretty close minded of these people who are basically discriminating against Christians mainly, but also the other religions.

 

I am christian, but I do believe in LGBT Marriage, with that being said, I don't believe this bill is correct, plus we as a state will be losing a lot of money from many people, GenCon, has plans to move out of state now, NCAA brought it up that they will be thinking about moving out of state and into another state, he just put our state into a death of money for the state, losing people that bring us a lot of money a year, possibly causing us to lose many other things as well.

GenCon's contract ends in 2020. Even so, the Indy community has made a website and many buisness owners are expressing their levels of accpetence.

GenCon's contract ends in 2020. Even so, the Indy community has made a website and many business owners are expressing their levels of acceptance.

Still, even as if that is just as bad, how much money we as a state and community will lose will be tremendous. Hackers even shut down the states website for a short time being after this bill came out, I believe as a whole state that this has messed with us and will continue to. Isn't there a law in the Constitution or Bill of Rights which doesn't allow this?