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?

Well, it seems like conservatives are being disciminated more that who this bill adresses.

Well, it seems like conservatives are being disciminated more that who this bill adresses.

How? 

How? 

Well, isn't it kind of close minded that those who disagree with us Christians feel like they are entitled to insult and critisize our beliefs?

Well, isn't it kind of close minded that those who disagree with us Christians feel like they are entitled to insult and critisize our beliefs?

You're not being discriminated against in any way legally though. You aren't barred from entering into a legal contract (in some states). You've been and still are a massive majority in this country. 

You're not being discriminated against in any way legally though. You aren't barred from entering into a legal contract (in some states). You've been and still are a massive majority in this country. 

I suppose you are correct. I just feel as if this law is being overexaggerated.

Well, isn't it kind of close minded that those who disagree with us Christians feel like they are entitled to insult and critisize our beliefs?

It is very hypocritical, though the atheists tend to do this very often. They want us of religion to become more lenient, yet they turn around and insult our beliefs. I ignore the atheist agenda and continue practicing my religion as I please, I refuse to be a victim of hypocrisy.

Update: A gofundme donation page has been setup for a Indiana Pizzeria that said they would not cater at gay weddings. It has raised over $740,000 because their business was going to crash after they made their statement.

 

http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

 

I hate the media, purposely trying to find Christian business owners and ruin their source of income. It makes me sick. There are threats all over the internet, including death threats as well as threats to burn down their building. This makes total sense! "You don't agree with our beliefs, so we're going to ruin your lives!".

Edited April 3, 201511 yr by 1ian20

Update: A gofundme donation page has been setup for a Indiana Pizzeria that said they would not cater at gay weddings. It has raised over $740,000 because their business was going to crash after they made their statement.

 

http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

 

I hate the media, purposely trying to find Christian business owners and ruin their source of income. It makes me sick. There are threats all over the internet, including death threats as well as threats to burn down their building. This makes total sense! "You don't agree with our beliefs, so we're going to ruin your lives!".

They're not drawing attention because they're Christians. They're drawing attention because they refuse to cater a wedding because it was for a gay couple. If every business that was owned by Christians was targeted specifically because the owners were Christians, the majority of businesses operating in the country would be affected. 

Denying service to someone based on their sexuality is discrimination. This is a lesson we should have learned during the civil rights era. 

 

If a florist says "Sorry I can't serve your wedding, you're a jew.", that's a huge deal and everyone can agree how bad it is.

If a florist says "Sorry I can't serve your wedding, you're black.", that's another huge deal that we were able to overcome in the 60s.

If a florist says "Sorry I can't serve your wedding, you're gay.", suddenly the florist is a good christian? Bullshit. That's discrimination and should be illegal.

Edited April 4, 201511 yr by RyanHunter24

Let us set the record straight:

 

RFRA DOES NOT ALLOW DISCRIMINATION OF ANY TYPE

 

 

All RFRA does is allow people of ANY faith to not be forced into participating in anything that violates their religion.

 

Example: A restaurant CAN NOT deny service to homosexuals. EVER. The restaurant MAY, however, refuse to cater a same sex marriage, as that would be participating in an event which goes against their religion.

 

RFRA would also protect a Jewish baker from baking a cake with the likeness of Adolf Hitler for a customer. (And it has. At least twice.)

 

RFRA would protect a gay T Shirt printer from printing up shirts for the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

RFRA would NOT cover a Christian shopkeeper from refusing to sell items to a homosexual.

 

RFRA would cover a Jewish deli who refuses to serve ham and cheese sandwiches.

 

RFRA is a defensive law, which provides a shield against litigation when you are sued.

 

If the restaurant refuses to cater your gay wedding, YOU CAN STILL SUE, and they can still be charged, if the judge rules that RFRA does not apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It isn't about discrimination. It doesn't allow discrimination. No one seems to understand what this bill actually does. No one should be forced to take part in something that violates their beliefs.

 

 

Denying service to someone based on their sexuality is discrimination. This is a lesson we should have learned during the civil rights era. 

 

If a florist says "Sorry I can't serve your wedding, you're a jew.", that's a huge deal and everyone can agree how bad it is.

If a florist says "Sorry I can't serve your wedding, you're black.", that's another huge deal that we were able to overcome in the 60s.

If a florist says "Sorry I can't serve your wedding, you're gay.", suddenly the florist is a good christian? Bullshit. That's discrimination and should be illegal.

 

A wedding is sacred to many Christians who believe it should be a man and woman.

 

No one may claim that a Jewish or black wedding violates their religion. Well, Muslims are pretty anti-semetic...

 

It isn't discrimination. The florist would have to sell flowers to anyone who comes into the shop, but they would not have to provide arrangements for a gay wedding.

Let us set the record straight:

 

RFRA DOES NOT ALLOW DISCRIMINATION OF ANY TYPE

 

 

All RFRA does is allow people of ANY faith to not be forced into participating in anything that violates their religion.

 

Example: A restaurant CAN NOT deny service to homosexuals. EVER. The restaurant MAY, however, refuse to cater a same sex marriage, as that would be participating in an event which goes against their religion.

 

RFRA would also protect a Jewish baker from baking a cake with the likeness of Adolf Hitler for a customer. (And it has. At least twice.)

 

RFRA would protect a gay T Shirt printer from printing up shirts for the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

RFRA would NOT cover a Christian shopkeeper from refusing to sell items to a homosexual.

 

RFRA would cover a Jewish deli who refuses to serve ham and cheese sandwiches.

 

RFRA is a defensive law, which provides a shield against litigation when you are sued.

 

If the restaurant refuses to cater your gay wedding, YOU CAN STILL SUE, and they can still be charged, if the judge rules that RFRA does not apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It isn't about discrimination. It doesn't allow discrimination. No one seems to understand what this bill actually does. No one should be forced to take part in something that violates their beliefs.

 

 

 

A wedding is sacred to many Christians who believe it should be a man and woman.

 

No one may claim that a Jewish or black wedding violates their religion. Well, Muslims are pretty anti-semetic...

 

It isn't discrimination. The florist would have to sell flowers to anyone who comes into the shop, but they would not have to provide arrangements for a gay wedding.

Right, Christians believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. So they don't have to marry someone of the same sex. But when they deny service to someone based on the way they were born, that is discrimination. 

My previous belief still stands. Businesses should be able to deny anyone anything for any reason because it is their business and their property.

My previous belief still stands. Businesses should be able to deny anyone anything for any reason because it is their business and their property.

As vague as this is, I agree.

Right, Christians believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. So they don't have to marry someone of the same sex. But when they deny service to someone based on the way they were born, that is discrimination. 

 

It isn't about denial of service. It has nothing to do with discrimination.  It is about refusal to participate in an activity which violates their beliefs.

 

Say I own a restaurant. A gay couple comes in every week for dinner. They love my food. I think they're great people. One day, they decide to get married. They come to me, and ask me to cater their wedding. I respectfully decline, because I will not participate in the union of a same sex couple, but hope they will continue eating at my restaurant.

 

Also, why just Christians? In many Muslim countries, gays are killed simply for being gay.

 

 

 

It isn't about denial of service. It has nothing to do with discrimination.  It is about refusal to participate in an activity which violates their beliefs.

 

Say I own a restaurant. A gay couple comes in every week for dinner. They love my food. I think they're great people. One day, they decide to get married. They come to me, and ask me to cater their wedding. I respectfully decline, because I will not participate in the union of a same sex couple, but hope they will continue eating at my restaurant.

 

Also, why just Christians? In many Muslim countries, gays are killed simply for being gay.

 

 

 

'>

 

 

 

Why is anyone's right to same sex marriage trump anyone's right to practice religion? If I recall, the Constitution protects religious freedom...

This law isn't being put into place in those countries. And just because you like the gay couple doesn't mean its not discrimination.

 

The United States Constitution does not respect the establishment of any religion. That means that people are welcomed to practice their religion, so long as it does not intrude on the rights of others. And this whole thing is silly, denying service to someone isn't even a part of the Christian faith. Being gay is a sin, along with being divorced. How can a shop owner claim religious freedom? Just because the way someone was born makes you uncomfortable, doesn't give you the right to deny them service.

 

 

Also, there's a reason why the governor of Indiana refused to answer this question...

 

Right. Let's boycott Indiana for passing RFRA, which, by the way, about 30 states have, and not mention Iran, where being gay will get you killed. Companies like Apple bash my state for being anti-gay, while making business deals in Iran. Hypocrisy.

Religion is Constitutionally protected. Same sex marriage is not. If my religion isn't allowed to intrude on their rights, then why is their "right" to marriage allowed to intrude on my right to adhere to my religion?

 

Would you walk into a Jewish deli and ask for a ham and cheese sandwich? Would you be offended if they didn't serve you? You go in there knowing the outcome. That's exactly what the gay community is doing, and claiming they're being discriminated against.

 

This law protects religious people from being discriminated against. You keep mentioning denial of service. You're looking at it through your narrow filter, and you refuse to see it for what it is.

 

It doesn't give anyone a right to refuse service. What it does is allow business owners to choose not to participate in an activity which violates their beliefs.

 

I do not agree with the way Pence handled things. He should have stood his ground, and explained the law. He is partly to blame for the misunderstandings. RFRA does not allow ANYONE to refuse service to ANYONE, for ANY reason. Period.

Religion is Constitutionally protected. Same sex marriage is not. If my religion isn't allowed to intrude on their rights, then why is their "right" to marriage allowed to intrude on my right to adhere to my religion?

The Constitutional protections regarding religion are "freedom froms," meaning that you're protected from the establishment of an official state religion. You're also protected to practice it freely. I think that potentially raises questions in terms of what is and what isn't practicing freely. I have doubts that making a wedding cake for two men is stopping you from worshiping. I'm not trying to say that's inherently true, but I think the question can certainly be asked. 

 

Marriage is first and foremost a matter of legal contracts. Denying consenting adults access to legal contracts based purely on being the same gender seems a bit problematic to me. Interracial marriage prohibition was not ended nationwide until a 1967 court case. I think the connection I'm making here is quite evident. Denying people entry into a  contract because one is white and the other is black is obviously ridiculous. What makes two men or two women different? 

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

The Constitutional protections regarding religion are "freedom froms," meaning that you're protected from the establishment of an official state religion. You're also protected to practice it freely. I think that potentially raises questions in terms of what is and what isn't practicing freely. I have doubts that making a wedding cake for two men is stopping you from worshiping. I'm not trying to say that's inherently true, but I think the question can certainly be asked. 

 

Marriage is first and foremost a matter of legal contracts. Denying consenting adults access to legal contracts based purely on being the same gender seems a bit problematic to me. Interracial marriage prohibition was not ended nationwide until a 1967 court case. I think the connection I'm making here is quite evident. Denying people entry into a  contract because one is white and the other is black is obviously ridiculous. What makes two men or two women different? 

 

Personally, I have no issues with same sex marriage. The issue is that marriage is traditionally a religious event. Some religious people do not agree with the concept, and should not be forced to participate in a gay wedding, in any capacity.

 

Does anyone know when and why RFRA was signed into law? Bill Clinton passed the federal RFRA law in 1993 to allow Native Americans the right to use peyote in religious ceremonies.

 

Since 1993, around 30 states have passed a RFRA law at state level, because a court ruling determined that the federal government cannot tell states how to use their land, and the federal RFRA law didn't apply.

 

Indiana's RFRA law is almost word for word, the same law Clinton passed in 1993. Why the uproar about Indiana? Over half the states have nearly identical laws!!

 

I am headed to Walkerton this weekend. Gonna get me some Memories Pizza. I read the Yelp reviews. A lot of bad reviews from California... Yeah, like Walkerton is a huge tourist attraction... I would be confident in saying that 90% of their reviewers have never even been to Indiana.

 

Look, bottom line is, this law protects people who want to practice their religion. It doesn't allow discrimination. If you're gay and a store refuses to provide service for gay wedding, you can still sue them, and you can still win. All RFRA does is provide a legal defense. Or, you can just go somewhere else that will do what you need done.

 

Personally, I have no issues with same sex marriage. The issue is that marriage is traditionally a religious event. Some religious people do not agree with the concept, and should not be forced to participate in a gay wedding, in any capacity.

 

Does anyone know when and why RFRA was signed into law? Bill Clinton passed the federal RFRA law in 1993 to allow Native Americans the right to use peyote in religious ceremonies.

 

Since 1993, around 30 states have passed a RFRA law at state level, because a court ruling determined that the federal government cannot tell states how to use their land, and the federal RFRA law didn't apply.

 

Indiana's RFRA law is almost word for word, the same law Clinton passed in 1993. Why the uproar about Indiana? Over half the states have nearly identical laws!!

 

I am headed to Walkerton this weekend. Gonna get me some Memories Pizza. I read the Yelp reviews. A lot of bad reviews from California... Yeah, like Walkerton is a huge tourist attraction... I would be confident in saying that 90% of their reviewers have never even been to Indiana.

 

Look, bottom line is, this law protects people who want to practice their religion. It doesn't allow discrimination. If you're gay and a store refuses to provide service for gay wedding, you can still sue them, and you can still win. All RFRA does is provide a legal defense. Or, you can just go somewhere else that will do what you need done.

 

 

Marriage is traditionally a religious event for people wanting to make it a religious event. For many, many people, marriage is to be legally bound to someone, with the fiscal advantages it brings with it. If a gay couple asked to be married in a church, then I'd completely understand if the priest refused to marry them. But here we are talking about business. Religion SHOULD NOT have an influence AT ANY POINT. I don't see how this law is protecting people who want to practice their religion. A shop, a restaurant, or whatever else is not a place of cult or a place to pray. It's not a church. It's a place where people should exchange goods, sell and buy stuff, without the religion being involved at any point.

 

This is what happens when the state does not separate itself properly from the church. Decades later, some laws passing are so archaic that they look like they come from the 19th century.

Edited April 11, 201511 yr by Hystery

Marriage is traditionally a religious event for people wanting to make it a religious event. For many, many people, marriage is to be legally bound to someone, with the fiscal advantages it brings with it. If a gay couple asked to be married in a church, then I'd completely understand if the priest refused to marry them. But here we are talking about business. Religion SHOULD NOT have an influence AT ANY POINT. I don't see how this law is protecting people who want to practice their religion. A shop, a restaurant, or whatever else is not a place of cult or a place to pray. It's not a church. It's a place where people should exchange goods, sell and buy stuff, without the religion being involved at any point.

 

This is what happens when the state does not separate itself properly from the church. Decades later, some laws passing are so archaic that they look like they come from the 19th century.

 

The wedding does not occur in the place of business. If you ask a restaurant to cater your wedding, then they have to be present at said wedding. You cannot force a religious person to participate in an event which offends their beliefs, and it's pretty intolerant to expect them to.

 

It isn't about business. It's about individual freedom. In case you hadn't noticed, all businesses are owned, and operated by, individuals. Individuals should not be subjected to performing tasks which offend their deeply help beliefs.

 

If marriage is only about being legally bound, then go to the courthouse, get married, and be done with it. While you're at it, don't go to a religious shop owner and ask them to cater your reception.

 

How do you not see how this protects people who want to practice religion? If someone asks you to do something that violates your religion, you can refuse to do that thing, and be protected against litigation!

 

Where is it written that the state must separate itself from the church? That isn't even a law. That isn't even in the US Constitution. Also, for the record, the "separation of church and state" is meant to prevent the establishment of a state religion, like the Church of England. It is meant to keep the state out of religion, not to keep religion out of the state.