Indiana practices religious freedom (updated 3apr15)

George Rebane

Indiana’s new law providing for the practice of religious freedom is not really a new law at all, but joined at the hip with bipartisan legislation – Religious Freedom Restoration Act - passed in 1993 and signed by President Clinton.  That law clarified and underlined the Constitution’s provision for not letting government define religious preferences and practices.  Indiana’s legislation abets what 19 other states already have on their books.

But for me the real question is the freedom to practice what you believe and what is taught by your faith.  The Constitution guarantees such freedoms as long as they do not deny others the practice of their equally guaranteed freedoms.  And most certainly Indiana’s law will not prevent its LGTB contingent from doing their thing that includes getting supportive services from numerous suppliers who are ready, willing, and able.

If I operate a legal business, I want to have the maximum latitude in choosing my suppliers, determining my inventory, hiring my workers, and servicing my customers.  I want my competition and customers to drive my business decisions, not the state.  And that includes deciding to whom I will sell or not.  I can see the state entering this equation only for national security considerations – e.g. if I invent a super weapon, I may not sell to anyone I choose.

Indiana’s law will clearly allow business owners to discriminate among their potential customers based on their religious beliefs; to deny that is ludicrous.  But so what?  Businesses can already deny service for numerous less salutary reasons – ‘No shoes, no shirt, no service.’  And that still is not the important point here.

Some on the Left argue that since a business is registered/permitted by the state, it is in some way a public utility and must cater to all of the public.  That argument leads directly to the removal of the last vestiges of private property.  And violating that side of the Bastiat Triangle (q.v.) first weakens and then collapses the remaining two – liberty and security in your person.  The state will then constructively own us lock, stock, and barrel – a sought after conclusion to the organization of society as held by many (most?) progressives.

So encourage the LGTB folks to buy their wedding cakes from the many who will gladly supply them.  And if some merchant refuses my patronage because I am a Christian, or an immigrant, or …, let them - I will go somewhere else.

Finally, Indiana did not have to pass their religious freedom law since it already exists in the US Code.  In the furtherance of states’ rights, all states should pass an amendment to their constitutions that simply allows them to practice prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of any federal law they deem is not being adequately enforced by the federal government.  That would handle all such cases and many more (including border security and illegal aliens).  I submit this latter recommendation to the several states as part and parcel of the Rebane Doctrine.

[3apr15 update]  Some thoughts on what is a religion since the comment stream below seems to have trouble defining it in an acceptable manner that relates to the events most recently brought up in Indiana.  The subsequent discussion then has gone off the rails since people in this day and age seem to have no common understanding of what is a religion, especially of the kind that are considered legally when discussing church and state issues.

I am not interested in getting into a nitpicking contest with readers who insist on having special purpose, and/or exotic definitions of the term.  Instead the following offering hopefully covers the bases of what mainstream America thinks about when they are asked to consider a person’s religion, as opposed to a recently fabricated, unique, and/or ad hoc belief system shared by one or a very few, and no one else.

A religion is a belief system that has the following attributes –

1. Holds that a human being is transcendent in that his complete being exceeds the common space and time dimensions in which we observe him;

2. That there exists a higher being or intelligence that gave rise to the observable universe, a being (call it God) that is deserving of continuing recognition, supplication, and gratitude – in short, of being worshipped through both formal and informal proceedings;

3. That this higher being (God) has communicated with Man through natural acts, favored prophets, and even personal incarnations to establish its bona fides and to prescribe ways in which we would please and displease it.

4. That these communications have been gathered, disseminated, and passed on through succeeding generations in a canonical form referred (informally aka ‘scripture’) the content of which is attributed to God himself, or to God-inspired intermediaries;

5. That it contains a formal structure of communal worship (aka liturgy) during which the adherents of the religion gather to acknowledge their common beliefs, and give visible and unambiguous glory to their God.

6. That it contains certain specified communal procedures or acts that serve to define transitions in the relationship of its adherents to God and/or to each other within the blessings of their God.  These are known as sacraments – e.g. baptism, marriage, last rites, etc – and often serve to distinguish one religion from another.

7. Its validity does not lend itself to disproof by the accepted means of falsification as required of scientific knowledge, therefore religious knowledge is by definition unscientific.

We can add attributes to this list with the liability that it then becomes too confining, and rejects belief systems that are commonly acknowledged as being religions.  Number 2 above comes close to this when considered in the light of, say, Buddhism and Taoism.  The main point here is that this definition does not allow for Sam, Sally, and John to meet on Monday, spend the week cobbling together some of the above attributes, and on Friday announce that they are devoted adherents of their newly concocted religion which should then be given equal consideration in society’s resolution of religious issues.

Comments

[fish]

So encourage the LGTB folks to buy their wedding cakes from the many who will gladly supply them. And if some merchant refuses my patronage because I am a Christian, or an immigrant, or …, let them - I will go somewhere else.

...and in so doing you differentiate yourself from the shallow thinking horde of idiots that are rapidly acquiring critical mass in this country.

[Keen Observer]

How about this gem...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rejects-free-speech-appeal-over-cinco-142019486.html

Only in America could we develop a scenario where the Flag would become an incendiary symbol.

[Account Deleted]

Ah - the 'Murcan flag deal.
'But San Francisco-based Gordon and Rees LLP attorney Don Willenburg, lead counsel for the school district, said he was happy the previous court ruling was left standing because student violence is a "particularly salient concern in an era of rampant school violence."'
Of course the boys wearing the American flag T shirts were not violent at all. Seems that a certain group with a certain accent at the school were violent but the left-wing weenies that run the school and the district haven't got the balls to kick the violent ones out of school if they have that certain accent. No - the peaceful white kids got kicked out.
I noticed that Tim Cook weighed in on Indiana's new law. So - while in some states, middle class powerless folks are having their lives and lively hoods destroyed because they follow their faith, the uber-wealthy leader of one of the most powerful companies on earth boo hoos about how a-skeered he is of what he imagines the Indiana law is about. And the left predictably follows in line with the wealthy and powerful white guy. I noticed that Cook couldn't actually name anything bad about Indiana's new law - he just started spouting off about other state's laws. Did Tim Cook throw his millions against Obama? Obama said he was against gay marriage. So, in 2008 Cook donated money to Obama.
Just imagine if I was denied service somewhere... Oh wait, I have been.
But I wasn't enrolled in the proper victim class, so too bad for me and life goes on.

[Paul Emery]

George

Can you give me some ideas as to how a business would determine that someone is gay and therefore use that knowledge to deny service or services to a customer based on their religious inspiration. Could it be a rumor or suspicion based on behavior or clothing or do they need any reason at all. Can just a suspicion work for that purpose? Should they post on their door a notice saying they will not serve to a gay or LGTB customer vecause of religious reasons? Can tdy in your view refuse service to any non Christian such as a Buddist, Jew, agnostic, Moslem, Hindu etc...

[Paul Emery]

Add Mormons to that list as well as well as Catholics who are regarded by some"Christians" as heathens and idol worshipers.

[Account Deleted]

from Paul - "Can you give me some ideas as to how a business would determine that someone is gay...."
Poor Paul - I guess he missed that class in school.

[Paul Emery]

I guess I did miss that Scott Scott. What is your guide clothing, language, body language, rumors that 'Freddie grabbed my ass in the restroom' whatever. Give me some guidance here. For example if Michael Sam were to walk into your business would you know he was gay?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 722pm - I don't know Paul, but a couple of guys ordering a wedding cake for their nuptials may provide the merchant with a hint. But that's not the point here. If it's my business, I should be able to exercise my right to serve someone or not based on something I care to explain or keep to myself.

And if my decision generates ill will among my other clients who then boycott me so as to cause my business to fail, so be it. It is the fate I have chosen or mistakenly stumbled upon. I am responsible.

(couldn't understand your last question, please restate)

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 March 2015 at 07:22 PM

I guess if they requested a wedding cake with two grooms/brides as cake toppers that might be a clue.

I imagine that if a single man came in and commissioned a cake but didn't specify any wedding accoutrement (the aforementioned cake topper) the baker could provide it without violating his/her religious sensibilities.

More importantly though, why not just find another baker?

[Account Deleted]

Paul - you're lobbing softballs at me!
"For example if Michael Sam were to walk into your business would you know he was gay?"
Since he claims he is, I would assume he is. What's your point?
I wouldn't treat him any differently than any body else. You have a problem with that?

[Account Deleted]

What about folks that exercise their rights as citizens and legally donate money for a California ballot proposition and end up being fired for that act? Is that OK?
Is it OK for whites to be thrown out of a public gathering based on their skin color?
Is it OK for white school kids to be excluded from a public function at a tax payer supported school because of their skin color?

[Gregory]

Paul, being asked to create a wedding cake that leaves nothing to be imagined is a real clue.

You bet... if a Presbylutheran wants to discriminate against a Mormon or a Zoroastrian because their God is whispering in their ear to tell the heathen to begone, I've no problem with that. They'll do that whether you want them to or not.

Last I chatted with a non-Mormon scoutmaster, Mormons had pretty much taken over Scouts in NorCal already, and they don't exactly discriminate again non Mormons... they just don't cater to them. Out of sight, out of mind. Separate Mormon troops, separate summer camps. Separate and not quite equal... apparently really took off when Mormons became alarmed the BSA might cave over gay adult leaders. Hearsay, take it all with a grain of salt.

[Paul Emery]

Fair enough Scott. Let me reword my response to your statement: "Poor Paul - I guess he missed that class in school."

So Scott if Michael Sam were to enter your business and you didn't know who he was what are the things I missed in class that you are aware of that would lead you to believe he was Gay.

[Paul Emery]

Golly gosh Todd! Where are your supporters forexecution by firing squad for MJ dealers to minors ? Crickets so far on this. Personally I support current laws on this.

[Paul Emery]

RE: Gregory 08:10

What is the difference between discrimination because of religion and nationality or race? The KKK was and still is in some cases a Christian religious cause. How about those that believe that Caucasian is Gods chosen race. Should they be able to exercise their spiritual inspiration by discriminating against nonwhite races?

[Todd Juvinall]

If that is making you a jolly chap have at it. I think your easily amused. Too funny.

On the other hot topic. When I was in high school there were always those you could not be in the showers with. We all knew and that was simply how it was.

[Todd Juvinall]

Oh and Paul Emery, what is your opinion on "Black Power" and the Black Panthers?

[Paul Emery]

What does that have to do with the questions at hand? Are you trying to distract attention from the fact that nobody supports your view on firing squads for MJ minor dealers.

[Account Deleted]

"...that would lead you to believe he was Gay."
I dunno, Paul. Why would I care if his name was Gay?

[Bill Tozer]

"Don we now our gay apparel, tra, la-la-la, la-la lala."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/indiana-religious-freedom-obama-illinois/2015/03/29/id/635169/

[Todd Juvinall]

As usual Paul Emery never answers our questions. But Paul, yes, death by firing squad for selling dope to minors is catching on.

[Account Deleted]

It might be nice if some one who is opposed to the new law in Indiana could point out how it differs from the federal law already on the books or other similar laws in other states. All I hear is screaming and yelling, but no actual instances of anyone being harmed.
We've had folks such as J Wright and L Farrakhan spewing racist hatred and hiding under a blanket called tax-exempt religion for decades.

[George Rebane]

In a free country what is the real harm in allowing people to openly practice discriminatory behavior as they will? Others viewing their choices on associations and services provided may also ostracize them as they will by speaking out or shunning them for their unacceptable choices. That happens anyway, but in an environment today where we are no longer free to choose how we behave. The laws have become more constraining than the Founders had in mind.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 31 March 2015 at 08:52 AM

The goal of the left in all cases is to leave no alternatives. All are to behave as one.

[Joe Koyote]

Todd's brother is named Gaylord, does that make him suspect?

[fish]

Posted by: Joe Koyote | 31 March 2015 at 09:31 AM

Why? Are you cruising?

[Brad C.]

Refusing to bake a cake for someone has nothing to do with religious freedom- it is good old fashioned discrimination. Last I heard, Americans were free to practice the religions of their choice.
As has been said, if you don't like a particular business for whatever reason (or the business does not like you), you are free to "vote with your feet". Indiana is merely reaffirming itself as a fly-over state.

[fish]

Posted by: Brad C. | 31 March 2015 at 09:38 AM

So from the above post you are for or against the Indiana law Brad?

[Todd Juvinall]

The Indiana law is simply a way to get to court for a religious organization if the government is forcing them to do something their religion forbids. So the cake will be baked and sold to Mohamed and the cake maker can go to court.

Joe Koyote, my brother is straight so go cruise for someone else. You are a sick puppy.

[Brad C.]

Fish, I don't know enough about the Indiana law to say whether I am fer -r- agin' it. I heard up to 20 other states have something similar to the Indiana law. It sounds to me like some good ole boys at the state level are merely reaffirming themselves as God fearin' Mid Westerners and trying to differentiate themselves from those wacky coastal populations.

[fish]

Posted by: Brad C. | 31 March 2015 at 10:19 AM & 31 March 2015 at 09:38 AM

Maybe I should rephrase.

Based on your 9:38 which argument are you trying to make a) "Refusing to bake a cake for someone has nothing to do with religious freedom- it is good old fashioned discrimination". or b) As has been said, if you don't like a particular business for whatever reason (or the business does not like you), you are free to "vote with your feet"?

[Brad C.]

Fish, I would say that we should talk about whether refusing to do business with someone has anything to do with religious freedom. I don't think it does. If I get attitude from business owners, or I think their prices are too high, or they put too much sweetener in my chai tea, or whatever ...I just walk down to the next business and check them out.
I think it was kind of bitchy of the gay folks who made a big deal over someone not willing to bake them a cake. All they needed to do was to flame the business on Yelp and post about it on Facebook and Twitter the hell out of it.

[George Rebane]

Religions have had strictures on business - what kind, with whom, etc - for millennia. Forced violation of those strictures has always been seen as the denial of religious freedoms. Progressives have come to attack that reality for the same reason they oppose all things which differentiate human beings. Since politically we must be homogeneous, so must we be biologically and cognitively.

Gov Mike Pence of Indiana has penned a good piece that further clarifies what the lamestream is trying to obfuscate about Indiana's new law.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-pence-ensuring-religious-freedom-in-indiana-1427757799?mod=hp_opinion

[fish]

Posted by: Brad C. | 31 March 2015 at 11:03 AM

All they needed to do was to flame the business on Yelp and post about it on Facebook and Twitter the hell out of it.

Maybe a little more than I would have done but in essence yes.....no compulsion via government (EEOC discrimination lawsuits) to perform a service but plenty of bad press and loss of business.

[fish]

Posted by: Brad C. | 31 March 2015 at 11:03 AM

All of the big three (religions) have proscriptions against homosexuality in some form or fashion within their doctrinal (it exists to varying degrees but can be found) texts. The majority of people seem to be Chinese Menu shoppers these days...a little from Column A a little from Column B.....American Catholics and birth control springs to mind. So I imagine that there are Christians who operate bakeries but don't get completely wrapped around the axle about the issue. On those rare occasions when you those who believe strongly that homosexuality is a sin and who also bake cakes for a living (a small intersection I imagine).

Why not just let them be and find another baker?

[Michael R. Kesti]

George Rebane 31Mar15 08:52 AM

In a free country...

But where is there a country whose citizens are all genuinely free?

My libertarian self wants to agree with you, George, but I keep coming back to asking what if most or all of one group discriminates against another whose members don't enjoy the same level of freedom. The example of Negros(*) in post-Civil War America is a fine example of this. Most were discriminated against and oppressed in many ways and had few, if any, alternatives to living in a world that very effectively supported that discrimination and oppression. Most now agree that this was wrong.

If it legal to discriminate against groups that have options what is to stop oppression of those who lack options?

(*) I genuinely don't care whether anybody considers "Negro" to be archaic, oppressive, or politically incorrect.

[George Rebane]

MichaelK 1144am - good points and questions. Agreed that no country is "genuinely free", but that does not subtract from our efforts to strive for that objective.

However, the examples of discrimination you cite, especially toward Negroes, are not of this conversation. To prevent an American citizen from voting or to cause him physical harm because of his skin color is not the kind of discrimination we are discussing here. Those are and were felonious infractions of federal laws already on the books. Let's not confuse criminality with discrimination that only involves associations and service, especially of the kind for which substitutions are readily available.

But your last question is the most important and difficult. Perhaps there will be nothing "to stop oppression (of the non-criminal kind) of those who lack options". Then if some group, for whatever reason, is so shunned by EVERYONE else in a society, then it clearly indicates that the uniformly shunned group does not belong in that society, nor can it contribute to the society's harmonious life. Should such shunning be prohibited at the point of a government gun? I think not.

[fish]

If it legal to discriminate against groups that have options what is to stop oppression of those who lack options?

Indeed.....and doesn't it seem as though this is where efforts should be focused? On those who lack or have greatly restricted options. The person who commissioned this cake doesn't fall into this category.

[George Rebane]

fish 1236pm - But the seminal point here is the reason for "those who lack of have greatly diminished options." There may be a valid reason for the overwhelming majority of a society for removing or greatly diminishing options to a minority - say, an Islamic cohort that desires to practice Sharia in its own closed enclaves. I can think of many cases wherein we don't need to focus any efforts to provide or expand options for those lacking or so restricted. I suppose it all depends on the nature of what it is for which we should or not consider options.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 31 March 2015 at 12:54 PM

Maybe...but the Sharia example may not be the best one. At present a Sharia proceeding is little more than a cultural arbitration proceeding. It is only binding on those who submit to it (I know that in practice it's probably not as clean as that). The jewish community has had similar practices for years and nobody seemed to get to worked up about. I think your point would be valid should someone try to exercise Sharia rights and procedures in a US court setting.

It would have made for a less confusing discussion if Michael had provided one or two examples of where someone "had no other option".

[George Rebane]

fish 105pm - I wasn't thinking of any formal proceedings at all. My point is that it should be possible for a citizen or like minded citizens to shun any one or group without getting the state involved. I used Sharia as an example (perhaps poor) of why some of the western culture (me included) would shun Muslims who practice or insist on practicing Sharia.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 31 March 2015 at 01:37 PM

Agreed.

[Brad C.]

Looks like many others are expressing their freedoms by voting with their feet and the Bible thumpers are getting a taste of their own medicine as Indiana gets shunned.

[Patricia Smith]

So if we are to allow Indiana to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, lets go all the way:

Due to my sincerely held religious beliefs, and in light of the RFRA, recently signed by our Dear Leader Pence, I will no longer doing business with the following persons; nor permitting them in my establishment:

1.  Divorcees.  Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

2.  Anyone who has ever read their horoscope or called a psychic hotline.  Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."

3.  Anyone with a tattoo.   Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."

4.  Anyone born illegitimately.  Also, anyone who, back to ten generations, is descended from someone born illegitimately.  If you can not PROVE, using appropriate church sources, that ten generations of your family were born in wedlock, I will have to err on the side of caution and not serve you. Deuteronomy 23:2 "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

5.  Anyone who makes a practice of praying aloud, or in public.  Matthew 6:5-6  "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

6.  Any woman with braided hair or gold jewelry.  Just to be on the safe side, NO jewelry at all.  1 Timothy 2:9 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."

7.  Any man who has ever, by accident or not, had his genitals damaged.  (Current interpretation of this scripture is under debate, so just to be safe, if you've had a vesectomy, or testicular cancer, I can't serve you.  I apologize for the inconvenience but I am worried for my soul.)  Deuteronomy 23:1 "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."

8.  Please don't bring your kids in if they have a bowl cut.  Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."
For those of you complaining that some of these scriptures are from the Old Testament, and that Jesus came to redeem us from these laws, I refer you to Matthew 5:17-19, where Our Savior himself says:  "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

9. "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"

Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience.  It's nothing personal, "love the sinner but hate the sin," and all, but I simply can't serve anyone who would blatantly disregard God's sacred law in such a fashion.  

Why on earth would you want to emulate the behavior of intolerant societies that you disdain by becoming the American Taliban?

[Account Deleted]

Patricia shows us the typical gruberized citizen. She didn't read the law or listen to the gov of Indiana. Instead, she goes off on an idiot rant based on Daily Kos talking points. "...becoming the American Taliban" - oh, yeah - they're going to start chopping off peoples' heads in Indiana. Get over yourself!
Don't want to do business with Indiana? Fine. Of course, you had better start paying a little more attention to those states and countries you do have business dealings with. Right? And remember that boycotts can run the other way. If you advocate one against Indiana now, don't start boo-hooing about an entity you like being driven out of business by the same sword.

[Paul Emery]

George

As I'm sure you know the KKK considered themselves to be a Christian sect (and still do). Would this Indiana allow them to exercise their discretion if they owned a restaurant and an African American asked to be served?

[Patricia Smith]

Scott, there is an initiative right here in CA that would make being gay a capital offense so what is the differance between a bullet to the head or chopping off a head?

This is what discriination leads to. And yes, I did read the law and I have heard Gov. Pence and it's all BS to hide the fact that this law is ill advised and not that different from Sharia law.

[Gregory]

"Scott, there is an initiative right here in CA that would make being gay a capital offense so what is the differance between a bullet to the head or chopping off a head?"

No, there's a stunt being pulled to give the usual suspects an excuse to be indignant.

If you want to see religious discrimination in practice, count the number of openly atheistic or agnostic members of Congress.

[George Rebane]

ScottO 640pm - I am sad to say that I agree with your assessment, especially as confirmed by her 705pm comparing Indiana's and the 19 states' identical laws to Sharia law. The Great Divide is alive and cooking.

PaulE 652pm - Nobody asked whether I agree with all of Gov Pence's remarks about Indiana's law and 'discrimination'. The governor claims that his law would not permit such discrimination, and he may be right, especially after their anticipated follow-on 'clarification'. Which will no doubt be convoluted beyond comprehension.

According to my lights any (Christian or otherwise) business owner should be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason. There may have to be a law that overrides such prerogatives if human life or safety is involved. So I don't agree with Pence's attempt to draw a fine line between all the different and TBD kinds of religious reasons for refusing service, and the otherwise secular reasons. Keep it simple, and let the market reward or dun the business owner for his discriminatory actions.

[Account Deleted]

No, Patricia - there is no initiative here in Kali to kill gays.
Some one has paid 200 bucks and submitted the wording for one. It isn't moving forward and probably never will. It has absolutely nothing to do with the new law in Indiana.
Since you think Pence is lying and this is a 'secret' way to introduce Sharia Law to this country, there is no reasoning with you.
You are hysterical. Literally. In countries with Sharia Law they do kill gays. Obama is kissing their butt right now and Tim Cook and other gays can hardly wait to do business with them.

[Todd Juvinall]

Apple just opened in Saudi Arabia where they chop off gay people's heads. Patricia, what do you think of that? Apple's boss is homosexual.

[Patricia Smith]

Sorry Gregory, the initiative to make it a capital offensefor being gay is all too real and there may not be anything we can do to stop it, but I'm sure if enough sick people voted for it, the courts would strike it down in a New York minute. Do you really think this was started by liberals just so they would have something to complain about????

George, why is it OK for Christians to defend their "rights", but not Muslims? Discrimination opens the door to hateful and violent acts and should not be tolerated by any group.

BTW, nobody addressed the facts stated in the Daily Kos report about all the other things that are forbidden to Christians which makes the case for defending the religion a joke at best.

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 737pm - Don't recall anyone arguing against Muslims defending their rights. Is your assertion a red herring?

And a general note to our progressive readers would point out that the current discussion and dissection of the notion of discrimination is truly nuanced and goes beyond the politically correct sound-bite understanding of the term, especially as used by the lamestream. If such debate proves too difficult, then that may be declared by a simple dismissive epithet upon departure.

[Account Deleted]

"the initiative to make it a capital offensefor being gay is all too real and there may not be anything we can do to stop it..."
Well, that's democracy for ya. Popular vote and all that.
Since this 'initiative' is real, maybe you can tell us when it will appear on the ballot in Kali? Hmmm?
Come to think of it, we do kill gays in this state. And females, too.
Lots of 'um. So now, Patricia, how do feel about living in this fine state? Want to leave? We kill gays here all the time. Complaints?

[fish]

Posted by: Patricia Smith | 31 March 2015 at 05:50 PM

So if we are to allow Indiana to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, lets go all the way:

Christ Jesus woman....spark up a fattie and chill! I swear you sound like Porkline in drag!

Next.....unplug from the DailyKos (the Surgeon General has determined that exposure causes brain damage) and plan a move to Indiana....I see a huge market for you if you want to get into the wedding cake business!

[Bill Tozer]

We have met the enemy and it is Connecticut and 18 other states. All Indiana is doing is joining the party with a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/31/connecticut-gov-imposes-travel-ban-over-indianas-religious-freedom-law-despite/

We don't tell blacks they cannot eat at the diner anymore. Yet, having a custom cake made that is not on the menu is a different story. Having a large penis as a decoration on top of the wet dream cake might be the icing for some, yet it might cause some to feel repulsed or say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Heck, I last saw that sign at a bowling alley.

Telling a Muslim I want a custom made cake with a pig cornholing the Prophet and that the State says you have to do it is pushing the envelop. Like the Supreme Court said, "You know obscenity when you see it." Some think sodomy is morally repulsive. To each his own. In this age of tolerance, some are being asked to codone if not celebrate various lifestyles. Tolerance is one thing, participating is another.

This really takes the cake. It puts the icing on the cake. Oh, I love puns.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court has held the freedom of religion scared mostly, right up there equal to freedom of speech. Trump card.

[Gregory]

No Pattie, it ain't real until it's legally drafted and signature gatherers get enough signatures. It's just a publicity stunt. Enjoy the fantasy moral high ground while it lasts.

If you want the issue to hang around, you'll have to help them fund the signature gathering because only progressives want it to continue... put your money where your mouth is, Pat.

[fish]

OH NOES.......Gillespie is the payroll of the Kochtopus! Run away...run away!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/01/everybody-s-lost-their-goddamn-mind-over-religious-freedom.html

Whatever you may think of Jack Phillips’s refusal to bake a wedding cake for gay customers, there’s something as or more disturbing about the court ruling against the owner of Lakewood, Colorado’s Masterpiece Cakeshop. Not only was the baker forced to change his store policy, he and his staff were required to attend sensitivity training. That sounds like something out of China during the Cultural Revolution. It doesn’t help that Phillips offered to make the original complainants any sort of item but a wedding cake.

You proglodytes are completely in favor or authoritarianism.....as long as you are in authority!

[Account Deleted]

Hey - I read DK too! Well, not daily, but enough so that when folks like Patricia start spouting off I can spot the talking points a mile away.
Hasn't diminished my capacity a whit over the years no matter what the SG says. Sometimes DK actually is onto something true. Rarely, but it's always good to keep tabs on the other side.
But you can see the effect it has on some people. A guy in Kali puts up 200 bucks for a guerilla theater stunt and that proves that the gov of Indiana is a homophobic liar.
We have actual hate mongers like Farrakhan saying some pretty nasty things about gays for years from his tax-exempt pulpit and the left just ignores it.

[fish]

We have actual hate mongers like Farrakhan saying some pretty nasty things about gays for years from his tax-exempt pulpit and the left just ignores it.

Really have to keep up with the Proggie "Hierarchy of Victims" to know who will be called out for impolitic thoughts.

Black still trumps gay.

[Brad C.]

The governor of Arkansas explained it well. His own son petitioned the Gov to veto their version of the Religious Freedom Bill. The Gov said that the majority of younger conservatives do not support these types of what I am calling Bigot Freedom Bills. However, the over 50 year old conservatives tend to favor these bills. The Arkansas Gov will apparently make the smart business decision to veto that state's bill in its present form.
The Great Divide is alive and well within the Conservative Party. If they want to have a chance in '16 they are going to have to figure out who they want to allow in their tent.

[Patricia Smith]

Scott O: Oh how you love to split hairs! Every initiative starts by filing the petition with the Attorney General. That has been done The process is underway unless the court rules it unconstitutional. I sincerely hope the citizens of this state are too enlightened to sign this hateful attempt to make being gay a capital offense. I guess the new definition of hysterical is anyone that disagrees with your points of view.

Gregory: I love how you know the mind of progressives. Did you take a poll or what to determine that we want this initiative to go forward?

Fish: As far as Daily Kos goes, did they write the Bible verses that were listed in the article? NO! All too many "Christians" do not follow the teachings of Christ and they put down those that do - like taking care of the sick and poor.

And Bill, why don't we ban blacks from eating at the diner counter anymore? Because it was wrong to single out people baseds on their skin color. That sort of discrimination led to unmentionable cruelty. When we allow any group to be discriminated against, we open the door to ugly behaviors. That is why I oppose the Indiana law (and all other states that make loopholes that allow discrimination).

Now that Brother Ben is gone, you guys need a progressive foil to vent against.

[fish]

If businesses were in favor of it because they were afraid of losing conservative business you would be screeching the common lefty refrain.......greedy......corporate......antihuman....retrograde.

Funny Brad how you guys are okay with greedy business decisions when a corporations best interests happen to align with your political positions.

[fish]

Posted by: Patricia Smith | 01 April 2015 at 10:21 AM

You'll forgive me if I don't rely too heavily on analysis of Christian doctrine cherry picked by the DailyKos and filtered through another hysterical progressive.

Now that Brother Ben is gone, you guys need a progressive foil to vent against.

Try harder!

[Gregory]

It's easy on this one, "Patricia"; progressives are the only ones hyperventilating. A classic manufactured scandal.

[Gregory]

I take back the scare quotes... this is apparently the same Patricia Smith who drove Measure S into the ground. Apologies, Pat.

[Paul Emery]

Does anyone want to attemptto define what a Religion is? It seems Religious Freedom Restoration depends on some kind of definition.

[Paul Emery]

Gregory

this self induced Republican generated crisis has at lease one Governer breathing pretty intensively.

"Mr. Hutchinson, a Republican, said he understood the divide in Arkansas and across the nation over the question of same-sex marriage and its impact on people’s religious beliefs. His own son, Seth, he said, had asked him to veto the bill, which critics say could allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against gay men and lesbians.

To ensure that the state is “a place of tolerance,” Mr. Hutchinson said, he was considering using an executive order that would seek to balance the “competing constitutional obligations” if the legislature declined to make changes to the bill."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/arkansas-indiana-religious-freedom-hutchinson-pence.html?_r=0

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 01 April 2015 at 11:35 AM

Let us know what you come up with Paul.

[L]

Brother Ben, gone?? (Jon Smith + Patti Smith) = Ben? Nah, Patti been around too long. (_+_) = 0! Maybe...

[Michael R. Kesti]

Paul Emery 01Apr15 at 11:35 AM

I'm reasonably certain that the IRS has definitions of what is required to qualify as a religion/church. Those definitions should either also apply to RFRA laws or new definitions that do apply to both may have to be created.

Perhaps more to the point is definitions of the qualifying beliefs of qualifying religions that apply to RFRA laws.

Oh, what a tangled web we create when we set out to over-legislate!

[Patricia Smith]

Gregory, being concerned about something is NOT the same as willing it to go forward. This progressive prays that the CA initiative never gets off the ground. It's done enough damage just by fanning the flames of intolerance and bigotry.

Fish, so it's "cherry-picking" to quote nine verses from the bible that condemn customs modern society finds acceptable, but it's OK to quote from one passage that condemns homosexulaity? Do you ever listen to yourself?

I don't know why so many conservatives denounce homosexuality (especially given the number of elected officials that have been caught in gay scandals). Relax, it's not contagious. And I thought you were the guys that want to defend every personal freedom. If the behavior of your neighbor does not impact you in anyway- other than you don't like it - walk away with the realization that it's still your right to disagree.

[Gregory]

Pat, initiatives don't get qualified for ballot status by themselves. No one wants this, no one thinks it is constitutional, no one thinks it could get the signatures to make it to the ballot, no one thinks it could win at the ballot box, if it won, no one thinks it would become law. From the start, this was merely a vehicle to institute a process that allows the state to throw out initiatives it doesn't like.

And, for the record, I am not a conservative, have never been a conservative, and have, since first voting in 1972, have never registered as a Republican, nor have I ever been a decline-to-state. By most Nolan Chart quizzes, my politics are left-libertarian.

[Don Bessee]

Gregory 1052 Yes that's the one. She is now doing for the emerald growers and the aclu what she did for measure s. lol To be fair we did help loosen the lug nuts before the wheels fell off measure s! ;-)

[fish]

Fish, so it's "cherry-picking" to quote nine verses from the bible that condemn customs modern society finds acceptable, but it's OK to quote from one passage that condemns homosexulaity? Do you ever listen to yourself?

I don't know why so many conservatives denounce homosexuality (especially given the number of elected officials that have been caught in gay scandals). Relax, it's not contagious. And I thought you were the guys that want to defend every personal freedom. If the behavior of your neighbor does not impact you in anyway- other than you don't like it - walk away with the realization that it's still your right to disagree.

I've noticed that in picking up Bens mantle as the resident SJW here at Rebanes you've picked up at least one of his annoying habits......you can't be bothered to read except in a cursory fashion what's being said here. The debate isn't about homosexuality at all.....it's about using the force of government to compel someone to do something that he claims is against his faith. Would you be equally as enthusiastic to have the state compel a baker to bake a cake to celebrate the sacrifice of children to Moloch? Or a gay baker to (and I'm stealing this one) bake a cake that has "God Hates Fags" prominently embroidered in buttercream frosting?

Relax, it's not contagious.

Well I should hope not as I'll be going to Europe next summer on a tour led by my wifes gay cousin.

And I thought you were the guys that want to defend every personal freedom.

Just what personal freedoms are being denied Patricia. As I mentioned above the homosexuality issue has barely been mentioned at all and none of the posters has even hinted at denying the anonymous pair the right to marry.

....so it's "cherry-picking" to quote nine verses from the bible that condemn customs modern society finds acceptable, but it's OK to quote from one passage that condemns homosexulaity? Do you ever listen to yourself?

Except nobody here is proposing legislation that would have any impact on any of those behaviors. It's not for me to vet this guys particular flavor of Christianity. If he says that he can't in good conscience bake a cake for a gay wedding than I'll take him at his word and tell the happy couple to find another baker.

[Account Deleted]

Yeah - I do split hairs. Patricia claims there is an initiative in Kali and it turns out there is not. It's one guy that's slapped down 200 smackers and filled out some paperwork. Patricia might do a bit more reading on this blog to see that I disagree with folks all the time and rarely call them hysterical. The idea that this proposition has any chance whatever of making the ballot is hysteria, pure and simple. Likening the new law in Indiana to the Taliban is hysteria. Paul Emery's
idea that the new law will lead to the KKK kicking blacks out of businesses is hysteria. If Kamala Harris had simply done her job and kept her mouth shut, we wouldn't even know about this guy. I think it would be interesting to find out how many Californians would sign the petition to put it on the ballot, don't you? We slaughter tens of thousands of innocent human lives every year in this country and a good portion are homosexual. In many countries, parents kill their unborn because they learn they are female and therefore worthless. So it's really not that big a leap to want to legalize killing gays that are older. I'd rather that we value human life a bit more, but that's just my opinion. The state, in all it's wisdom, feels differently. The bottom line is that we sanction the destruction of innocent human life already.
"I don't know why so many conservatives denounce homosexuality..."
That's not the issue. I don't see why 2 gals that want to get married get the right to use the state to destroy a woman's livelyhood. Why would they want to give their business to someone like that in the first place? Because they weren't injured or actually interested in getting a wedding cake after all. They just wanted to destroy some one that didn't cozy up to their idea of togetherness. They can put the word out through social media about the woman and let the public deal with it. I don't care what folks do in bed. But I don't like the idea that a private business can be forced to join into some kind of activity they hold an honest and deeply held conviction against. What if a guy that runs a print shop is asked to print hand bills for a NAMBLA meeting? That is a legal, homosexual group. Does he have to? Would you print the hand bills if it was your business? We aren't talking about denying medical care or food at the store. As that wise sage from SoCal once said - "can't we all just get along?"

[Paul Emery]

Still without a definition of "religion" we have nothing to talk about. Somedays I'm a Druid, somedays I'm a Diest and occasionally I'm a Buddhist but that's usually too much work. It's easy being a Christian because all you have to do is point to the Bible as Gods word and, as you know, the Bible contains justification for every form of human behavior.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 01 April 2015 at 02:56 PM

Well do you have your definition Paul? You listed three "religions" right off the top of your head and apparently did so with consulting reference material.

What is the Paul Emery definition of Christianity?

[Brad C.]

Fish,"Funny Brad how you guys are okay with greedy business decisions when a corporations best interests happen to align with your political positions." - not exactly

A corporation's best interest would be to stay out of the fray and continue doing business as usual. Corporations stand to lose money by shunning states with lack of of tolerance toward other people's non-Christian beliefs.
So, corporations are showing that they are, at least in this case, trying to do the right thing by making a statement supporting tolerance.

[Gregory]

"I've noticed that in picking up Bens mantle as the resident SJW here at Rebanes you've picked up at least one of his annoying habits......you can't be bothered to read except in a cursory fashion what's being said here."

Arguing not over what is being said or written and instead arguing over what one thinks they'd say if they were being honest is an unfortunate habit among the weak minded of both the progressive and conservative persuasions, and the blogosphere's quota for weak minded progressives has long been filled.

[Gregory]

"the Bible contains justification for every form of human behavior" -Paul

... and the IPCC Assessment Reports contains links of every sort of weather to anthropogenic global warming. Hot? AGW. Cold? AGW. Wet? AGW. Dry? AGW. More storms? AGW. Fewer storms? AGW.

Religions are like that.

[Paul Emery]

Definition of Christianity? There are so many variations I'd say whatever you determine are your personal needs. You can be a Pacifist or an aerial baby bomber (re "shock and awe") and find scripture to justify your actions. It needs to somehow tie in the Bible as a guide.

[fish]

Posted by: Brad C. | 01 April 2015 at 03:18 PM

But that's not what they are doing at all Brad. The right of gays to marry has been decided in Indiana. What Apple, Salesforce, The State of California et al are doing is ratcheting up the pressure on Indiana for the right to be intolerant of the practice of someones faith.

There is nothing stopping this couple from walking out and buying a lovely wedding cake at the gay friendly bakery next door.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 01 April 2015 at 03:24 PM

Fine then.....it would seem that under your definition the baker satisfies the requirement as a Christian to object to facilitating this ceremony on legitimate religious grounds.

[fish]

Posted by: Gregory | 01 April 2015 at 03:23 PM

...and Gregory for the win!

[Paul Emery]

Yes Fish and herein is the problem. That conclusion can also be reacted about the White or Black or whatever racist. Therefore you can justify almost any form of behavior under the guise of religious freedom. How does an orderly society manage that contradiction.

[George Boardman]

Given the track record of organized religion in this country, I don't think it's a good idea to give religious folk license to discriminate in the name of their faith.

This country endured years of social strife because of Protestant discrimination against Catholic immigrants. Mormons were hounded out the Midwest because of their practices and beliefs, and upstanding members of the Southern Baptist Convention were in the forefront of those trying to maintain segregation in the south after the Civil War.

After all, the Southern Baptist Convention was created because southern Baptists got tired of northern Baptists telling them that good Christians don't enslave people.

Care to guess who is among the leaders of the effort to pass these religious freedom laws?

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 01 April 2015 at 03:42 PM

I don't know.

I don't believe that forcing a person to perform a service that he/she says they would prefer not to perform is going to be particularly helpful in the long term. I'll propose the same hypothetical I proposed to Patricia.

Following a line of thought similar to your earlier logic are you in favor of forcing a gay baker to bake and decorate a cake that says, "God Hates Fags - Happy Easter from the Westboro Baptist Church"? The gay baker is a similar public accommodation to the Christian baker and I would assume that the gay baker would find the message antithetical to their beliefs.

Do you have the government threaten sanction in this instance?

[Todd Juvinall]

On the secular side of things. Would it be the same if a doctor was forced to perform an abortion if he was opposed? And there are penalties if he doesn't?

[fish]

Posted by: George Boardman | 01 April 2015 at 03:55 PM

Given the track record of organized religion in this country, I don't think it's a good idea to give religious folk license to discriminate in the name of their faith.

Don't know George....seems more like a question of "I won't" vs. "You can't".

[Account Deleted]

No one in Indiana is being given the 'right' to discriminate against a protected group. You can't say "I won't serve you because you're black/gay/crippled/whatever". What it's trying to do is protect some one from being forced to participate in an activity or service that is deeply offensive to their religious beliefs. Would you insist a Muslim caterer serve up a whole roast pig for your backyard luau? Are you going to run to the govt and file charges? What the hell happened to common sense and decency? I notice no one has touched the 2 examples brought up by fish and myself.
from G Boardman:
"Given the track record of organized religion in this country, I don't think it's a good idea to give religious folk license to discriminate in the name of their faith."
So I'm to be judged by what some one else did years or decades or centuries ago?
I'd say given the track record of humanity, G Boardman shouldn't be allowed to opine in public. That work for you, George?
from P Emery:
"Therefore you can justify almost any form of behavior under the guise of religious freedom."
Well folks do try that, but that doesn't mean they get away with it. Folks try to justify all sorts of heinous behavior under the guise of all sorts of political and personal beliefs, but that doesn't mean we don't allow political and personal freedom.
There are many long standing and well known activities that members of established religions are proscribed from condoning or participating in. That doesn't include 'anything' or allow for some one to make up a new 'religion' to suit their situation.
How about we try the old rule of 'reverse the role'? If my wife and I had gone to a baker in 1972 and asked for a wedding cake and the baker had said something like: "get out of here you stupid, long haired, dope smoking hippies - I wouldn't bake a cake for you if you paid me a thousand bucks!" Now - why would I be inclined to want to give this guy any money at all? Would we cry all night and consider jumping off a bridge?
No - we'd just laugh and go down the street to the next baker or just bake our own cake. Is this something to go running to the govt about? Really?

[Michael R. Kesti]

Scott Obermuller 01Apr15 06:37 PM

This must be the most sensible commentary I have yet seen concerning this issue. If Scott had included blank lines between paragraphs it would be readable, too. 8-)

[Jon]

Love it when the right wing overplays its discriminatory hand and ends up stuttering and stammering, ie govs Pence and Hutch. Not a good day for the likes of ALEC. Knock off one or two points in the 2016 chances.

[Don Bessee]

Kesti channeling he whos name we do not speak again. It looks like you were able to read enough to render a judgment. I have an announcement. I have resigned as Executive Director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana of Northern California to accept an executive position with NORMAL.

[Todd Juvinall]

Jon represents the secular bigots against people of faith. These are interesting times as we all are seeing how the "tolerant" people like jon have become what they fought so hard against. Amazing.

[Paul Emery]

It's a little late in the day for an April fool's joke Don

[Michael R. Kesti]

Don Bessee 01Apr15 10:12 PM

Would that be a position in the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws that you have accepted, Don?

[Don Bessee]

Paul, its funny that you are such a sourpuss and very much like the tight ass Jesuit brothers who teach school. It is April 1st all day long brother! Sleep well. ;-)

[Bill Tozer]

Well, the backlash continues.

http://www.ncscooper.com/movie-franchise-considering-rename-to-nevada-county-jones/

I will boycott the Final Four as a show of solidarity with my brethren from non-Indiana states. In fact, I won't even utter the word Indians.