Jump to content

Indiana's New Law


Recommended Posts

No, it's not.

You are free to believe and practice whatever faith you want. When you provide a public service, you are expected to provide it to the public. Not a subset of the public you happen to agree with. Either provide the public service, or do not. That is your freedom, and that is as far as it extends.

By being expected to respect civil rights, you are not being discriminated against. You are being required to adhere to the generally agreed upon social contracts set by the society you are a part of. You are not being asked to change your beliefs. You are not being barred from practicing your faith. All that is being asked is that you tolerate people different from you just enough that everyone can get through their day unmolested.

It's funny how 'tolerance' can have such negative connotations for people in these discussions, when it's really such a low bar to expect. You don't have to love everyone. You don't even have to like everyone. You just need to tolerate them. That's it. Tolerate. "allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference."

Am I missing something? I was assuming the baker was a private businessperson. As such he/she is not providing a public service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of liberals to rationalize past name-calling and emotional appeals is crazy. I saw a Facebook status from an active participant in the activity in which someone presented a completely logical rebuttal and the thread was ended with name-calling and ridiculousness on this person's part.

If that's the DCI representation on this issue...good luck. Less emotion, more logic. More realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something? I was assuming the baker was a private businessperson. As such he/she is not providing a public service.

Please tell me how that will fly if the baker was refusing to provide services to a black family just because of their race. G'head...in the end, it's the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of liberals to rationalize past name-calling and emotional appeals is crazy. I saw a Facebook status from an active participant in the activity in which someone presented a completely logical rebuttal and the thread was ended with name-calling and ridiculousness on this person's part.

If that's the DCI representation on this issue...good luck. Less emotion, more logic. More realism.

Were they liberals because they are against this bill? Were they liberals because they were emotional? Were you perusing liberals R Us? Or are you simply helping everyone divide us against them?

Edited by mingusmonk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in Indianapolis once a month, and it is a very welcoming city.

Thought the state is backwards in parts, I find that Indy itself is tolerant and open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in Indianapolis once a month, and it is a very welcoming city.

Thought the state is backwards in parts, I find that Indy itself is tolerant and open.

Having lived there, I agree.

This is a complete and total non-issue to DCI. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something? I was assuming the baker was a private businessperson. As such he/she is not providing a public service.

I think you may be missing something. Even as a private entity, the bakery is a public accommodation. No matter how much the baker hates, say, people of Italian descent, she is not allowed to deny Italians or Italian-Americans service on that basis, because her bakery is a public accommodation and national origin is a protected class. However, both federally and in most states, including Indiana, sexual orientation is not a protected class (for purposes of public accommodations). Not yet. So she is legally allowed to discriminate against gays in Indiana. But until last week, not if her bakery was in Indianapolis, which has adopted its own non-discrimination laws. The new Indiana state law would trump any local ordinance, and many people feel it gives the baker a new excuse to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation: she is now able to refuse service to heterosexuals if she claims that serving them would infringe upon her fundamental religious beliefs. She still can't discriminate against Italian-Americans, though, because federal law trumps state law in that respect.

Edited by N.E. Brigand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in Indianapolis once a month, and it is a very welcoming city.

Thought the state is backwards in parts, I find that Indy itself is tolerant and open.

To back that up... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/gop-indianapolis-mayor-defies-pence-bans-discrimination-by-christian-businesses-receiving-city-funds/

Good for him....and up yours, Gov. Pence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...