What's happening in Indiana?

[grzegorz]

One side is screaming discrimination and one side is screaming religious freedom. What's up?

[Steve James]

Nobody really knows. That's the problem. "Religious freedom"? Meh, who is not able to practice their own religion? The first laws (after the Bill of Rights) to address religious freedom were to allow Amerindians to practice their peyote ceremonies, or for Jehovah's Witnesses to avoid conscription, or the Amish to pay less or no taxes, etc.. I tend to agree that the reaction against these latest laws is a bit overblown. That's not because I think they're irrelevant or innocuous. It's because I want to see the test cases. Fwiw, I'd like to know "why" they are proposed now. Otoh, the ambiguity is being addressed by the Indiana governor and the Arkansas governor. They both want to add language that prohibits discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.

What we know the laws do not intend to let Rastafarians smoke weed for religious reasons, or for a Muslim storeowner to say he won't serve anyone who doesn't pray to the East five times per day. If it means the right to put up a Christmas tree, then it means the right to put up a star and crescent, or a swastika "for religious reasons" ... then is it okay or not. I have a friend who argues that she would like the ability to refuse service to a nazi; so, she doesn't see a problem with a store owner refusing service to a gay person. The thing is that I don't know anyone who thinks it'd be ok to discriminate against her.

[yeniseri]

The forefathers of USA separated Church and State for a reason because they realized that deceit is rampant, which happens to allow for abuse of the people and the illegal use of that abuse to control those who they do not like.

[grzegorz]

...

[wiesiek]

what`s happening in Indiana- happening around the word,
this religious right shit /

[wiesiek]

sorry, it posted itself before I finished it.
anyway,
this is what i`m think about human rights - shit
unless you have sword in the hand and know how to turn.
Theoretically we are all about human rights and freedom,
and
suddenly, some sick intellectuals from different religions /mostly Muslim and Catholic /
are telling where REAL truth is and what they doing is THE ONLY Way
`cmon
killthem alll!, then
rest will be free

[grzegorz]

I hear that basically this new law was in response to Indiana being unable to keep gay marriage illegal.

[Steve James]

I can agree with a priest not agreeing to marry a gay couple in a church, or temple, or any religious context. However, marriage has civil benefits that have nothing to do with the church. Personally, I would be satisfied with making a distinction between a "marriage" and a "civil union," but only if both had the same benefits and limitations. Alternatively, remove all advantages for being married.

I don't agree with the argument that people can't be married because certain sexual behaviors are prohibited in the Bible (or any other religious text). That's simple hypocrisy. I'm not sure anyone could show that the percentage of pedophiles, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, etc., is higher among the clergy or the congregation. If there's got to be a reason, it can't be sin --because that's straight up hypocrisy. Besides, having one wife was a novel idea in NT times, which is why there are religious leaders with multiple teenage "wives."

Of course, I think that both marriage and civil unions only apply to beings who pay taxes and can say "I do." So, no marrying pets or farm animals.

However, I understand why gay and lesbian people want the same rights as other citizens. After all, they pay taxes, too. But, it seems like there will be adjustments made to these laws.

[Steve James]

So, I'm watching CNN, and Jake Tapper is interviewing an AK state senator about the law. He says that the law does not discriminate against individuals; it just upholds the right of people with deeply held religious beliefs to refuse to support a message. His example was that he wouldn't expect a Jewish bakery to be forced to make swastika-shaped cakes for a nazi wedding. That sounded all well and good. Then he was asked whether he thought it would be okay for an atheist baker to refuse --I suppose-- to make cakes for a Christian wedding. His answer was that "the law just protects religious freedom; it doesn't discriminate." Tapper then changed the question slightly; "Do you think it would be alright for a Muslim baker to refuse serving a Christian wedding?" Instead of answering directly, he said "I believe in the First Amendment and religious freedom." Well, yeah, who is saying that he doesn't?

To tell the truth, I think if Muslims demanded that their religious views were respected, they'd simply be dismissed or they'd be accused of wanting to impose sharia law and their religion. In fact, I'm absolutely certain that laws would be proposed immediately that prevented the imposition of any of their rules. And, if those laws weren't proposed, there would be an uproar.

[Bill]

[Steve James]

I don't think anyone disagrees with feeding the homeless, whether for religious reasons or not.
Afa the 2nd example, I think churches should be taxed AND be treated like for-profit businesses.

I think the concern is over situations like these.

"If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no," O'Connor told local affiliate ABC 57. "We are a Christian establishment."

Crystal O'Connor said the business is not discriminating against anybody, but she and her family has her beliefs and other people are entitled to their own. Kevin O'Connor reportedly echoed this sentiment."We definitely agree with the bill," Crystal added of the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying she doesn't think the bill targets gays or discriminates but instead protects businesses like hers who have a religious belief.ABC also spoke to her father: "That's a lifestyle that you choose, I choose to be heterosexual, they choose to be homosexual--why should I be beat over the head because they choose that lifestyle?"

The question is whether or how the law would apply in that case. Btw, the business has closed because of the negative responses to her comments. I'm also unclear about how a law defines sincerity when we know that people lie and sincerity is relative. It'd also be interesting to hear whether sincere atheistic belief would count.

[grzegorz]

With such a hot button issue it's hard to figure out the facts.

I hear that Arkansas passed a similar law but the gov refuses to sign it.

[Bill]

When one considers the importance and significance of pizza in gay weddings I'm surprised at lack of outrage from the general public.

[Bill]

In fact, I support all pizza loving gay newlyweds.

There, I said it.

[Steve James]

What's significant is ignorance and bigotry, and it's true that there is not enough public outrage.
But, yeah, it is kind of stupid that someone wouldn't sell a gay person pizza --for religious reasons

With such a hot button issue it's hard to figure out the facts.

It's not hard to imagine why a law would be needed when the First Amendment is much clearer than the Second.
There was no need for a button.