Posted on 03/31/2015 7:01:33 AM PDT by SleeperCatcher
The Left is apoplectic – again – over a new piece of statutory law in Indiana that does nothing more than protect long-standing religious freedoms. To liberals, however, “religious freedom” is not a First Amendment right to be protected, but rather code for bigotry, racism, homophobia, smacking kittens and eating fried foods.
(Excerpt) Read more at absoluterights.com ...
The left seems to have won this PR Smear campaign on this law. I think Indiana politicians got blind sided by the uproar.
For the record, as my wife asked me, “Why is a law like this ‘Religious Freedom’ even needed.?” - Great Question.
It’s because the courts have created a new class of humans that should be protected against discrimination. Minorities and women were already included in this class. Now same sex preferred people are now included. There are two problems with this: 1) The newly discriminated class of people cannot be obviously recognized 2) Some religions actually object to the “behavior” or “lifestyle”.
So, like blacks and women, as recognized by the courts, gay and homosexual people cannot be refused service from a business. This law gives protection for business who objectt to doing business based on religious beliefs. It should be noted that Muslim cab drivers can legally refuse to take certain classes of people (like women) because it goes against their religion. I think that is odd.
If I ask a baker to make a 9/11 Celebration cake showing the towers getting hit and the words, “Allah Akbar” underneath, can the baker refuse to make the cake?
It was a response to the baker being fined $150k for not making a cake for a same-sex wedding. Sane people thought that was excessive.
The spin is that the baker hated gays.
The reality was the baker disagreed with same-sex marriage, regardless of the orientation of the spouses.
You should not have the freedom to disagree with the narrative. That’s the point.
If artists (photographers, cake makers, florists, t-shirt printers, etc.) are not permitted to turn down work from parties they disagree with, does this mean that entertainers won’t have right of refusal in the 2016 election for their songs to be played at campaign rallies?
Exactly. And that has been left out of the narrative. This is how the court CREATED a new class of humans that can be "discriminated" against and should be protected. Should the same scenario happened but the baker refused to make a wedding cake for a black couple, mixed couple, etc., nobody would have blinked. But that is not a "religious" based issue and is protected by law.
Yes because that is an idea.
Better question: Should a Muslim be able to refuse to do a cake in honor of Israeli Independence Day for a Jew?
A liberal will argue that the Day is the issue but it is the same thing.
What if a black NOI baker refused to make a cake for a mixed race couple? I wonder how that would spin up.
I don’t recall at this point if it was the cake baker or a photographer’s case or what, but in one of the high profile cases, the state that brought charges against the business owner didn’t even recognize same sex marriages itself (at the time).
Unelected bureaucrats applying “social justice” arguments where there was no law or ‘standing’.
The Dallas area is getting sharia courts.
There is a lesbian couple (who got married out of state) who are fighting at the Supreme Court level to have the state of Texas recognize their marriage so that they may receive a Texas divorce (so much for the lie that it is about two people in love).
Do the Islamist courts in the Dallas area have the right to refuse the (non-muslim) lesbian couple a divorce?
Ah HA! So it's the product, not the customer, being discriminated against? Not the gay couple but the cake? So what's the problem here? /sarc
Of course the law is discriminatory. All of life’s decisions are discriminatory. All institutional decisions are discriminatory. All business decisions are discriminatory.
Discrimination amongst options A, B, C, D, and the infinite universe of other possibilities is inherent to moving through life.
The University which puts up safety stations with blue lights and telephone hotlines discriminates in favor of women.
The fast food joint which opts to serve tofu and not beef discriminates in favor of vegetarians. And Democrats.
The state which builds a few miles of bike paths instead of a mile of highway discriminates in favor of bikers.
The business which sells coffee beans and drinks discriminates against those who’d rather purchase a Guiness Stout at that establishment. And against those who’d rather purchase birthday cakes there. And against those who’d rather see the building turned into a car repair shop.
The business which sells thin brassiers and thong panties discriminates in favor of women over men, and young women over old women. And those who’d rather see the building used as a church. Or a massage parlor.
In the Baker case, the bake was opposed to same-sex marriage but the narrative said she was opposed to gays. The narrative always trumps the truth because the truth is a subordinate to the story line.
In the Indiana narrative, the fact that 29 states and the federal government having the same law as Indiana is a very bad optic that has started to chill the narrative.
Universities discriminate against stupid people.
The Progressives, the Dem’s and the press are testing the theory that if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. The left refuses to acknowledge the truth that this is not a license to discriminate and has been in effect at the federal level and in 19 other states without any cases of discrimination being allowed. We are all witnessing a coordinated effort to once again create a crisis (remember that war on women four years ago?) and mobilize the intellectually lazy in order to reverse the tide of overwhelming Democratic losses at the polling place. It’s not about gay rights. It’s about creating an angry, bullying mob of what Lenin called “useful idiots.”
It’s simple-minded politics. Manufacture a crisis. Demonize a villain. Convince an entire voting block that they are the victims. Offer vengeance, not solutions.
Done with the poor. They’re still poor.
Done with African Americans. Urban dependency and unemployment is thriving.
Now being done with homosexuals.
This is what passes for intellectual debate nowadays in what used to be the greatest example of liberty and self-rule the world has ever seen.
The Republican Party of TX was virtually born in Dallas c. 1952; look how Dallas votes now.
Oh the “rusty” irony! The anti-bigots have become bigots… or more accurately Brownshirts. ALL MUST kneel at the altar of “gay” (or the “progressive” cause of the day)… or the “progressive lynch mob” will pounce! Tolerance even acceptance is NOT enough… approval is demanded (Biblical beliefs be damned!)… or the liberal version of the “fiery furnace” of liberal Babylon will be stoked for all us “sinners” not in compliance with our new god: the “progressive” agenda. Freedom of religion and conscience be damned! (1st Amendment RIP)
Yes they can.
Although this raises the key issue; the left thinks they can decide the REASON for not baking the cake.
As your cake has nothing to do with an event somebody has a “right” to it can just be considered offensive (hate speech), resulting in a refusal to make it. As “gay marriage” is an event somebody has a right to you have no right to refuse.
See how that works? This is effectively a free speech issue, a compelled speech issue. With free speech the question has always been “who decides” (what can be said). Now the left actually thinks they get to decide. This is an incredible departure from classical liberalism. Modern liberals are far more aligned with communism than anything.
Homosexuals and leftists under this law (and in any free society) are free to selectively associate with and do business with their own kind, just as others have the right to shun them. Seems like common sense.
Although I support the law, your question got me thinking. Could this law be used by a Muslim taxi driver to refuse a blind person with a dog? Or a passenger with a bottle of wine? Or a single women traveling alone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.