Posted on 04/01/2015 7:12:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
WALKERTON, Ind. - A small-town pizza shop is saying they agree with Governor Pence and the signing of the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The O'Connor family, who owns Memories Pizza, says they have a right to believe in their religion and protect those ideals.
“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O'Connor of Memories Pizza.
She and her family are standing firm in their beliefs.
The O'Connor's have owned Memories Pizza in Walkerton for 9 years.
It's a small-town business, with small-town ideals.
“We are a Christian establishment,” says O'Connor.
The O'Connor family prides themselves in owning a business that reflects their religious beliefs.
“We're not discriminating against anyone, that's just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” says O'Connor.
So, when Governor Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, the family was not disappointed.
“We definitely agree with the bill,” says O'Connor.
When ABC 57 asked O'Connor about the negative backlash the bill has been getting for being a discriminatory piece of legislation, she says that's simply not true.
“I do not think it's targeting gays. I don't think it's discrimination,” says O'Connor. “It's supposed to help people that have a religious belief.”
O'Connor says because she's a Christian, she and her family don't support a gay marriage and that is their right.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc57.com ...
I’m wondering if this law is a “religious conscience law” in that it would ALSO allow Christian business owners to not allow service to two of the BIGGEST CULT GROUPS in the USA, which PERVERTS Christianity — those two being Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witness?
Those two are DANGEROUS to a person’s SALVATION in that their doctrines (if adhered to and believed by a member) will lead that member straight to HELL!!
I would like to know if those other CULT RELIGIONS can be prohibited from business ... if anyone knows for sure. We have a “Religious Freedom” law in Oklahoma, too, so besides Indiana, I would want to check on Oklahoma’s too!!
That’s another thing I was wondering about that kind of law ... how would the business owner really “know” ... seriously? I mean ... let’s say that an owner “suspects” but either the person declines to say or they lie and say no ... can the owner “act on a suspicion” and be covered under the law, or does he have to know for sure?
When one gets down to details, it gets fuzzy ... while the overall meaning “sounds good”. Here is an example where “the Devil is in the details” and I suspect that business owners will have to get legal help beforehand to sort out those details!
Unless I’m mistaken about what this kind of bill means, I wouldn’t say it’s academic. If I understand it right, I see this bill as preserving the “conscience” of a Christian owner of a business from serving or doing business with a person who violates that “religious conscience” by who they are or what they represent or what they stand for. SO, in that sense, it is NOT TARGETED at gays, but all sorts of other things that would violate the “Christian’s conscience”!
A sampling of some other things I can think of, in which one would DENY SERVICE to people, would be a group coming in for Pizza who supports ABORTION! That would really violate a Chriatian’s conscience.
Or, if a Mormon church group came in and had an “after church Pizza gathering” some Sunday afternoon. I would DENY THEM SERVICE as they are one of the largest CULT GROUPS in America ... and as far as I’m concerned Mormons shouldn’t get service from ANY CHRISTIAN BUSINESS WHATSOEVER, ANYWHERE!!
If Mitt Romney were to come in to that Pizza place he SHOULD BE DENIED SERVICE because of clearly being a Mormon!
I would DENY SERVICE to GLENN BECK, too, for his Mormonism!
SO ... it doesn’t appear to be academic to me, but VERY REAL and opens the door to CHRISTIAN BUSINESS to serving Christians and not VIOLATING their religious conscience!
What I meant is academic, is the hypothetical scenario the pizzeria owners were talking about. Nobody orders pizzas for a wedding, certainly not homos. So their comment is a purely academic exercise, not something that would happen in the real world.
“A sampling of some other things I can think of, in which one would DENY SERVICE to people, would be a group coming in for Pizza who supports ABORTION! That would really violate a Chriatian’s conscience.”
Well, in a case like that, and the others that you mention, these laws won’t protect you. You can’t simply deny service to people because you don’t like their beliefs. These laws only say that you can’t be forced to participate in some act that violates your religious principles. Obviously, serving food to people doesn’t violate your principles, or you wouldn’t be running a restaurant in the first place, so you have no leg to stand on. It would be a clear federal civil rights violation.
It would definitely seem to apply in the exact same way to me ... but, of course, it’s all in the DETAILS and EXACT WORDING of the law.
If you’re talking about “delivery” of a product to a set-up that you have “religiously held objections” to ... the examples I gave can be constructed that way, too.
An political group is having a meeting where the only topic is promoting abortion. They tell you to look for the signs to the “Political Action Committee for Abortion”. You tell them that it is a violation of your deeply-held religious conviction to not do that to that sort of affair!
OR ... a local Mormon Church (they call it a Stake House) is having their youth group activities at their gymnasium and they tell you to “look for the Mormon church sign and pull into the parking lot and you’ll see it” ... You tell them that it is against your deeply held religious convictions to NOT SERVE a CULT GROUP, and you won’t be doing that!
Both of these seem to be in the same category as the bakery who refused to bake and deliver a cake to an event that they said violated their deeply-held religious convictions!
I really can’t see the difference there, except that it’s a different product and a different event ... but it’s the exact same principle!
“the examples I gave can be constructed that way, too.”
It’s not about how you construct the examples. There simply is no legitimate religious objection you can claim for serving or delivering food, or you wouldn’t be running that kind of business in the first place. You also can’t claim a religious objection to serving or delivering food to say, Mormons, or pro-abortion people, since if you have been running a business, you have surely done that countless times even if you didn’t know about their beliefs. The only way you could avoid it is by not running a business that involves public accommodation.
What you are trying to do with your examples is cloak blatant discrimination on the basis of politics or religion under a non-existent religious objection. That isn’t going to fly in court, certainly not if the legitimate objections that people have to being forced to participate in gay “marriage” ceremonies are not being upheld.
So you’re saying that that bakery (in the news) about refusing to make and deliver a cake to gays and their activities ... should NOT BE ALLOWED to refuse to do that?
“So you’re saying that that bakery (in the news) about refusing to make and deliver a cake to gays and their activities ... should NOT BE ALLOWED to refuse to do that?”
No, that’s not what I am saying.
Well, I can’t see the difference between a cake and a pizza delivered to a gay meeting or a gay wedding .... actually ... on the basis of violating religious beliefs ... not to say anything about violating religious beliefs with abortion or groups teaching cult doctrines which totally violate ALL of Christianity (not just one part of Christianity).
“Well, I can’t see the difference between a cake and a pizza delivered to a gay meeting or a gay wedding”
Well, that is your problem, nobody else seems to be having a problem making the distinction. Why do you think nobody objected to serving gay people until “gay marriage” became a legal thing?
” not to say anything about violating religious beliefs with abortion or groups teaching cult doctrines which totally violate ALL of Christianity (not just one part of Christianity).”
Well, if that violates your conscience, then you can’t in good conscience run any business offering public accommodation, since you must assume that many of the public you are serving believe in things that offend you, even if they don’t broadcast that to you.
If you’re delivering pizza or a cake to an event that is known to be a gay event, you can clearly see it. If you deliver a cake or a pizza to an event that is for abortion, that is clearly seen and known. If you deliver a cake or a pizza to an event at a CULT GROUP building where they are having a gathering, that is clearly seen and known. ALL those things clearly violates a Christian’s beliefs, without a doubt!
It sounds like you’re saying that if you’re beliefs are being violated, that you shouldn’t be in business! My understanding of this law was that ... first of all it didn’t apply just to gays, but to ANYTHING that violated a Christian owner’s beliefs. And secondly it was a law so that Christians COULD BE IN BUSINESS and NOT FORCED to accommodate to doing business with people and events that clearly violated their Christian beliefs.
It sounds like you’re construing this law to apply ONLY TO GAYS (while I see it applies to everyone) and then you’re saying that if Christians’ belief are violated, they should simply NOT BE IN BUSINESS.
I don’t accept that. I think the law ALLOWS CHRISTIANS to be in business and REFUSE TO DO BUSINESS with those who violate their beliefs!
mark of the beast
You bet! AND ... it’s sad that some Freepers support Christians staying out of business if they are going to have their beliefs violated, instead of fighting to uphold those beliefs!
bump
“ALL those things clearly violates a Christian’s beliefs, without a doubt!”
Then you shouldn’t be running business involved in public accommodation in the first place, since those people constitute a significant part of the public, and you cannot avoid serving them if you are in that line of work.
“It sounds like you’re saying that if you’re beliefs are being violated, that you shouldn’t be in business!”
Well, you are choosing to object to serving anyone who doesn’t agree with your religious beliefs, is what it sounds like to me. If that is the case, you have defined yourself out of the public accommodation business already, since the public is not going to consist only of fellow Christians. Most Christians, I would say the vast majority, have no issues with serving people just because they disagree with them on some issue, so this is a personal problem of yours, not some general issue.
” My understanding of this law was that ... first of all it didn’t apply just to gays, but to ANYTHING that violated a Christian owner’s beliefs.”
Well, yes it doesn’t just apply to gays, but what you are defining as “anything” is not a standard that will ever hold up in court, because you are just using it as a thin veil to throw over clear religious discrimination. You don’t want to serve people just because they aren’t Christians, not because serving them forces you to violate some actual Christian principle that you hold dear. That’s the problem.
” I think the law ALLOWS CHRISTIANS to be in business and REFUSE TO DO BUSINESS with those who violate their beliefs!”
No, you are wrong. It only allows them to refuse to participate in acts that violate their religious beliefs. If simply doing business with people who don’t share their religious beliefs violates their religious beliefs, then operating a business involved in public accommodation, by definition, also violates those beliefs. So we can see that objection is self-refuting.
Please note, I didn’t actually say that, that is Star Traveler’s misunderstanding of my comment.
It’s like I said elsewhere and I’ll repeat it ...
— — —
The idea is REAL SIMPLE to me ... if Christian owner says that he won’t serve someone because of his deeply-held religious beliefs being violated ... THEN ... the government should stay out of it and the courts should stay out of it, and leave him alone. It’s his business.
If we have to pass laws to enforce that freedom for Christian business owners, then DO IT!
Your presentation of how you think it works or should works ... turns out to have THAT RESULT ... namely Christian business owners must have their deeply-held religious values VIOLATED ... or else ... they should STAY OUT OF BUSINESS if they don’t like their deeply-held religious values violated!
“if Christian owner says that he won’t serve someone because of his deeply-held religious beliefs being violated ... THEN ... the government should stay out of it and the courts should stay out of it, and leave him alone. It’s his business.”
Well, that’s not the world we live in. You’re living in a fantasy land if you think that is how things work. If you want to claim a religious exemption, you had better do it consistently and be ready to defend your practice in court.
“If we have to pass laws to enforce that freedom for Christian business owners, then DO IT!”
I don’t want to pass those kind of laws, because the way you are describing your vision, it is just blatant religious discrimination, which would be a two-edged sword used against Christians as well. That’s not a country I have any interest living in.
“namely Christian business owners must have their deeply-held religious values VIOLATED ... or else”
If this is true, why did nobody object to doing business with gays or anyone else until “gay marriage” became a legal reality? You never answered that question.
If Christians really have a legitimate objection simply to doing business with people who have different beliefs, why has not one Christian made such a case before this issue arose?
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.