'Religious Freedom' Law (Indiana)

Posted by: TBR

Yes - you support governor Pence | No - you support LGBT

  • Yes

  • No

57% 16 votes
43% 12 votes
  • Children should have a choice, never be forced into something

  • This isn't about the LGBT or anything to do with gays. This is about freedom, people are afraid and scared of something that for so long has been hidden from them. This bill gives people the freedom to choose who to do business with which is a right.

  • The religious people are being discriminated against in this country, this bill will stop that discrimination.

  • Its been stated several times that discrimination is not the intent of the law. People should be allowed to do what they want with their business, free association of individuals. Any law forcing people to accommodate others that they fundamentally disagree with violates their rights. Its also digging a hole for, say, a gay couple that owns a bed and breakfast being forced to accommodate a Baptist wedding or some convention speaking against their beliefs. I doubt they'd want to endure that same treatment themselves.

  • Freedom of religion. It's time we dusted off our Constitution and started using it again.

  • This law is vague enough to be used as an excuse for many things, including discrimination. If it isn't about discrimination then why doesn't the legislature put in a clear amendments to give the LQBTQ community protections?

  • I don't support the religious freedom laws because the law allows people to discriminate against gays. That's the basic area of the law. Religious freedom goes to far when they use it as an excuse to discriminate. If you go one step further, 2 john 1:9-11 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." Basically, Christians, it's a sin to associate yourselves with atheists! Should the law allow them to decline service to us because of out atheism? Saying that people cannot use religion to discriminate is not discrimination.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T11:11:12.8364588-05:00
Biased poll "No - you support LGBT" this has to do with freedom, it's nothing to do with gays.
TBR says2015-03-31T11:13:34.4486880-05:00
Futurepresident2048 - I crafted this as unbiased as possible. If you think this has nothing to do with support for LGBT, explain.
Varrack says2015-03-31T11:16:10.6512951-05:00
I don't really know much about it. I believe in religious freedom but I'm against discrimination as well.
TBR says2015-03-31T11:25:40.7263217-05:00
Varrack - I am trying to have a neutral poll, and let the conversation (if there is one) take shape. I am interested in how this conflicts with the civil rights act, and if people feel it is simply backlash. Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
TBR says2015-03-31T11:27:53.8107350-05:00
@fangman011 - I think you may be confused. I, again, tried to not push a side, so no link etc. This law is not about children. I will give a FOX link for.... To appease. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/31/indiana-lawmakers-hurry-to-clarify-religious-freedom-law-amid-protests/
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T11:30:05.8967322-05:00
@TBR fox sucks
TBR says2015-03-31T11:30:57.4228716-05:00
Retrogamer176 - Yes it does. I provided it as the link to appease conservatives, as I said.
TBR says2015-03-31T11:33:20.5666364-05:00
And Retrogamer176. If you support discrimination, are you sure you didn't want to vote yes?
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T11:33:41.6263664-05:00
@TBR Meh....
TBR says2015-03-31T11:34:42.5279856-05:00
@retrogamer176 - do you understand the question? The poll question, or my follow-up?
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T11:35:18.5167242-05:00
@TBR I understand the poll. That's why I said that NO discrimination is ok.
Varrack says2015-03-31T11:46:22.4845711-05:00
There's just and unjust discrimination. There's lawful and unlawful discriminatio. Not all discrimination is bad; in fact some is necessary.
TBR says2015-03-31T11:55:02.8067408-05:00
@retrogamer176 - That's fine, just from your mea, and, well, I think you intended to vote "yes".
TBR says2015-03-31T11:56:19.5682975-05:00
Varrack "There's just and unjust discrimination. There's lawful and unlawful discriminatio. Not all discrimination is bad; in fact some is necessary." OK... So, it is up to the each individual to decide where that line is?
TBR says2015-03-31T12:18:12.5613033-05:00
“Only whites allowed” - Is this OK for my business?
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T12:20:07.9743376-05:00
@dash205 discrimination is up for the individual to decide, everyone deserves the freedom to choose if they want to serve a gay wedding or not
TBR says2015-03-31T12:25:43.4277444-05:00
@Futurepresident2048. Saying Only whites allowed, or "no Christians" is acceptable, right?
Dash205 says2015-03-31T12:28:17.0150837-05:00
Futurepresident2048, you're using a very small example to argue about something very big.What about when a judge decides that it's "substantially burdening religious beliefs" for businesses to not be allowed to fire people because of their sexual orientations?
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T12:28:48.7688082-05:00
@TBR I think my explanation needs updating. Hold on.
TBR says2015-03-31T12:32:43.2619123-05:00
Retrogamer176, that makes more sense
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T12:39:16.6338014-05:00
@TBR To be honest, I was typing this to respond to your comment, but then I realized that it makes more sense then just "No discrimination is ok", so I put it up there.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:00:07.8544235-05:00
You guys are literally like the liberal media. The law is about allowing business' to respectfully decline to serve someone such as a gay couple, cause of their religious beliefs and they should have every right to do that without the government forcing them too. If a Neo nazi went to a Jewish bakery and asked them to make a cake with hitters face, shouldn't they be allowed to decline?
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:01:34.1365084-05:00
TBR, it's your business, do as you wish with it. If you want to say only whites then that's your right, it'll hurt your business but it's your right.
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T13:03:02.0729899-05:00
@futurepresident2048 Still stuck in the 1950s I see...
TBR says2015-03-31T13:03:59.4022549-05:00
@Futurepresident2048 - just to be clear then. Active discrimination is fine by you who want to be president, right? "No blacks" is OK, as well as "no Christians", or "No whites". Any discrimination is the will of the owner of the business.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:04:46.8256469-05:00
No, I'm a libertarian and it's my belief all people have a right to do with what the own as they wish. If a black company wants to only allow blacks inside then they can.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:05:43.2189239-05:00
It's about freedom retro. Freedom may hurt, it comes at a price but once we have it, it's well worth the cost. The freedom to live life without government interfering with it.
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T13:06:34.4810144-05:00
@Futurepresident2048 If it's a federal business owned by the government does your stance change?
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:07:24.7424223-05:00
It's not discrimination, it's people choosing how they want to live their lives. Self government.
TBR says2015-03-31T13:08:35.1443197-05:00
Futurepresident2048 - I ask in another question, is your profile age correct? Are you 15?
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:08:49.3594737-05:00
Yes, if it's owned by the governmen then my stance changes.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:09:12.6618387-05:00
Private owned property is a different story then public property.
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T13:10:28.2740693-05:00
@futurepresident2048 So if there is only one walmart and they refuse service to a person simply because their black, and the black person DIES because of that (He can't afford public transport, so don't give me the "move" argument) it's the walmart's right. They can decide who lives or dies in the area they provide for, since there is no competition. Doesn't sound so much of a "right" huh?
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:10:35.2003805-05:00
I am a man with personal beliefs. Age doesn't matter.
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T13:11:13.1858935-05:00
@futurepresident2048 you're typing faster than I can respond!
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:11:52.6519748-05:00
If a mans dieing I suggest he goes to his nearby hospital which can turn down someone who is dying. Walmart isn't a hospital
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T13:13:23.3194251-05:00
But the government is denying basic health care because he's poor.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:13:30.3705347-05:00
I meant can't turn down someone for the hospital thing
TBR says2015-03-31T13:14:36.8100829-05:00
Don't be so uptight. I am asking about age, not about your argument. So far I have said nothing about your argument, only getting detail.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:15:18.3835499-05:00
You your dying you don't need healthcare. A hospital by law has to help someone who is at that moment dying.
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T13:15:22.5798961-05:00
So he should live in a hospital for the rest of his life because walmart doesn't like black people. And also, if he can't afford basic health care, how can he afford a trip to a hospital? And what if the hospital is a private business that doesn't like black people?
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:15:52.3771233-05:00
Healthcare is needed so you can get your checkups and stuff.
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T13:17:10.0741160-05:00
But he should live in a hospital for the rest of his life then?
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:17:20.2933781-05:00
Hospitals no matter what by law must help anyone dying. You don't live in a hospital if you need shelter there is church's and public poor housing areas. Why don't we have a debate instead of spamming comments.
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T13:19:16.4815581-05:00
@futurepresident2048 but he can't get food from walmart so staying in the hospital in a constant coma is his only choice.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T13:22:07.1357350-05:00
Your giving very insane hypothetical situations.
retrogamer176 says2015-03-31T13:24:00.6424487-05:00
@futurepresident2048 But by allowing discrimination, no matter how unlikely it is, it's possible.
Dash205 says2015-03-31T18:19:13.7037815-05:00
I'm sorry, Future president, but it seems that you're not very informed about the bill. The law is vague so as to basically allow anything as long as you have a religious excuse. The law says that the religious liberty of people and businesses can only be limited by "the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest." That opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities from segregated lunch counters to turning some one down for medical care or firing some one for their sexual orientation.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T18:45:23.6400331-05:00
I'm sorry Dash205 but your just like the liberal media so I don't need to consider your false points.
TBR says2015-03-31T18:47:45.3850886-05:00
Stop with the "liberal media" crap and make a clear point.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T18:49:29.1703517-05:00
I keep bringin up the liberal media cause you guys are just like it! I've made a million points and just like the media they aren't lisented to.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T18:50:41.1427625-05:00
I'll say this for my last point. Freedom before equality, with freedom comes equality in its natural form, it's not truly equality to force a guy to serve black people if he doesn't want to, or for a black person to serve white people for that matter,
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-03-31T19:12:18.6717273-05:00
You got that right. Leave the people to their freedom of speech and freedom of expression. They dont need to be pushing your liberal narrative all the time, people. Doesn't matter if you think their form of expression is destructive or not ... Its their voice, their money, their property, their business ... They will always be able to reserved their right to them.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-03-31T19:41:47.9996659-05:00
"But by allowing discrimination, no matter how unlikely it is, it's possible." Sure its possible. Not probable in large scale. The alternative to this law is much much uglier.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-03-31T19:45:05.4115291-05:00
And its not just a 'possible' threat with forcing non discrimination. Its an absolute fact that it will have its negative impact. Siding with reduced freedom for the convenience of a few is not the way to go.
TBR says2015-03-31T20:00:12.7420151-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality "They will always be able to reserved their right to them." No, not really. "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments" http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Mathgeekjoe says2015-03-31T20:36:25.2694265-05:00
Hmm... I probably am going to need to do some research on this. Exactly what does the law protect and how? It says religious freedoms but that is broad area.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T20:42:57.6524060-05:00
TBR, let me ask you this. If you own a business, would you rather be able to turn down a group of KKK members who want you to come and supply a rally of theirs with food, or have them sue you and then get the government to force you to do as they will or lose your business and go to jail.
TBR says2015-03-31T20:51:56.8554446-05:00
Its not about what makes me happy Futurepresident2048, its about what is right and legal.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T20:53:02.8298371-05:00
Is freedom not right? Is freedom not legal?
TBR says2015-03-31T20:54:48.4300451-05:00
You, and this bill, use "freedom" as a club.
Futurepresident2048 says2015-03-31T21:17:11.2929053-05:00
Here is a even better answer. Let descrimination happen so we can see who are the assholes and let them die off.
MrFox says2015-04-01T06:35:41.1863822-05:00
@Futurepresident2048 Religious people are the vast majority in the US. Are they discriminating each other? @TheHeroConservative People should have freedoms, yes. Businesses on the other hand should have much less freedom.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-01T19:16:10.0340645-05:00
@TBR We aren't talking about public places. In fact that statement was written very badly since no government (federal, state, or local) that I know of even funds those types of establishments. Private businesses. The government wont be keeping gays out of the public parks. Funny no one complained when they saw the signs ''we reserved the right to refuse service to anyone'' before this. Simple fix ... Always post private property in the window ... Since people seem to be able to assume a place is owned by the public at any given time. I don't know how the distinction is not obvious to you? Should I start doing the same on my home? Should I just assume that everyone else thinks their entitled to my property? I feel like that's where this is going next. How bout by default everyone just assume everything is owned by someone else? That way they'll be more respectful towards everyone and not push a lawsuit every time they felt some entitlement to something.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-01T19:19:12.1792179-05:00
@MrFox Businesses are people! Run by people. They are the embodiment of people exercising their 1st amendment right to assemble. Depriving them of rights is directly depriving people of their rights.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-01T19:24:34.6234901-05:00
It only says ''religious'' specifically because freedom of religion is already protected in the constitution. It is good that it is broad. Religion should be able to be construed by all (even non religious) to bend a law like this into supporting their general happiness and exact control over their property, their business.
TBR says2015-04-01T19:56:36.8485922-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality- Look at the 14 damn amendment. It's not ME, its the LAW! Its the constitution! Get over it.
retrogamer176 says2015-04-01T20:00:46.8110046-05:00
@TBR let's test the 14th amendment A christian has a deep religious belief that working on Sundays is a sin. They don't have to work. An atheist claims to have a deep secular belief that they should only have 5 day work weeks between Mon-Fri and Friday is a short day, allowing them to recharge their energy. See ya on Sunday! Not that I don't agree with you, but as you can see, the government doesn't follow the 14th amendment anyways.
TBR says2015-04-01T20:26:46.9397445-05:00
Not to sound like this retrogamer176, but what??? It has nothing to do with religion.
TBR says2015-04-01T20:29:24.8972731-05:00
As for your sign bullsh*t FreedomBeforeEquality, you should check case law. Time and again it has shown the sign to be worthless. Restaurants and other "open to the public" businesses cannot refuse service to anyone based on a silly sign.
retrogamer176 says2015-04-01T20:31:59.9178490-05:00
@TBR A christian can go home on a work day because his deeply held beliefs are based in religion. But an atheist still has to come no matter how deep his beliefs are. They are preferring religion over non-religion. The REASON why his DEEPLY held beliefs are ignored is because there is no "GOD" in there. How, tell me, does this NOT have to do with religion?
TBR says2015-04-01T20:35:05.2441559-05:00
The 14 amendment has nothing to do with religion.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-08T21:41:48.9046044-05:00
I'd challenge that. Case law has supported the posting of no trespassing, no shoes, no shirt, no service, etc. You don't get to make the rules just because you walked in off the street. Right to property is in the constitution too ... Well before the 14th amendment ... And most definitely takes precedence over anyone feelings about the matter.
retrogamer176 says2015-04-08T22:43:07.9302150-05:00
@TBR that doesn't answer my question.
retrogamer176 says2015-04-08T22:44:37.8967483-05:00
@TBR that doesn't answer my question.
TBR says2015-04-08T22:47:05.6403882-05:00
FreedomBeforeEquality - Check out the trespass laws. You must first issue a "ban" of some sort after they have done something on your property. Then, if they return, they can be charged with trespass. No shirt etc. gets in under health codes. This is not hard.
TBR says2015-04-08T22:50:40.5945267-05:00
Retrogamer176 - you could make an argument from protection before the law, but all businesses have to do is make "reasonable accommodations" for religious practices (days off etc..)
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-10T21:35:43.3732893-05:00
Exactly ... A ban! And no one will give you trouble passing that ban on a person when its run solely through the normal channels. Most times it doesn't even have to have any specific paperwork! A police report with your statement telling an individual that they aren't welcome on your property is enough for Walmart to ban people from their stores. They do it constantly and manage ID'ing those people internally through security all the time.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-10T21:37:09.9204249-05:00
Ive never seen a lawsuit against one of Walmart's bans be held up in name of the person banned ... Ever. Theres case law for you.
TBR says2015-04-10T21:39:42.3005283-05:00
"Exactly ... A ban! And no one will give you trouble passing that ban on a person when its run solely through the normal channels." - This is TRUE || "Most times it doesn't even have to have any specific paperwork!" This is FALSE || "A police report with your statement telling an individual that they aren't welcome on your property is enough for Walmart to ban people from their stores." this is TRUE || To have ANY legal effect it has to be "formal" you have to write a report. If the police are involved, you get a report number from them, and it is VERY legal to ban them.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-07T18:40:41.5610319Z
Most people can be banned before the police have to be called. They know theyre in the wrong and the threat of calling the police about it is enough to oust them. They dont want confrontation.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.