TOPIC: Gen Con's letter to the IN governor re SB101

cdsmith wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: I agree with Mike (again!)

Here's a scenario: imagine you work at a clothing store. A man walks in with his crying daughter.

He calmly says she's been bad, and threw his belt away, among other things. He needs you to help him to buy another so he can spank her with it. As far as you know, his intended use fits within your local laws as you understand them. She looks into your eyes and whispers, "please, don't."

So, what do you do?

And let's get this out of the way: wanting to marry someone is certainly not the same as wanting to beat someone. Please don't go down that path, because I'm sure I'll agree with everything you'd say on that point. That isn't the question. It's simple: Do you have a right to discriminate against him based on your differing opinions on child rearing? SHOULD you have that right? Either way, should you sell the belt? Note, these are all simple yes-or-no questions.

Do you want more info on the kid or the "bad things" she did? You don't get any, because just asking the question is admission that sometimes you would discriminate and sometimes you wouldn't, based in the degree to which you disagree. So, if you want more data or you want to say "maybe," you're really saying "yes-yes-no." Just assume the worst case where all answers you get assure you that the planned beating will be legal, but you still don't agree with it at all.

That's a very good analogy Brad. Let's take it one step further. For the Christian baker that sees same sex marriage as a sin, forcing them to bake a cake for such a celebration would be like forcing them to participate in beating the child in your example.

Even supporting what they believe to be a sin is the same as committing the sin in the eyes of many Christians.

Homosexuality is a crime in 75+ countries, and punishable by death in about ten, in accordance with Sharia and Islamic law. Muslim shopkeepers are as likely to discriminate against gays as the most fundamentalist of Christians, so let's not single them out.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

cdsmith wrote:
That's a very good analogy Brad. Let's take it one step further. For the Christian baker that sees same sex marriage as a sin, forcing them to bake a cake for such a celebration would be like forcing them to participate in beating the child in your example.

Even supporting what they believe to be a sin is the same as committing the sin in the eyes of many Christians.

Homosexuality is a crime in 75+ countries, and punishable by death in about ten, in accordance with Sharia and Islamic law. Muslim shopkeepers are as likely to discriminate against gays as the most fundamentalist of Christians, so let's not single them out.

That is also a very good point. All I was trying to do is express the severity of the issue to the devout. The severity being it is like forcing them to participate in the action by forcing them to facilitate the action.

So wait if my religion say that it is a sin for me not to kill, rape and pillage everyone that is not my religion I should be allowed to do that? Of course not.

Both perspectives are reasonable and persuasive but there is a difference between not baking a cake for someone and murdering someone.

The baker can be understood and their decision tolerated. If a baker refused to bake a cake for me because I have bad breath or wore funny pants, I would just go to another baker.

There is no justification in any way shape or form for the behavior of murderous organizations like ISIS.

Chip Bowles wrote:

On other news, the Governor is "shocked" that anyone would see this bill as "encouraging discrimination" and wants it amended to reflect its "true intent". I have an Easy fix: SB101 is repealed[/quote]


Update: Well Governor Mike pushed all his chips in on supporting SB101 on the Sunday talk shows stating

"That's not on my agenda, and that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana. And it doesn't have anything to do with this law," Pence said in an appearance on ABC's "This Week."

"We are not going to change this law," he said.


Give him credit, he sticks by his principals( cough Republican VP run ). No Brains or heart but a load of principals

jedibcg wrote: So wait if my religion say that it is a sin for me not to kill, rape and pillage everyone that is not my religion I should be allowed to do that? Of course not.

No, of course not. But that wasn't my question.

The point of my question was to challenge whether "discrimination is always wrong," and whether people could imagine any situation in which, as a business owner, you would feel justified in withholding service from someone based on a difference in your moral beliefs.

Disbeeleaf wrote: Both perspectives are reasonable and persuasive but there is a difference between not baking a cake for someone and murdering someone.

The baker can be understood and their decision tolerated. If a baker refused to bake a cake for me because I have bad breath or wore funny pants, I would just go to another baker.

There is no justification in any way shape or form for the behavior of murderous organizations like ISIS.

I said of course not as well yet it seems some think some laws/rules need not apply because of a moral or religious reason. I say it is a slippery slope.

jedibcg wrote: So wait if my religion say that it is a sin for me not to kill, rape and pillage everyone that is not my religion I should be allowed to do that? Of course not.

I think that was a point I was trying to make a while back. Everybody has their own definition of morality but somebody has to decide which morals need to become law and which ones don't. One could argue that if murder and rape was legal then we wouldn't even have a society, so one could argue that it is one morality that needs to be legally enforced. But there are tons of other things that many people find immoral that are perfectly legal (adultery, lying, prostitution (in many countries)).

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Incognito wrote: Well the situation would also apply for businesses (instead of just consumers) if you consider madams, brothels, and pimps and whether they should morally be allowed to discriminate based on physical appearance when hiring prostitutes for their place of business.

That's where the non-controvertial precedents of modeling, actors, etc. come in - basically you are allowed to discriminate against even protected classes when selecting for a "boni fide qualification" of the job:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications

Which leads to interesting questions like:

If your prostitution business caters exclusively to blind clientele, can you still discriminate based on race or physical appearance?

Modeling agencies for menswear can only hire male models,

Can you discriminate against an individual who is structurally male (and everyone who sees the individual would classify them as male) but the individual is genetically XX (but is physically male due to hormone irregularities) or is intersex or is an outwardly indistinguishable F-to-M transsexual?

There is legal precedent for this generally, and in the particular case of sex appeal:

"Customer preference can 'be taken into account only when it is based on the company's inability to perform the primary function or service it offers,' that is, where sex or sex appeal is itself the dominant service provided." - in the trial in question the issue was whether an airline could choose to hire only women as flight attendants, their defense was that it conformed to the preferences of their customers. The court found in their case that the alleged customer preference did not amount to a bona fide occupational qualification - however in the ruling clarified that sex appeal could be a BFOQ in some other domain - such as criterion for being a model at a Playboy Club.

Can it be a factor when the clientele is asexual?

Mike Steele wrote: I hope that dislike of this law in Indiana doesn't lead people to apply that dislike to all of Indiana, it's residents, and it's businesses and organizations. I'm a proud resident of Indiana, and I'd say that the vast majority of Businesses and Residents of Indiana do not support discrimination. I don't see the logic of letting the dislike (or even hatred) of this law lead someone to root against Indiana sports teams, who had absolutely nothing to do with the Law and almost certainly won't be discriminating against anyone as a result of the Law.

While I agree that the law is not representative of many people in Indiana, it is an interesting situation.

Amusingly enough, I think it is quite similar to situations of Muslim terrorism where mainstream American and European society then start to associate ALL Muslims with the behavior. And they constantly ask "why aren't you Muslims doing more to denounce that behavior?"

It also brings up the question of: At what point does one become a facilitator or collaborator? (Nazi Germany provides the most anecdotal cases of collaboration but you could probably look at most repressive regimes).

From an academic point of view, you could probably argue that there is probably a lower bar (and higher responsibility) for someone in a relatively democratic system (like Indiana) than someone in a relatively totalitarian system, to become morally liable for collaboration.

In the case of someone like a Wedding planner, wedding cake producer, etc, I can see the case to allow them to decline to participate in a wedding that they do not approve of based on their religion, especially if there are other alternative sources available.

This reminds me of situations where pharmacists refuse to provide birth control or contraception because it is against their religious beliefs. Even though sometimes, there are no realistic alternative sources available.

Brad Mortensen wrote: Here's a scenario: imagine you work at a clothing store. A man walks in with his crying daughter.

He calmly says she's been bad, and threw his belt away, among other things. He needs you to help him to buy another so he can spank her with it. As far as you know, his intended use fits within your local laws as you understand them. She looks into your eyes and whispers, "please, don't."

So, what do you do?

Easy. I would sell him the belt.

But then get any personal details that I can and pass that information on to the police or child services, who are in a better position to evaluate whether it is appropriate discipline or child abuse.

Similarly, if the guy was buying the belt so that he could kill himself with it, I would try to dissuade him from it but at the end of the day it is his choice and not my place as a belt seller to be judging him.

And let's get this out of the way: wanting to marry someone is certainly not the same as wanting to beat someone. Please don't go down that path, because I'm sure I'll agree with everything you'd say on that point. That isn't the question. It's simple: Do you have a right to discriminate against him based on your differing opinions on child rearing?

No.

SHOULD you have that right?

No.

Either way, should you sell the belt?

Yes.



Since you bring it up, here are my own hypotheticals:

You work at a grocery store:

1. A man wants to buy cigarettes. He mentions they are for himself, that he smokes a lot and all within his house where there are several young children.

2. A pregnant woman wants to buy cigarettes for herself which will be used immediately.

3. A pregnant woman wants to buy alcohol for herself which will be drunk immediately.

Do you sell the cigarettes or alcohol? In all those cases, the behavior is technically legal.

BONUS QUESTION: A pregnant woman wants to buy lots of unhealthy junk food which will be eaten immediately.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I think I said it already on this thread, but I think the best way to shut down this law (for those who want to) would be to get a coalition of non-Christian businesses to start refusing to serve Christians. It would make for good entertainment at the least (sorry, these are the kinds of things that entertain me, besides True Dungeon!).

While that would be entertaining:

1. Due to demographics, economics, and power imbalances, it is a lot easier for Christian businesses to refuse non-Christians than it is for non-Christian businesses to refuse Christians. The situation is very assymetric.

2. For some people and some positions, a tit-for-tat strategy would erode their moral position. So even though you are proving your immediate point, you are ultimately undermining your main argument.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I think one of the most interesting countries I have visited is Malaysia. It is a Muslim country but only about 60% of the people are Muslim, the rest are Hindu, Christian, Athiest, etc. In that country the Muslim laws only apply to Muslims. So I can totally bang a woman on the street legally, but if I was Muslim I'd be in deep trouble.

It does have a restriction on free speech designed to stop their history of intense internal religious conflict: it is illegal to disparage another religion. Obviously the pros and cons of such a rule would lead to a bigger thread than this one

From what I have read, I don't think the Malaysian legal system is balanced and the Muslim laws do still end up having a disproportionate impact.

Muslim apostasy laws have prevented a Muslim man (who was switched at birth) from changing religion to that of his biological family:

www.jihadwatch.org/2007/02/malaysian-switched-at-birth-wants-to-switch-religion

in.reuters.com/article/2007/06/02/idINIndia-30112020070602

On the freedom of speech issue, they have also ruled that only Muslims are allowed to use the word "Allah":

www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/01/21/malaysian-church-loses-legal-battle-to-use-to-word-allah/


According to:

www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysia-among-countries-faring-worst-in-faith-based-discrimination-says-gl

there is LOTS of religious discrimination in Malaysia.

www.minorityrights.org/10815/comment-amp-analysis/ethnic-and-religious-discrimination-big-challenge-for-malaysias-minorities.html

gives some more examples, like:

Muslims cannot marry non-Muslims in practice....A non-Muslim must therefore convert to Islam to marry a Muslim.

Muslims marry under Shariah law, while non-Muslims marry under common law. Another problem that has arisen is in cases where one spouse in a non-Muslim marriage converts to Islam. The Islamic religious officials argue that infant children in such a marriage are also automatically converted to Islam and the non-Muslim spouse loses his or her rights to guardianship and custody of the children. As under Muslim law a man can have up to four wives it is not uncommon for non-Muslim men to convert to Islam to be able to marry for a second time without divorcing their first wife. Although minority rights activists argue that such marriages are bigamous and contrary to the law, no prosecutions have ever been made.

According to information provided by MCCBCHST, in May, 2006, Saravanan Thangatoray, who had for some time been estranged from his wife Subashini, told her that he had converted to Islam. He told her she could have nothing more to do with her elder child, who was just three years old and took the child into his custody. Despite being married under civil law, Subashini's husband applied for a dissolution of their Hindu marriage in an Islamic court.

The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court all refused Subashini a substantive injunction to stop the Islamic court proceedings. This effectively forced her to deal with the Islamic court even though she was not a Muslim. The Courts also held that the consent of only one parent was necessary to convert a child to Islam.

Malaysia has also imposed restrictions on building places of worship. While a mosque can be built in any neighbourhood - Muslim or non-Muslim - any other religious place of worship can not be built within 100 meters of a Muslim neighbourhood. There are also other regulations such as; the place of worship cannot be above a certain height and cannot resemble a mosque. The latter rule again affects the Sikh community, which builds domes for their places of worship.

This last one is kind of ironic given how in the U.S. it is the exact opposite whereas churches can be so readily built when mosques get all these extra restrictions and hoops to jump through.