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

jedibcg wrote: If it is discrimination does the reason it is discrimination matter? If he won't sale a wedding cake (though he makes and sales wedding cakes) to an iterracial couple because he believes is against his faith is that okay?

We could debate all we want between cake or pie legitimate because that is the extend of freedom of speech to talk so much like the dress is blue and black or white and gold, but it not going get us the answer we want, even if I were blue in the face because the devil into the detail. Whereby Dick Cheney said it enhanced interrogation technic, even when the official report said it was torture. To the point where the politician speak to each other in code language and it is actual lying to us. Then again is not permit to use the freedom of speech in around college and university. Not evening scream bloody murder when there is none or say bomb on a plane or racist slur or profanity around small child or lies about you raping me last night. But when politician is lying is my fault for listen them like Nancy Polanski that you have to vote the Obamacare into the law to know what it is. While the biggest beef of that is that republican states will have to pay the sky rocket premiums to extend of 774% in just one state only and all the while the Affordable Care Act cover for New York and California, which is democrat states and we have to wait until June of this year from top ruling from the Supreme Court on that. There is nothing better than get a gag order from the court system when lawsuit is not going your way especial when facing bigger oil companies or these other companies with military tactic given to them by our own government to suppress us to the point I might as well as settle out of court. Beside I could never proof myself and if I have video camera that show otherwise than I was choke to death by arm bar and not the illegal use of a chokehold since 1993. Or I can sing the next Taylor Swift song The cop will never, ever get back together with the gene pop at any of these prisons that really meant for me and my civilian friends because is never too fill about prison population there is always room or cell for more. Hey how about that Guantanamo Bay with 144 prisoner of Yemen and still torture the crap out of them and even drug the hell out of them because we got plenty of pharmaceutical drugs to dope the hell out of them, where they can't tell the different being who they are or how they even get there in the first place, but no one is using the Geneva Convention because out of sight and out of mind of the whole world because never any proof or evidence of mistreatment or brainwash these next contestant for future terrorist to be? Hell, president said that it will be closed and under his breathe is saying never close down that joint, while all the while the rent is still $4,000.00 for the whole base since 1897. I bet that this is how qualify to do the historic residents to keep it open forever. Even Ellis Island was never open for this longest than Guantanamo Bay is going to break the record as Guinness record holder or something like that.

Brad Mortensen wrote: And then I hope the two parties can work things out like adults, without getting the government or lawyers involved.

1000 times this!

No offense to Chip (or any other awesome TD players that happen to be lawyers), but in general as soon as lawyers get involved in anything, things just get worse (especially those lawyers that morph into politicians).

Fiddy wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: And then I hope the two parties can work things out like adults, without getting the government or lawyers involved.

1000 times this!

No offense to Chip (or any other awesome TD players that happen to be lawyers), but in general as soon as lawyers get involved in anything, things just get worse (especially those lawyers that morph into politicians).

Then to have a politicians morph into CEO of a fortune 500 company by having lobbyists given crap load of money that he or she couldn't refuse because I think that they have plenty of space for multiple VP spot open for that occasion.

Eversuede wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: And then I hope the two parties can work things out like adults, without getting the government or lawyers involved.

1000 times this!

No offense to Chip (or any other awesome TD players that happen to be lawyers), but in general as soon as lawyers get involved in anything, things just get worse (especially those lawyers that morph into politicians).

Then to have a politicians morph into CEO of a fortune 500 company by having lobbyists given crap load of money that he or she couldn't refuse because I think that they have plenty of space for multiple VP spot open for that occasion.

We do tend to wander off topic, don't we?

Jedibc: maybe it's a fine line, but I agree that discrimination is not ok, but then neither is forced participation in violation of one's conscience.

Last comment: I think that, in general, government creates more problems than it solves. That's because we give it too much power. With power comes corruption.

People wouldn't buy politicians if they could only do a fraction of what they do now. But one party says give us tons of money so we can do stuff for you, and another says give us tons of money so we can protect you from the other guys. They need each other, so if one party vanished the other would whither away. It's the circle of graft. (Look what happened when the Republicans controlled all branches under Bush - they started turning into Democrats.)

Anyway. SB101 = bad.

This law would protect religious rights and practices from further government/litigation intrusion, but I also see the issues that a law like this can cause in discriminating against people that it wasn't intended for.

Soapbox: What I don’t understand is why some groups think they need to join or disrupt groups that don’t believe what they believe. A specific instance that is similar in topic but not directly related is the Boy Scouts issue. I was chairman for our area from 2008 until this last Sunday (been involved much much longer than 2008 though). My oldest son is an Eagle Scout / OA Brotherhood Rank. The Boy Scouts is a private organization. It had a set of beliefs. If you do not believe in what they believe why join? Join a group that believes like you do or start your own. The “diversity” movement is all but diverse, it says believe like us or you are bad and we will make you pay for it. Forcing the Boy Scouts to change has and is destroying the organization. I think a law like or similar to this might have gave the Boy Scouts better protection from litigation, thus maybe it would have kept its values intact rather than having to conform.

Donald Rients wrote: Wow, what an issue to bring up. It can divide people.

If we were having a similar conversation 50 years ago about a business's "right to discriminate" against Blacks, would you make that same comment about it being divisive?

Donald Rients wrote: I have seen a youtube video (based in California) where a proposed straight wedding was checking on "gay" bakeries to make their cake. They wanted something put on the cake that was not the belief of those "gay" bakeries.

Are you perhaps referring to this ? If not, please provide a link to your source.

Donald Rients wrote: in California there is no protection for the straight on this issue, just the gay. Very lopsided.

If you're referring to the aforementioned gay slur cake, that's a false equivalency. Matt Baum addresses that exact issue in this video

jedibcg wrote: If it is discrimination does the reason it is discrimination matter?

Legally - yes. At the federal level, a public business can't discriminate on the basis of (at least - there may be other protected characteristics): "race, color, religion, or national origin." Many states have broader protections, for example in California it is illegal to discriminate based on: "race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation" - and in legal challenges this has been extended so far as to protect "unconventional dress."

You can be refused services for a variety of reasons, for example being obnoxious or threatening to the business or other customers, for lounging about and not buying anything, for wearing gang or club colors, for having poor hygiene, etc.. I would believe that ethically these examples are cases where discrimination is ethically OK. Broadly I agree with your point that discrimination is generally bad (even when legal).

jedibcg wrote: If he won't sale a wedding cake (though he makes and sales wedding cakes) to an interracial couple because he believes is against his faith is that okay?

Not ok - also not legal - this would constitute discrimination based on race, and not permitted under the Federal 1964 civil rights act.

People have the right to freely practice their religion. They do not have the right to discriminate against others. Or they should not have the right, anyway.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Weddings are stressful enough. Charging them with negative emotions by making them political is nuts. So I don't understand why anyone would take that as an opportunity to display an anti-anything cake, but if they want one it's their right to have one. So while it is debatable whether the bakers in question should be legally allowed to refuse to make the slur-cake, I support their right to not make it.

The haters can order a blank cake, get a tube of icing from the grocer, and scrawl whatever drivel they want themselves.

I had a friend who converted his bachelor party into a political fundraiser, so I sent him my congratulations and regrets. He requested gifts only in his name to the candidate of his choice, so he got nothing from me. His right to do it, mine not to go. SMH

I have heard people bring up the idea of 1st amendment rights. Yes you do have most freedom of speech and religion, but there are limits. You cannot break the law in the name of your religion (sorry all you Cthulhu cultists, the human sacrifice will have to be called off) or opinion. You also cannot deprive another person of their constitutional rights. Refusal of necessities, such as food, fuel, and medical care are big ones here. Under this proposed law all could be deprived, based on "religious" grounds. (I use the quotes because it is just used as an excuse to turn away other races, creeds, religions and sexual orientations, or any other thing they dislike.)

Sorry, but this is a Christian hospital. We don't serve your kind here.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

jedibcg wrote: If it is discrimination does the reason it is discrimination matter?

Legally - yes. At the federal level, a public business can't discriminate on the basis of (at least - there may be other protected characteristics): "race, color, religion, or national origin." Many states have broader protections, for example in California it is illegal to discriminate based on: "race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation" - and in legal challenges this has been extended so far as to protect "unconventional dress."

You can be refused services for a variety of reasons, for example being obnoxious or threatening to the business or other customers, for lounging about and not buying anything, for wearing gang or club colors, for having poor hygiene, etc.. I would believe that ethically these examples are cases where discrimination is ethically OK. Broadly I agree with your point that discrimination is generally bad (even when legal).

jedibcg wrote: If he won't sale a wedding cake (though he makes and sales wedding cakes) to an interracial couple because he believes is against his faith is that okay?

Not ok - also not legal - this would constitute discrimination based on race, and not permitted under the Federal 1964 civil rights act.

Actually it might not be racial if they would sale cakes to same racial couples. Therefore they could argue it is not racial. It is discrimination I am just not certain if it racial or other. Though I was asking if it was okay not legal. There can be a differnce between what is right and what is legal. Slavery was legal. It was never right.

For the record, I find it bewildering that a gay couple would want an anti-gay baker to make their cake. Indeed, they should find someone else. (Assuming they live in an area with more than one cake-baker, which I suspect is rather commonplace.)

That said, I am wholly opposed to legislation which grants business the legal right to discriminate based on something as loosey-goosey as "sincerely held beliefs."