Posted on Mar 30, 2015
Indiana law reveals GOP's challenge - CNNPolitics.com
69.8K
514
416
8
8
0
New Indiana Law that gives business the right to refuse service based on their religion.
Indiana law reveals GOP's challenge - CNNPolitics.com
Posted from cnn.com
Religion
Rights
Discrimination
Freedom
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 96
34
33
1
If Bubba kills a feral pig, should he be able to use the power of the state to force a Halal butcher to dress and butcher it for him?
Should a Jewish tailor have to accept a job to embroider ISIS flags under threat of a lawsuit?
Should a Jewish tailor have to accept a job to embroider ISIS flags under threat of a lawsuit?
(34)
(1)
CPO (Join to see)
"virtually every institution in America with influence... is dominated by progressive non-religious people."
Sir, please Google "media ownership" and you will learn that about 6 corporations own nearly 90% of the media in American. The majority of the 250 or so executives dominating the game claim to be Christians. Most of the big player, like Rupert Murdoch, also claim to be Christians. Now Ted Turner has flopped back and forth from Christian, to atheist, to agnostic and back again. He lost God when his sister died but I think his last claim was that he is praying again, but he can go in the non-religious group to make things simple. But maybe I'm just confused about what you mean by "non-religious"
According to a recent ABC News poll 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Given that such a small percentage of Americans claim to be Jews, there is a disproportionate number of Jewish figures in the media industry but I do not view them as non-religious. Meanwhile Wikipedia says 73% identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation, which does not leave mush room for all the other religions. So even rounding down on the lower number that still seems to contradict your assertion that "virtually every institution in America with influence ... is dominated by progressive non-religious people."
Sir, please Google "media ownership" and you will learn that about 6 corporations own nearly 90% of the media in American. The majority of the 250 or so executives dominating the game claim to be Christians. Most of the big player, like Rupert Murdoch, also claim to be Christians. Now Ted Turner has flopped back and forth from Christian, to atheist, to agnostic and back again. He lost God when his sister died but I think his last claim was that he is praying again, but he can go in the non-religious group to make things simple. But maybe I'm just confused about what you mean by "non-religious"
According to a recent ABC News poll 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Given that such a small percentage of Americans claim to be Jews, there is a disproportionate number of Jewish figures in the media industry but I do not view them as non-religious. Meanwhile Wikipedia says 73% identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation, which does not leave mush room for all the other religions. So even rounding down on the lower number that still seems to contradict your assertion that "virtually every institution in America with influence ... is dominated by progressive non-religious people."
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
So we are agreed that there are different brands of Christians and it is wrong to commingle everyone in the same group. This is a truth universal with all other religions too. There are extremists, orthodox, "in-name-only", progressive, conservative, and every other variation of follower in each religion. Unfortunately the crazies typically get the most publicity and tarnish the image of the rest. We think the best of "us" and the worst of "them", using the crazies we saw as a standard to judge all. The crazy on "our" side is the exception and should be ignored as an outlier. The crazy of "there" side is the rule and should be emphasized as an example of all.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Read my response on its own then and you might make more sense of what it's saying...
It is pretty much the nature of man...
It is pretty much the nature of man...
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Okay here's a hint: Everyone who claimed to be Christian, I grouped as a Christian. You exclude most people who claim to be Christian and only included those that fit your definition of "Christian."
1. So we are agreed that there are different brands of Christians and it is wrong to commingle everyone in the same group. This is a truth universal with all other religions too. There are extremists, orthodox, "in-name-only", progressive, conservative, and every other variation of follower in each religion. (say Islam)
2. Unfortunately the crazies (in each group) typically get the most publicity and tarnish the image of the rest. We think the best of "us" (our group) and the worst of "them" (other groups), using the crazies we saw as a standard to judge all. The crazy on "our" side is the exception and should be ignored as an outlier. (That crazy Christian is not a Christian) The crazy of "their" side is the rule and should be emphasized as an example of all. (A single crazy opponent proves that everyone on "their" side is crazy)
1. So we are agreed that there are different brands of Christians and it is wrong to commingle everyone in the same group. This is a truth universal with all other religions too. There are extremists, orthodox, "in-name-only", progressive, conservative, and every other variation of follower in each religion. (say Islam)
2. Unfortunately the crazies (in each group) typically get the most publicity and tarnish the image of the rest. We think the best of "us" (our group) and the worst of "them" (other groups), using the crazies we saw as a standard to judge all. The crazy on "our" side is the exception and should be ignored as an outlier. (That crazy Christian is not a Christian) The crazy of "their" side is the rule and should be emphasized as an example of all. (A single crazy opponent proves that everyone on "their" side is crazy)
(0)
(0)
22
22
0
There are similar laws on the books in many states already. This is really nothing new. A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for almost any reason (most of the time you just never know it) just as the patrons can tell all of their friends and neighbors about their business practices. I think it would be foolish to not service clients as a business owner.
This one relates to religious consideration. Let's take it out of the realm of Chritianity for a minute. If a muslim owned bakery does not want to cater a jewish wedding, I have not issue with it. He will limit his businesses clientele and may hurt his revenue and ultimately net profit. The Jewish wedding has many bakeries to choose from and can also let it be known to their friends about the muslim bakeries practice. Ultimately the market will decide if the muslim bakeries practice will allow him to stay in business.
We should stop looking so hard to be offended. If someone (a business) doesn't want to provide service to me because I am white or tall or a veteran or general annoying I don't really care. I will go somewhere else. It is a different matter if it is a government entity as I pay taxes to support all of those and should have equal access etc.
This one relates to religious consideration. Let's take it out of the realm of Chritianity for a minute. If a muslim owned bakery does not want to cater a jewish wedding, I have not issue with it. He will limit his businesses clientele and may hurt his revenue and ultimately net profit. The Jewish wedding has many bakeries to choose from and can also let it be known to their friends about the muslim bakeries practice. Ultimately the market will decide if the muslim bakeries practice will allow him to stay in business.
We should stop looking so hard to be offended. If someone (a business) doesn't want to provide service to me because I am white or tall or a veteran or general annoying I don't really care. I will go somewhere else. It is a different matter if it is a government entity as I pay taxes to support all of those and should have equal access etc.
(22)
(0)
CW5 Jim Steddum
There are too many laws and lawyers that complicate the 1st Amendment... which in an of itself should be sufficient. Ultimately, it is not discrimination--it is a personal threat assessment.
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
CW5 Scott Montgomery, please provide examples of how it is lawful to discriminate against Christians simply for being a Christian.
(1)
(1)
CPO (Join to see)
Haha! Two down votes for asking for examples! Hilarious!
"We can't "discriminate" against Muslims, but Christians are fair game."
Perhaps the MAJ or SGT are able to provide examples of how it is lawful to discriminate against Christians simply for being a Christian.
"We can't "discriminate" against Muslims, but Christians are fair game."
Perhaps the MAJ or SGT are able to provide examples of how it is lawful to discriminate against Christians simply for being a Christian.
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
CPL Fields, no name calling please. In general I agree with much of what you have said in your comment, but "baggers" made it all low class and undercuts your position.
I'd also like to point out that the other side of the debate has some real extreme losers too that employ similar misleading tactics... If both sides can distract us with nonsense garbage then we will be too busy fighting each other to figure out what is really going on and take steps to fix it.
I'd also like to point out that the other side of the debate has some real extreme losers too that employ similar misleading tactics... If both sides can distract us with nonsense garbage then we will be too busy fighting each other to figure out what is really going on and take steps to fix it.
(0)
(0)
21
21
0
I am not Christian and I’m not gay, but I do belong to what is considered a minority religious group. Laws like this have protected those of my religion on several occasions; on the contrary these laws have never protected someone who discriminates against someone’s sexual orientation. So in my opinion this is a non-issue.
You cannot legislate people’s religious tolerance, the founding fathers made that clear. While I do not agree with those who do not tolerate homosexuality, I cannot tell them what they can and cannot tolerate. The government cannot regulate religious tolerance as that would be establishing a religion. The establishment clause is found in the very 1st amendment in the bill of rights and to my mind demonstrates its importance to the founders.
I eat pork, but I cannot legislate that Muslims or Jewish people must eat pork, nor cannot mandate that Christians or for that matter Muslims take part in ceremonies that violate the very tenants of their faith. If we do we are establishing a religion and thus violating the very document we swore to protect and defend.
You cannot legislate people’s religious tolerance, the founding fathers made that clear. While I do not agree with those who do not tolerate homosexuality, I cannot tell them what they can and cannot tolerate. The government cannot regulate religious tolerance as that would be establishing a religion. The establishment clause is found in the very 1st amendment in the bill of rights and to my mind demonstrates its importance to the founders.
I eat pork, but I cannot legislate that Muslims or Jewish people must eat pork, nor cannot mandate that Christians or for that matter Muslims take part in ceremonies that violate the very tenants of their faith. If we do we are establishing a religion and thus violating the very document we swore to protect and defend.
(21)
(0)
CPT Bruce Rodgers
You cannot legislate religious tolerance I don't care what protected class you come from. That would be violating thier rights. So who's rights trumps whose? Those conveyed by an act of congress or those placed in the first part of the bill of right by the founders of this great nation
(0)
(0)
LTC Mark Maitag
How am I forcing my beliefs on someone if I kindly refuse their business based on my beliefs? Also, why would you want someone to bake you a cake that doesn't want to bake you a cake? There are plenty of businesses that bake cakes...but you go to the one that doesn't want to bake you one...why? This law only provides recourse if someone is trying to force an individual to action, and that action would be a substantial burden to his faith. The court decides.
(2)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Yes, -isms and stupidity go hand in hand.
But religion and commerce are still not the same thing.
But religion and commerce are still not the same thing.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google