Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Religious Freedom.
#1
Anyone have thoughts on this law that Indiana passed? Not sure how they ended up in the hot seat when many states have similar laws and from what I have heard these laws parrot a law that was signed by former president Clinton.

 My stance on who and why business owners can refuse service to has changed over the last couple years. I used to be of the mindset that a business shouldn't be able to post signs that bar firearm carry because carrying a firearm is a protected right. Why should businesses only be required to honor some protected rights and not all? 

Well I've changed to the mindset that a business should be able to choose who they provide service to in all instances. Regardless of culture, race, sexual orientation, choice of clothing, religion, hairstyle etc. a business should have the right to choose if they want to do business with you.

In short, I am all for discrimination. If you don't want to do business with me because I am white/spanish, Christian, male, carrying a gun, have purple and blue hair (I really do at the moment), straight, pro-life, conservative, English speaking or for whatever other reason you can come with that is fine by me.  

People need to get over themselves. I, nor you, are the center of the universe. Ruining a person or their business simply because they don't share the same perspective as you do and it hurts your feelings is wrong. Using the government to force someone to bow to your beliefs is more than wrong. It's evil.
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#2
White/spanish?? I thought 'White/Hispanic' was a new category invented by the media just for George Zimmerman!  :smile:

As for your original question, I'm somewhere in the middle, and I'm still trying to sort it out. It doesn't help that the media have grossly distorted the letter, intent and power of the RFRA laws. As I understand it, New Mexico has such a law, but a photographer who was sued there a couple of years ago, for refusing to shoot a gay wedding, still lost their case. What gay couple would want to hire a photographer who really did not want their business? Wouldn't they rather hire someone who they thought would give them their best effort?

What I can't stand is how the political left uses loud sanctimonious outrage to intimidate anyone who might cross them, by making examples of anyone who does. Unfortunately, it seems to work for them often enough that they keep doing it.
Reply
#3
(04-03-2015, 03:03 PM)Rocky Wrote: White/spanish?? I thought 'White/Hispanic' was a new category invented by the media just for George Zimmerman!  :smile:

As for your original question, I'm somewhere in the middle, and I'm still trying to sort it out. It doesn't help that the media have grossly distorted the letter, intent and power of the RFRA laws. As I understand it, New Mexico has such a law, but a photographer who was sued there a couple of years ago, for refusing to shoot a gay wedding, still lost their case. What gay couple would want to hire a photographer who really did not want their business? Wouldn't they rather hire someone who they thought would give them their best effort?

What I can't stand is how the political left uses loud sanctimonious outrage to intimidate anyone who might cross them, by making examples of anyone who does. Unfortunately, it seems to work for them often enough that they keep doing it.

That last part of your comment pretty much sums up the phrase "Social Justice" that the left loves to use. It basically means, do and think what we want or we will bully and intimidate you. Threaten you with violence and if that doesn't work use the progressive/left government to force you to bend to our will.
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#4
Has anyone read one of these laws.
I have not and probably will now that it has become national news.

What religious freedoms are they supposed to protect that isn't already in the US constitution.
Reply
#5
(04-03-2015, 04:24 PM)bufordtjustice Wrote: Has anyone read one of these laws.
I have not and probably will now that it has become national news.

What religious freedoms are they supposed to protect that isn't already in the US constitution.

I have not read Indiana's yet. I've heard they are reworking it to try to appease those whose feelers were hurt.

Those that have outrage claim that the law allows businesses to discriminate by refusing service to gays.

Those that agree with the law claim it allows a business to not provide a service that goes against their moral code. Such as making a cake that promotes homosexuality, a different religion etc..

Even if the law is what those that have outrage claim it is I don't see the problem. 
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#6
Well unfortunately, a principle came into our laws a few decades ago that it was illegal to discriminate against a list of protected groups. This principle is wrong, but it's part of law now. Gays are in the process of being added to that list.
Known as SteveInCO on national fora (changed it here because "in Colorado" is the default).

CZ-75, Glock 20, Mossberg 590, S&W M&P AR-15, PTR-91, DSA FAL, Springfield M1A... and lots of other goodies.
Biggun
Reply
#7
Someone on TV made the point that the businesses in question had never denied service or discriminated against gays. Their objection came when asked to be a part of a wedding that went against their religious beliefs.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

One of the greatest fears politicians have is seeing an angry guy with lots of guns charging down the street, because they know he’s probably on his way to commit an act of voting.

Reply
#8
(04-03-2015, 12:55 PM)Beau Wrote: Well I've changed to the mindset that a business should be able to choose who they provide service to in all instances. Regardless of culture, race, sexual orientation, choice of clothing, religion, hairstyle etc. a business should have the right to choose if they want to do business with you.

In short, I am all for discrimination. If you don't want to do business with me because I am white/spanish, Christian, male, carrying a gun, have purple and blue hair (I really do at the moment), straight, pro-life, conservative, English speaking or for whatever other reason you can come with that is fine by me.  

As a business owner I fully agree with the above and as a business owner I've fully exercised this right almost on a daily basis.

Quote:Beau


People need to get over themselves. I, nor you, are the center of the universe. 
As a business owner I can tell you story after story of instances how way too many of the American public don't believe in that, the belief in entitlement is raging in America. When I try to politely turn someone's business down you can't believe the amount of people who want to argue or convince me of why I shouldn't. They demand to know why and when I repeat myself or make the mistake of further explaining why, these same people become incensed by the rejection and have to try to make themselves feel better over the rejection usually by trying to punish me verbally. Way too many American's are self-entitled babies who can't take any form of rejection from a business and believe they are entitled to your services and that the decision whether to purchase your services or not is up to them not you. Once they get a dose of reality it pisses them off.
Reply
#9
IMHO, the debate about religious freedom is just politicians pandering to special interests.  IMHO, the debate about religious freedom laws is a debate about whether sexual orientation is (or should be) a protected class like race, sex, national origin, etc.  But the debate about whether a business is obligated to serve someone -- e.g., a florist being obligated to provide service to a gay wedding -- raises some interesting, far reaching Constitutional issues.

Generally, only common carriers are required to serve the public indifferently.  These include businesses like public utilities and transportation firms (trucks, airlines, taxis, etc) where firms have been granted a government-protected monopoly or operate under some sort of government license that restricts market entry.  The implied "social contract" is that such firms enjoy government protection from competition and must, therefore, serve the public in a non-discriminatory manner.  The laws have a rich US Supreme Court precedent and date back to the late 1800s when regulators regulated trains and grain elevators to prevent them from discriminating against farmers and shippers the railroads and grain elevators did not like.  Airlines can't turn you away because government restricts who can operate as an airline and part of the "deal" is that the airline can't turn the public away who are willing to pay the price of a ticket.

Today, common carrier like obligations to serve are often tied to businesses that accept federal money.  Think federal contractors who must demonstrate some sort of non-discriminatory policy.  Most large businesses have some sort of nexus to federal money -- it's like heroin for them; impossible to resist.  Unfortunately, what used to be bastions of free enterprise (e.g., farmers, banks) are now quasi-socialist operations that rely on government money to survive, and with that comes all the baggage of government intrusion into and oversight over private business matters.

But the run of the mill non-common carrier business that does not deal in federal money usually has no obligation to serve the public indifferently.  Just as consumers are free to pick whatever restaurant they patronize and bypass restaurants for any reason or no reason, businesses can sell their goods and services to whomever they wish.  That's the nature of freedom -- consumers get to pick and choose where they spend their money, businesses get to pick and choose who they sell to.

When government forces businesses to serve someone, they create potential 5th and 14th Amendment issues.  Public utilities regularly litigate cases (to the US Supreme Court) where regulators mandate that they serve at rates that are not remunerative (taking private property for the public (the utility service) without just compensation, which is a 5th Amendment violation).  Imagine that precedent applied to a florist's prices to serve a gay wedding.

Non-discrimination laws usually apply in employment circumstances -- e.g., I fired you because you are a member of a protected class (race, religion, sex, national origin, etc).  But there's little precedent that extends non-discrimination to a commercial situation (e.g., I refused to sell pizza to you because you're gay) and nothing that I know of that extends non-discrimination laws to classes that are not protected (e.g., gun owners or gays). 

The debate may be mooted by the market.  If a business wants to announce to the world that it will not serve _____ (you fill in the blank for your favorite class) because of religious reasons or it will only serve members of its madrasa, that business will not be long for this world.  Business is all about attracting customers, not about excluding customers.  If Microsoft, Apple, McDonalds or WalMart said "we will only serve Christians" they would be put of business very shortly.
Reply
#10
[Image: img_4624-9ff3dbb98cddae3c791724fe4f8a060e0cd9502d.jpg]
Reply
#11
Great post Mark.
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)