Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Indiana's Religious Objection Law

  1. #1
    a cantori Perdix's Avatar
    Type
    INTj
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    the deep end
    Posts
    2,436

    Indiana's Religious Objection Law

    background:
    When Indiana's Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed a bill into law allowing the state's businesses to refuse to serve same-sex couples based on religious grounds, he knew the move was a controversial one.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...of-controversy

    In an interview Saturday with the Indianapolis Star (http://indy.st/1MhuY1d), the Republican governor said he's been in discussions with legislative leaders this weekend. He expects that a clarification bill will be introduced this coming week to the religious objections law he signed Thursday. Pence declined to provide details but told the newspaper that making gay and lesbian Indiana residents a protected legal class is "not on my agenda."

    Pence disputes that the law allows state-sanctioned anti-gay discrimination, as some Indiana businesses, convention organizers and others have argued. He says he didn't anticipate "the hostility that's been directed at our state."
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...328-story.html

    I was of the unpopular opinion that discrimination should be allowed in the private sector, because I believed (blah) personal freedom should trump non discrimination practices. This position is problematic because it will slow the U.S.'s cultural and social acceptance of gay (LBTQH.... etc, too many labels) people, which is awful. I'm now of the opinion that this law should be thrown out. I could even see it as being in conflict with section one of the fourteenth amendment, but what the hell do I know?

    So, where do you all stand on this issue?

  2. #2
    igKnight Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    9,142
    My view is simple:

    1. I think the only time a person has a 'right' to be a customer, is to relevant emergency services during an emergency.

    2. I think any time you have a law that explicitly grants one group power to discriminate over another group, you done fucked up.
    --Mention of these things is so taboo, they aren't even allowed a name for the prohibition. It is just not done.

  3. #3
    a cantori Perdix's Avatar
    Type
    INTj
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    the deep end
    Posts
    2,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    1. I think the only time a person has a 'right' to be a customer, is to relevant emergency services during an emergency.

    2. I think any time you have a law that explicitly grants one group power to discriminate over another group, you done fucked up.
    Which do you value more highly?

  4. #4
    igKnight Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    9,142
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    Which do you value more highly?
    mu.

    Edit: for clarity, they aren't mutually exclusive, but they can be mutually compromised.
    --Mention of these things is so taboo, they aren't even allowed a name for the prohibition. It is just not done.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator Polemarch's Avatar
    Type
    ENTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,496
    I'm a bit torn on this too:

    On one hand, I don't think it should be illegal to discriminate. A sensible business person would happily provide goods and services to whoever's willing to pay the most, so if a business person wants to be prejudiced, I think they can do so at their own peril. Extended further, if entire states are full of businesses that want to discriminate against certain people, there are other states full of more intelligent business owners that will happily offer goods and services to those people instead. Economic darwinism will favor the survival of the least prejudiced.

    On the other hand, I do have a problem with the law passed in Indiana, because religion should not be a valid defense against a lawsuit. Your personal beliefs, whatever they may be, should be irrelevant in the eyes of the law. If it's illegal to ___, having certain religious beliefs should not make it legal to ___. It's incomprehensible to me from a legal standpoint.
    We didn't land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us.

  6. #6
    Dr.Awkward Robcore's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,314
    It's interesting to me that a diversity of views and approaches and attempts and interpretations of this bill will emerge so as to exhaust its benefits and identify its limits. It's a very interesting experiment that obviously takes on some basic philosophical positions that people will hold despite the fact that the underlying principles behind them are occasionally at odds.

    While it seems to be a step backward on the surface, it might also accelerate progress in its own way, too.
    ...the origin of emotional sickness lay in people’s belief that they were their personalities...
    "The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." ~Carl Jung

  7. #7
    Limber Member floid's Avatar
    Type
    IXXP
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tierra del Encanto
    Posts
    286
    No representation without taxation.
    Until religious entities consent to it they have no right to expect any laws be legislated to "protect" their beliefs in any way whatsoever.

    And, if they want the state to stay out of their beliefs, they had best recall their obligation keep their beliefs out of the processes of state -- that blurry line is in bad need of being repainted.
    Society is like a stew. If you don’t stir it up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top.
    -- Edward Abbey

  8. #8
    Senior Member Senseye's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,621
    It's silly. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the proposed legislation was about allowing discrimination based on race or color. Sexual orientation certainly falls under the same categorization. And how will the screening process work? Two folks of the same gender walk into a business - can they expect to be grilled about their sexual orientation?

    Political pandering at it's worst. I don't know anything about this governor Mike Pence but I'm will to bet he is an amoral scumbag who would sell his own soul to get in power.

  9. #9
    The Pompatus of Love C.J.Woolf's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    IAD
    Posts
    2,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Senseye View Post
    Political pandering at it's worst.
    That's my take on it. It's another rear-guard action in the culture war.
    "Allow me to introduce myself. My name is reality. Your cries do not move me." -- Sistamatic

  10. #10
    Dr.Awkward Robcore's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by floid View Post
    No representation without taxation.
    Until religious entities consent to it they have no right to expect any laws be legislated to "protect" their beliefs in any way whatsoever.

    And, if they want the state to stay out of their beliefs, they had best recall their obligation keep their beliefs out of the processes of state -- that blurry line is in bad need of being repainted.
    Pretty sure religious people pay taxes.
    Also, there are groups of people, like kids, who don't pay taxes while receiving representation in law...for the same reason that religions are protected by laws--because people that do pay taxes have a vested interest in their advancement.
    ...the origin of emotional sickness lay in people’s belief that they were their personalities...
    "The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." ~Carl Jung

Similar Threads

  1. 2015 Religious Odyssey
    By Makers!* in forum Philosophy & Spirituality
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-08-2015, 07:07 AM
  2. Post Your Religious Deconversion Stories
    By Osito Polar in forum Philosophy & Spirituality
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 01-09-2014, 07:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •