current events / pick some

[CrossCuT]

When the Christian bakery denied services for the gay wedding they were not denying service simply because those requesting the cake were gay. They were denying the event which celebrated gay marriage. The event is not a person and the person is not the event.  You want to take away Catholic's, no sorry, everybody's right to refuse to participate in events?  I'm Christian and I would never walk into a gay bakery and force them to provide me a cake for an event  that is against their beliefs and values.  They shouldn't have to provide me service for that nor should a Christian bakery. Yet according to you it should be made mandatory that they must work against thier will to provide services for a belief(s) and event(s) they do not hold or value!? Seriously CrossCuT, it's equal parts hilarious and sad that you think you're protecting civil rights by introducing totalitarianism!

 

 

No one is forcing you to become a baker.

[CrossCuT]

https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf
Here is the text of the law if anyone feels so inclined. 

[KnightofChrist]

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/01/395613897/sorting-fact-from-fiction-from-politics-on-the-indiana-law 

I believe one of the key lines is  "A governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."

Which is intentional ambiguous language for the evet of any discrimination accusation. Basically, nothing will happen with this law unless there is an actual discrimination case. If that happens, it will go to a judge to interpret the law and decide if this indeed applies as a substantial burden or not. It doesnt specifically state discrimination (No law would because thats how they work) but the doors are now wide open for it to occur. The law serves as a means to cover tracks for religious bigots who dont want to get in trouble for refusing services to homosexual people.

Another fun fact is that sexual orientation isnt even in Indiana's general anti discrimination language for other laws so its technically already "legal".

Thank you for your opinion and interpretation for the law. I do not see it the same way.

 

As for your second question about my opinion, I believe I have stated it already. It is my opinion that if you go into any career, service, position or whatever in which you know there are duties you do not want to perform, then you  have the choice to NOT go into that position. If you are in that position you should perform the duties you agreed you would do.

​What an absolute contradiction, profoundly hypocritical, even sick and vile opinion. One one hand you protest discrimination then on the other you have the opinion that someone else should be forced to take part in the murder (the greatest and most vile act of evil discrimination) of someone else. I'm sorry but that invalidates you protest of the law. I very much dislike hypocrisy.

[CrossCuT]

Thank you for your opinion and interpretation for the law. I do not see it the same way.

​What an absolute contradiction, profoundly hypocritical, even sick and vile opinion. One one hand you protest discrimination then on the other you have the opinion that someone else should be forced to take part in the murder (the greatest and most vile act of evil discrimination) of someone else. I'm sorry but that invalidates you protest of the law. I very much dislike hypocrisy.

​Calm down pls. Explain why you think this is hypocritical. I hold all people to the same standards; do the job you chose to do. End. Is this contradictory to anything else I have said?

[Nihil Obstat]

So if I worked in a print shop, I am a bigot if I refuse to print pornographic pictures. Or if I refuse to print pro-abortion signage. If I worked in upholstery - and technically I sort of do - I would be a bigot if I refused to take a job for a strip club or the adult video store next door.

I wonder, if I was the editor for a diocesan newspaper, would I be a bigot if I refused to run advertisements for the local abortuary or Masonic lodge or 'women priest' group?

[Credo in Deum]

No one is forcing you to become a baker.

Nowhere in the profession of being a baker does it say I must provide services for every event.  You're still confusing events with people. I have no problem giving a gay person a birthday cake.  I will not though provide them with a cake to celebrate their "marriage". As a baker I am allowed to chose which events my company is associated with and which ones it is not. Major companies exercise this right all the time when events do not go in toe with their core values or mission statements.   

[CrossCuT]

Nowhere in the profession of being a baker does it say I must provide services for every event.  You're still confusing events with people. I have no problem giving a gay person a birthday cake.  I will not though provide them with a cake to celebrate their "marriage". As a baker I am allowed to chose which events my company is associated with and which ones it is not. Major companies exercise this right all the time when events do not go in toe with their core values or mission statements.   

​Bakers are in the business of selling goods, not a moral compass for others affairs. I dont see your point.

[KnightofChrist]

​Calm down pls. Explain why you think this is hypocritical. I hold all people to the same standards; do the job you chose to do. End. Is this contradictory to anything else I have said?

​Unjust discrimation at it's most basic level is denying someone their basic or fundamental rights. On one hand you protest the law because in your view it commits this offense. Yet on the other hand you do not object to someone being forced to discriminate against a person, that is to deny a baby her most basic and fundamental right to not be murdered. How does being forced to discriminate make it ok to discriminate? It does not. But that is the logical conclusion of the position you've taken. So long as it is a person's job to discriminate they must discriminate. In this case help to deny the most basic right of us all. It is hypocrisy to the extreme.

[CrossCuT]

​Unjust discrimation at it's most basic level is denying someone their basic or fundamental rights. On one hand you protest the law because in your view it commits this offense. Yet on the other hand you do not object to someone being forced discriminate against a person, that is to deny a baby her most basic and fundamental right to not be murdered. How does being forced to discriminate make it ok to discriminate? It does not. But that is the logical conclusion of the position you've taken. So long as it is a person's job to discriminate they must discriminate. In this case help to deny the most basic right of us all. It is hypocrisy to the extreme.

So youre ok with discrimination to prevent discrimination? But what about refusing goods and services when someones life isnt on the line?

[KnightofChrist]

So youre ok with discrimination to prevent discrimination?

​It's ok with you in the case of the nurse.

[KnightofChrist]

The nurse in such a case must discriminate against the child in order to prevent discriminating against the mother.

[Nihil Obstat]

41. If in the difficult times in which Our lot is cast, Catholics will give ear to Us, as it behoves them to do, they will readily see what are the duties of each one in matters of opinion as well as action. As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.

42. Especially with reference to the so-called "liberties" which are so greatly coveted in these days, all must stand by the judgment of the apostolic see, and have the same mind. Let no man be deceived by the honest outward appearance of these liberties, but let each one reflect whence these have had their origin, and by what efforts they are everywhere upheld and promoted. Experience has made Us well acquainted with their results to the State, since everywhere they have borne fruits which the good and wise bitterly deplore. If there really exist anywhere, or if we in imagination conceive, a State, waging wanton and tyrannical war against Christianity, and if we compare with it the modern form of government just described, this latter may seem the more endurable of the two. Yet, undoubtedly, the principles on which such a government is grounded are, as We have said, of a nature which no one can approve.

43. Secondly, action may relate to private and domestic matters, or to matters public. As to private affairs, the first duty is to conform life and conduct to the gospel precepts, and to refuse to shrink from this duty when Christian virtue demands some sacrifice slightly more difficult to make. All, moreover, are bound to love the Church as their common mother, to obey her laws, promote her honour, defend her rights, and to endeavour to make her respected and loved by those over whom they have authority. It is also of great moment to the public welfare to take a prudent part in the business of municipal administration, and to endeavour above all to introduce effectual measures, so that, as becomes a Christian people, public provision may be made for the instruction of youth in religion and true morality. Upon these things the well-being of every State greatly depends.

 

[KnightofChrist]

But what about refusing goods and services when someones life isnt on the line?

​But again you are ok with it when someone's life is on the line. So what does it matter what I think? But I do think that in some cases it would be acceptable to deny someone goods and services. For example if a black baker was asked to make a KKK anniversary cake. Or a Jewish baker was asked to make an Nazi anniversary cake. Or a Feminist baker was asked to make an Anti-Woman cake. Or if a Pro-Life baker was asked to make a Planned Parenthood anniversary cake.

[CrossCuT]

I find it so ironic that you cite civil rights issues (Blacks and KKK) when the thing you are defending would lead to similar discrimination. So you would be ok with a homosexual not baking a cake for a christian marriage equality anniversary cake?

Well dont worry. It looks like youll get your discrimination world as we regress back into the pre civil rights era. Discrimination is going to blow up and it will whip lash back on all of the valiant christians. 

[KnightofChrist]

I find it so ironic that you cite civil rights issues (Blacks and KKK) when the thing you are defending would lead to similar discrimination. So you would be ok with a homosexual not baking a cake for a christian marriage equality anniversary cake?

Well dont worry. It looks like youll get your discrimination world as we regress back into the pre civil rights era. Discrimination is going to blow up and it will whip lash back on all of the valiant christians. 

As a matter of law, I would not sue or have the person arrested. As a matter of business I simply would not do business there. Try as you might to turn the table around, but in the end you support discrimination at it's worse and it does invalidate your position. I'm sorry.

[Credo in Deum]

​Bakers are in the business of selling goods, not a moral compass for others affairs. I dont see your point.

Bakers are allowed, and have the right,  to be moral compasses for themselves.  This is where you're failing to understand the issue.  Business owners should not have to provide services for events which go against their core beliefs and values.  Companies have a right to make this decision and accept the consequences of doing so from a financial/business standpoint.  Companies also have the right to set their own quotas as to how much profit they would like to make each year, which means if a company feels it has enough profit, or is making enough to meet  thier own quota, then the company does NOT have to accept business from anyone for any reason. 

You want to enact laws which do not allow business owners to be owners.  That is discrimination against a person's fundamental right to beleive what they want and to do what they want with their own property.

[Credo in Deum]

A quoted that was sent to me from a Facebook status, which I feel is fitting:

"Interesting that Tim Cook and Apple, along with all the others who are boycotting the state of Indiana are doing EXACTLY what this law allows Christians to do....refuse to do business because of their beliefs.  What a bunch of hypocrites!  They would destroy an entire state just for the satisfaction of squelching Christianity!!  It is time to shut down some companies!!"

 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[veritasluxmea]

"Interesting that Tim Cook and Apple, along with all the others who are boycotting the state of Indiana are doing EXACTLY what this law allows Christians to do....refuse to do business because of their beliefs.  

 

​This is why I can't take people who are against this seriously. 

[Ice_nine]

Apple is boycotting Indiana?!

 

The first time I've ever considered moving to Indiana.

[Ice_nine]

http://theweek.com/articles/547448/overblown-hypocrisy-tim-cooks-business-boycott-indiana

I thought this article was succinct and to the point.

Some quotes: "f one establishment refuses to service gay customers, there are myriad others that will, imposing no severe hardship on them. To insist on being served by the few people whose beliefs would be violated seems more like a projection of power rather than a plea to secure legitimate rights."

"But what's truly obnoxious about his campaign is that he is using his right not to do business with Indiana, because it's doing something he disagrees with, to obtain a law that would deny Indiana businesses the same right not to do business with folks who they don’t agree with. This is simply intolerance masquerading as a crusade for justice and equality — a naked use of brute market power to legislate his views."