Liberty – Indiana – Discrimination

Freedom of Religion

There has been much ado over the recent bill signed into law in Indiana.  It would appear that the good state has legislated that a business may discriminate based on the owner’s religious bias.  The immediate thought comes to mind of the baker unwilling to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.

My immediate thought is that the law is silly.  There is no need to spell out and create a special exception for religious freedom.  After all, we are all free people and, as such, are free to associate with whomever we please.

But I must admit to the shock I am seeing from people over this bill.  As if it was news that we discriminate in our individual lives.

We discriminate on where we live, where we send our kids to school, who we hire as a babysitter.  Shit, we discriminate on who we date.  But when it comes to who we sell a cake too….back up!

We are a free people.  Free to do as we like with whom we like; as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.  And no person has a right to a wedding cake.

Period.

10 responses to “Liberty – Indiana – Discrimination

  1. What the law really does is protect business owners from civil action in the event that they discriminate under the guise of religious liberty.

    “We are a free people. Free to do as we like with whom we like; as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.”

    Exactly right. And the issue here is whether this “free exercise” infringes on the rights of others. You use the example of the cake. But what about a job? Is it ok to deny a person employment because you don’t like gay people? An argument can be made “yes”. But the person discriminated against normally has a legal venue to bring his case to the courts–to demonstrate harm and sue for damages, if any. Then it’s up to a jury to decide if the business owner’s behavior is reasonable and appropriate. This law shields businesses from such suits, which takes away one of the non-governmental tools available to help modify the market.

    This law is not just about cake. It’s insulting to everyone involve to suggest that it is.

    • What the law really does is protect business owners from civil action in the event that they discriminate under the guise of religious liberty.

      Yes, i agree. And that is the least favorite part of the law. I should be free to enter into association with anyone I want.

      I like non-smokers in my house, so I invite non-smokers to dinner. I like good parents around my kids, so I don’t invite horse shit parents to my play dates. I like intellectual women who are drop dead gorgeous, so I date and marry my wife.

      I discriminate everyday for all kinds of reasons. That tat’d up biker dude? Could care less WHO he is, but I watch my kids closer when he walks in the restroom – and he could be the most liberal professor at UNC.

      I firmly believe that we are free to discriminate against anyone we want to.

      But what about a job? Is it ok to deny a person employment because you don’t like gay people?

      So, again, you are asking me a question as if I were the guy doing the discriminating, I work for a company that has a corporate stance, that I agree with, that says we will NOT discriminate in such a manner. But if a narrow minded ass wants to, they ought legally be allowed to.

      But the person discriminated against normally has a legal venue to bring his case to the courts–to demonstrate harm and sue for damages, if any. Then it’s up to a jury to decide if the business owner’s behavior is reasonable and appropriate.

      Agreed – we live in such a condition. But it is a condition that contains less Liberty. Because we have a bad law that says we cannot freely associate does not mean a law that says we can is bad.

      This law shields businesses from such suits, which takes away one of the non-governmental tools available to help modify the market.

      The market would decimate the firm that discriminates. If Company A could hire all the hippies that Company B turned away, Company A would function at an advantage.

  2. involved*

  3. Oh joy, yet another media-manufactured broughhaha. Notorious right-wing rag, “faux news”, I mean, Washington Post explains this nothingburger using very small words: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/30/what-will-the-indiana-religious-freedom-law-really-do

    Regardless, I suppose the Leftist won’t be happy until they can compel ministers to perform gaymerages for 30 shekels of silver — that would be the final triumph Progressivism over its parent religion.

    • Oh joy, yet another media-manufactured broughhaha.

      Totally agree.

      Regardless, I suppose the Leftist won’t be happy until they can compel ministers to perform gaymerages for 30 shekels of silver

      The leftists will not be happy until they understand they do not have a right NOT to be offended.

      • As a group, they will never understand that — outrage is their primary weapon, and any Leftist who lays down his sword will simply become irrelevant, making way for those who continue the leftward fight.

        • As a group, they will never understand that — outrage is their primary weapon

          An energetic Leftist is the World’s Worst Bully.

  4. Oh, and Memories Pizza just re-opened…$842,000 richer: it’s the Chick-fil-a Effect. The Left’s Alinsky-style attack of personalizing a target, isolating it and cutting-off all of its social capital just doesn’t work so well in the information age where they can’t monopolize the narrative.

    • The Left’s Alinsky-style attack of personalizing a target, isolating it and cutting-off all of its social capital just doesn’t work so well in the information age where they can’t monopolize the narrative.

      Totally agree.

  5. [[[This Christian jeweler agreed to custom-make engagement rings for a lesbian couple, knowing that they were a couple, and treated them politely. But when they found out what he really believed about same-sex marriage, even though the man gave them polite service, and agreed to sell them what they asked for, the lesbian couple balked, and demanded their money back — and the mob threatened the business if they didn’t yield. Which, of course, he did.

    You understand, of course, that this is not about getting equal treatment. The lesbian couple received that. This is about demonizing a point of view, and driving those who hold it out of the public square. Just so we’re clear about that.]]]

    http://tinyurl.com/mjfunkd

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *