TOPIC: Gen Con's letter to the IN governor re SB101

Kirk Bauer wrote:

jedibcg wrote: It gives a group of people a loophole in which laws may not apply to them on grounds of religious belief.

I understand this, but I'm trying to understand why the discussion (not here specifically, just in general) is largely focused around the LGBT community where arguably this could impact many more groups.

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote:

balthasar wrote: As a citizen of Indiana, I am appalled. I am hoping he doesn't sign this hateful bill.

smh..really cant believe it
how was this guy elected

Chip Bowles wrote: Indeed, remember everyone on this forum has likely been denounced as a devil worshipper for playing TD {MAGIC!!!!!! arrghhhhh]

balthasar wrote: In theory, this isn't meant to discriminate against anyone. In practice, it will allow people to discriminate against any specific thing they dislike if they can argue it infringes the practice of their religion. It is essentially how Hobby Lobby argued they shouldn't have to provide abortifacients as part of their employee health care packages. Sadly, birth control was lumped in with that argument.

Druegar wrote:

Chip Bowles wrote: Indeed, remember everyone on this forum has likely been denounced as a devil worshipper for playing TD {MAGIC!!!!!! arrghhhhh]

When I was a kid, my parents forbade me from bring D&D books into the house because they feared I'd be inviting demons into our home (I am not kidding!) Fortunately, I gleefully ignored that idiotic edict.

Disbeeleaf wrote:

Druegar wrote:

Chip Bowles wrote: Indeed, remember everyone on this forum has likely been denounced as a devil worshipper for playing TD {MAGIC!!!!!! arrghhhhh]

When I was a kid, my parents forbade me from bring D&D books into the house because they feared I'd be inviting demons into our home (I am not kidding!) Fortunately, I gleefully ignored that idiotic edict.

I invited demons into my house, but damn it, none came.

Disbeeleaf wrote: I invited demons into my house, but damn it, none came.

Chip Bowles wrote:

Zack wrote: I have a question!

Let's pretend I am a hotel manager. I notice two people in the lobby that want a room that I think are gay. Or maybe it's a lady and a married man (adultery). Whatever. For the sake of this, let's say they told me that they are doing this, or said it in my earshot (and I'm not just guessing).

I can deny them a room (or cancel their previously booked room), because a religion exists that doesn't like that situation. I can do this regardless of my personal religion, because I don't have to prove it's against my religion.

Is that accurate?

For what it is worth (and I am mainly a bankruptcy and Board Gaming attorney) under my reading of the act you don't have to do much, if anything, other than state that it was your religious belief that made you discriminate

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote: She put herself in the situation by opening a store that services the public. If she doesn't want to treat everyone the same she shouldn't have opened a store that serves the public knowing she have serve that public in ways she might not like. Sorry I have no sympathy for her.

And that's why I pointed out she opened the store DECADES before gay marriage was an issue.
But now you're suggesting a religious test, saying that people of certain faiths should be prohibited from opening certain businesses. And that's a violation of equal employment opportunity rights.

If you cannot open a store an service all people the same then yes you should not be opening a store. I don't care of that is 'religious' or bigoted reasons.

Edit: to let some claim that it is okay to discrimination for religious reason and not for other reasons would be to give them a privilege that others don't have. So I say no discrimination regardless of the reason.

I think the reason you and I aren't agreeing on the Oregon case is that we're speaking two different languages. You keep saying "discrimination," which you and I both agree is wrong, and I keep talking about "religious liberty," but I'm not clear on your position about that. You seem to feel it's subordinate, even though it's the only one of the two that's explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. So I say any infringement of it must be done very carefully.

And while my position allows for some compromise, yours does not. So, no point in going on about it looking for common ground.

See you at WYC.

Read the Bill of Rights again. The government is neither establishing one religion nor preventing her from practicing her religion (unless her religion is discriminating bakery). You forget no 9 as well. Unenumerated rights. And 14th is supposed to give equal protection to all under the law.

The Constitution doesn't govern how citizens treat each other. It limits how our government can treat its citizens. So none of your examples apply in this situation.

But like I said.

But it does. Look at hiring laws.

Those are laws, not the Constitution.