60 thoughts on “The Real Hate And Bigotry In Indiana”

  1. I remember a bit of history about John Locke, who went on a diplomatic mission to Brandenberg.

    Locke wrote his friend Robert Boyle, the chemist: “They quietly permit one another to choose their way to heaven; and I cannot observe any quarrels or animosities amongst them on account of religion.”

    The zeal of the left is as vicious as the any Christians of the 17th century. This is a religious war. Only now atheists are part of the war. Until atheists learn to play nice, they will have borders as bloody as Islam.

      1. I see it like it’s happening. It’s not hard to notice the rise of fundamentalist atheism in this country.

        1. “fundamentalist atheism”

          I like that. I am very tired of in-your-face atheists. They are far more interested in ordering my life than Jerry Falwell ever was.

          1. The operative word is “fundamentalist” – to paraphrase Mencken, the fear that somebody, somewhere, may be having a good time. Falwell was damned sure trying to interfere in my life; maybe your beliefs just didn’t intersect with his the way mine did. So was Tipper Gore with her campaign against certain music, for another example – it’s not the politics of the person, it’s the mindset that a fundamentalist has: believing that he or she has the right to order the lives of others as he or she sees fit, just because the way those others live is offensive to the fundamentalist.

            In other words – don’t stereotype atheists based on this brouhaha, any more than I stereotype Christians based on the fundamentalists among them who want to make Christianity the official US religion.

          2. It’s not unlike the Islamist deal. Peaceful Muslims need to step up to the plate and denounce their radical brethren. Ditto, moderate atheists. Christian moderates turned their backs on Falwell, and he ended up marginalized and chastened.

    2. “This is a religious war. Only now [a few] atheists are [choosing to be] part of the war. Until [those] atheists learn to play nice, they will have borders as bloody as [exist in a few] Islam[ic countries].

      Fixed that for you.

      I can’t stand it when people lump all the members of diverse groups together, it shows a tendency to collectivize people – a form of subconscious leftism).

      1. I can’t stand it when people lump all the members of diverse groups together

        Gee Andrew, the last thing I read from you lumped all Americans together and claimed we were violent because we didn’t play futbol or rugby. Perhaps you should drink some of your own medicine. Or is it that you can’t stand yourself either? Whatever the case, certainly not a principled stand on your part.

        1. In that thread I said:
          “I’m not forcing you, or suggesting you be forced to do anything, I’m simply voicing observations, based on those observations I have an hypothesis, which I’m putting forward,”

          The reason I put it forward was to get you people to test/challenge it, there were good replies and the hypothesis is probably a bit silly.

  2. You make an interesting argument with artistic expression, Rand. I’m no lawyer, but I think the problem with the legislation in Indiana is that it’s overbroad: for instance, you say, “No storekeeper is going to refuse to sell a product to someone because they disapprove of their sexual orientation”, but not so long ago there were businesses that refused to service black restaurant patrons in the South because they didn’t believe that races should share a common counter-space. (And religion was certainly used to legitimize all sorts of discriminatory laws.) The law in Indiana makes no distinctions like what you describe, and in theory could be used for modern day Jim Crow treatment of gays. Would you agree that the Indiana law does need to be clarified at the very least?

    1. The Indiana law is virtually indistinguishable from the federal law written by Chuck Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, which since Burwell v. Hobby Lobby extends its protections to private for-profit businesses.

      CNN was so desperate for a difference that they emphasized the slight difference in section 10 (a)(1), “likely to be substantially burdened”, as if that was somehow significant. It’s not. If they’re going to ban Christmas services, you don’t have to wait till after Christmas to file suit over it. Religions have calendars and they can predict when their holidays, ceremonies, and services occur.

      I’ve been stumping liberals by posting the meat of Indiana’s RFRA and the federal RFRA and asking them to figure out which is which. They can’t.

      Second, business like catering discriminate all the time. Where I’m from there are plenty of places that would refuse to cater a Catholic wedding because of all the beer and wine. There are many places that couldn’t even pull off a New York style Greek or Jewish wedding.

      Amusingly, Steven Crowder went to a bunch of Muslim wedding bakeries and tried to get them to make him a gay wedding cake. It was amusing. They suggested he go to Kroger’s.

      If you use the force of law to compel a Palestinian Muslim bakery to cater a drunken gay Jewish wedding, how many guns do the caterers bring, on average? If you compel a wedding photographer to take photos, will the pictures end up posted on an ISIS website?

      1. I saw that video a little while ago. I’m waiting, eagerly, for people like our resident trolls to explain why–or why not–Muslim bakeries shouldn’t be forced to bake wedding cakes for gay people.

    2. It’s kinda embarrassing to have to remind Americans that Jim Crow refers to laws that required people to be racist. People didn’t sit black people at different parts of the counter or require them to sit at the front of the bus because it was good for business. They did it because it was the law.

    3. You make an interesting argument with artistic expression, Rand.

      Thank you.

      Seriously, I’m not sure that the fact that any past action of some business in the south has any relevance to this case. If someone in Indiana actually suffers some harm, then I’ll entertain a discussion on the issue. So far, the only harm suffered has been a small pizzeria.

      Until then, I will consider it just another unjustified battle of the Social Justice Warriors against Christians.

      I would also note that your arguments about “Jim Crow” are disingenuous both because those laws were government-enforced discrimination, and because they were laws put in place by Democrats. Do you really want to go there?

    4. And some people don’t want to allow Christians to own businesses, work in government, or even exist. They want Christians to pay special taxes. And they think being a Christian automatically disqualifies you from full participation in our society. Some of these people don’t even think Christians are intellectually capable enough to operate in society because Christians are viewed as unsentient subhumans.

      Last I checked, no one was telling gays they could not own a business, work in government, or be employed in a STEM field.

      1. And some people don’t want to allow Christians to own businesses, work in government, or even exist. They want Christians to pay special taxes. And they think being a Christian automatically disqualifies you from full participation in our society. Some of these people don’t even think Christians are intellectually capable enough to operate in society because Christians are viewed as unsentient subhumans

        .Ok, color me skeptical but I really, really, want to see examples of what you’re claiming before I’m buying it.

        1. Prior to JFK’s run it was understood that no catholic would be – or should be – elected to the Presidency because the thought was that the White House would be beholden to the Pope.

          It even came up during the 1960 election and JFK had to tamp down worries on that score.

          Some people think Chik-fill-A should be run out of business because of the religious views of the CEO and have said so. If you haven’t heard or read that you aren’t listening or reading enough.

          For example:

          Boston Mayor Blocks Chick-fil-A Franchise from City over Homophobic Attitude
          By Eliana Dockterman July 23, 2012

          http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/23/boston-mayor-blocks-chick-fil-a-franchise-from-city-over-homophobic-attitude/

          A quote from the mayor:

          “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against the population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion. That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.” ”

          Get that? Do you SEE that? Do you know what that MEANS? Really? Chick-fil-A “doesn’t belong in Boston…”

          I doubt you do so I’ll explain it:

          A government official blocked the opening of a business because of it’s views on homosexuality – said views were clearly stated to be religious in nature.

          This is horrible from many points of view:

          1) government should not be deciding which legal businesses should be “allowed” to open. This is not how a free society works.

          2) Especially true if the issue is religion-based.

          So there’s two examples of what Wodun said. I’m not going to bother getting you more examples because you can and really should do your own research.

          1. Maybe you should reread what Woden said, as your comment implies that all Christians must be homophobic.

            He did not say “And some people don’t want to allow homophobes to own businesses, work in government, or even exist. They want homophobes to pay special taxes. And they think being a homophobe automatically disqualifies you from full participation in our society. Some of these people don’t even think homophobes are intellectually capable enough to operate in society because homophobes are viewed as unsentient subhumans.”

          2. Actually, Andrew maybe you should re-read your own challenge and then my response to it. You are very confused.

            You said you wanted examples of what Wodun claimed.

            Ok. So I gave you two. The first one I gave had absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality. It was regarding Catholicism and the Presidency and JFK and is an example of Wodun’s first assertion.

            How you go from that to claiming it says all christians are homophobic it utterly senseless.

            Next example I gave also addresses the first, but also addresses part of the last assertion by Wodun.

            It had to do with christians operating in society and governmental objections to that.

            Now how you get from those two solid examples of Wodun’s assertions to my claiming that all christians are homophobic can only be done with massive quantities of LSD

            :

          4. No president thus far has been openly an atheist or an adherent of any non-Christian religion.

          3. Rand, you must be reading something between the lines, you are referring to the guy Hicks who killed 3 Muslims? The article doesn’t even mention his views on Christians.

          4. Now, if you were putting forward the claim that that guy was evidence that: “some people don’t want Muslims to own businesses, work in government, or even exist. They want Muslims to pay special taxes. And they think being a Muslim automatically disqualifies you from full participation in our society. Some of these people don’t even think Muslims are intellectually capable enough to operate in society because Muslims are viewed as unsentient subhumans” I think you’d have a slightly better case.

          6. Rand Simberg
            April 3, 2015 At 2:35 PM

            Don’t see how that supports the claim that some people think Christians shouldn’t own businesses, work in government, or even exist, that Christians should pay special taxes, are unsentient subhumans and are or should be disqualified from full participation in our society.

          2. Well, if you reread what you said, my response was proper. You said this:

            And some people don’t want to allow Christians to own businesses, work in government, or even exist.

            And I gave you an example.

          3. And I’ve explained that it’s not an example of an attack on people for being Christians, but for being (or more accurately being seen to be) homophobic.

          4. You keep moving the bar.

            You’ve been given examples to Wodun’s claim. You then changed your question about Christians to Christians with implied homophobism.

          5. You’ve been given examples to Wodun’s claim. You then changed your question about Christians to Christians with implied homophobism.

            Totally backwards, Woden claimed discrimination against Christians, I addressed his points, then YOU introduced the subgroup of Christians who’re homophobic, now you’re trying to argue that people who are anti homophobes are antiChistian.

            It’s like saying a lot of people are antiNazi (antihomophobes), the Nazi’s (homophobes) were Germans(Christian), therefore those people are antiGerman(antiChristian).

          6. “See my reply to Gregg above.”

            Your reply to me above was senseless because my first example had nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality, and everything to do with catholics in government (in case you weren’t aware – catholics are christians).

            Secondly nobody is saying all christians are homophobic – we know what you are trying to do and it’s a weak debate tactic. Your broad brush can only work one way and it’s not the way you are using it.

            These “events” at pizza parlors and bakeries etc were not accidental…it wasn’t a gay couple choosing a place at random and running into discrinination. These were set-ups

            Did you notice that no LGBT activists selected muslim-run establishments to make their point?

            The christian ones were targeted – they didn’t know a-priori whether or not the proprietor would refuse their business.

            And all of your replies on this are senseless because the genesis of it all this is:……wait for it…..

            the Religious Freedom Reformation Act.

            The Federal government has one and so do 20 states. Do you imagine that the Acts were deemed unnecessary when they wrote them?
            Or do you figure that maybe the writers felt there is a threat to the civil rights christians (and others), and that those rights must be statutorily protected?

            Wodun was speaking about the war on christianity that has been going on in the US for a couple of decades now.

      2. Y’know, last time I looked, it was a helluva lot harder to be accepted as an atheist in American society than as a Christian. Check out the polls for “least trusted people” in America and you’ll typically find atheists at the top. Can you imagine any politician, except maybe in a couple of very specific areas in the US, proudly proclaiming “I am an atheist”? Have you compared the number of cars displaying the fish symbol with those extolling the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

        And I’ve seen many more screeds over the years about the evils of atheism, how atheists shouldn’t be allowed to vote or hold public office, etc. than “some people don’t want to allow Christians to own businesses, work in government, or even exist.”

        Look, there are loudmouths of all (and multiple) stripes saying stupid things; don’t make the mistake of assuming everybody who overlaps a little shares the same stupidity.

        1. Can you imagine any politician, except maybe in a couple of very specific areas in the US, proudly proclaiming “I am an atheist”?

          Being elected to political office is not a basic human right. Or if it is, it’s a right denied to 99% of the population.

          Have you compared the number of cars displaying the fish symbol with those extolling the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

          How is that relevant? Do you believe it’s illegal to have a Spaghetti Monster bumper sticker on your car? Can you cite the criminal code?

          You are not the victim of discrimination simply because people don’t vote for you or won’t buy your bumper stickers.

        2. “Y’know, last time I looked, it was a helluva lot harder to be accepted as an atheist in American society than as a Christian. “

          Not to the major media. And, an atheist need fear no violence directed against him or her these days.

          We are no longer living in the era where it could be dangerous to be an atheist, rather the reverse. Maybe the last time you looked was a long time ago.

          “Have you compared the number of cars displaying the fish symbol with those extolling the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”

          Frankly, I see a lot more with the cute little feet and “Darwin” inscribed.

          “And I’ve seen many more screeds over the years…”

          We are living in the here and now. I see this so often, people carrying the chips on their shoulders that they acquired in their youth, when the tree from whence the chip came was long since uprooted and discarded.

          1. The lack of reading comprehension demonstrated on this topic is ridiculous; almost like reasonable people lose their sanity when asked to think critically about what they are saying…if people persist in misreading what I wrote, then there’s no sense in continuing the conversation.

    5. I’m trying to figure out why anyone would expect a pizza place to cater a wedding reception. I’m not saying someone wouldn’t be cheap enough to want pizza at their wedding reception. But who needs to pay a pizza employee to serve the pizza to them?

      I’ve been to many events when pizza was the “catered” meal. By catered, I mean the host purchased the pizza and they found a way for it to be served. Not once have I seen anyone from the pizza place do anything more than drop the pizzas off, take payment, and leave. They don’t “cater” the reception so much as deliver the pizza.

      Alas, no one seems to care about how things really work. It was just some reporter who wanted to show discrimination when none existed. And when someone else actually finds the real discrimination (just not in the state where people wanted to find it); the media doesn’t care because “narrative”.

  3. I propose an amendment to the Bill of Rights:

    “Human beings having the right to engage in lawful interaction with whomever they please, Congress shall make no laws prohibiting or compelling the association of one person with any other person.”

    1. The SCTUS has already asserted that freedom of association is covered by the First Amendment.

      From wiki (yeah I know…):

      Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) that “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment” is “a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” In Roberts the Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group’s expression, such as gender.

      However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group’s ability to advocate a particular point of view. Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts’ right to free association.”

      1. “The SCTUS has already asserted that freedom of association is covered by the First Amendment.”

        Funny thing is, despite vocal defense of the practices of the NAACP, Jaycees, Irish-American GLB Group, and Boy Scouts, critics spent 10 years boycotting, deriding, and otherwise browbeating Augusta National Golf Club into finally admitting female members in 2012.

        It’s almost as if Freedom of Association is perfectly okay as long as the associates aren’t old white males.

        I agree with what you’re saying, Gregg, just also pointing out the (seemingly obvious) counterpoint that others may be thinking.

        Because, well, I have a hard time remembering to #checkmyprivilege…

  4. On one side we have people who choose not to do business for certain events they have a moral objection to. On the other we have people who use force of government to compel such business. And this second side has the gall to claim to be on the side or rights and liberty.

    Refusal to do something is not on the same moral plain and doing something to someone forcibly.

    1. Well said!!! The issue is fundamentalism, not the religious beliefs (or lack of same) of the people involved.

    2. This argument that people shouldn’t be compelled to provide a service is not as cut-and-dried as some here seem to imagine. Do you go on to argue that “No Blacks Allowed” signs are OK because it amounts to servitude of the cafe’ or bar owner?

      If we take things case by case different people are always going to draw the line in different places.

      Maybe all business premises must be open to all, but while the artistic thing, and carrying a service onto other peoples premises should be at the discretion of the service provider might look OK, how about other service businesses, plumbers and electricians refusing to attend to jobs in this or that type of peoples homes, would that be OK?

      I don’t see the artistic thing as applying to caterers if they’re just providing food, not artistry.

      So what’s the definable difference argument between the plumbers and electricians and the caterers? Why is service declining OK for caterers, not OK for plumbers, or is it OK for all tradesmen to discriminate on racial or sex orientation grounds when supplying their service?

        1. I think that many caterers would be offended that there is no creativity in what they do. And no, tradesmen are not artists.

          So supplying sandwiches, pizza and other basic food to a function is artistic? Some things plumbers do, I would argue, involves aesthetics.

          1. So supplying sandwiches, pizza and other basic food to a function is artistic?

            Not necessarily, though Subway employees call themselves “sandwich artists.” But how many people do you imagine would want their wedding to be catered with sandwiches and pizza? Particularly gay people?

            Some things plumbers do, I would argue, involves aesthetics.

            They might think so, but I doubt if it ever involves a moral stance.

      2. I see Andrew is doing the hypothetical thing again. Hypothetically, someone or some organization might not do what the government expects them to do. Thus, laws should exist that compel people to behave by the morality dictated by government. That’s how fascist nations work.

  5. But getting back to the main issue, here is how I see it:

    In a free society, where civil rights (including religious freedom) is maximized, a person ought to be able to run an establishment and be free to decide what services to provide to whom.

    If a proprietor is forced by the iron fist of government to serve anyone who demands service – we call this involuntary servitude.

    So, for example, if a potential customer walks into the store and says they would like a cake made for a celebration of a KKK, neo-Nazi, anti-semitic event they are holding, that proprietor ought to have the freedom to decline. They are declining to support an activity. So far every liberal I’ve posed this scenario to agrees they should be able to decline.

    If a gay couple walks in and wants the baker to make them a wedding cake the baker ought to be able to decline. The couple is not injured in ANY way. They can get their cake elsewhere. Here the liberals get their panties in a twist. But the situations are identical.

    If a gay couple walks into a caterer and says they want the caterer to cater their wedding which is on a Saturday, and the proprietor is an Othodox Jew, and is always closed on Saturday, then the gay couple should NOT be able to demand the caterer give them the catering service.

    At the same time, the public is free to disagree with that baker and write editorials and maybe even protest in front of the establishment (so long as they do no damage and do nothing to inhibit patrons from entering the establishment or scream at them etc.)

    That way, the PEOPLE decide how things are going to be. Either the protesters win and the bakery goes out of business. Or the bulk of the patrons like the choices the baker makes and the baker stays in business. Or some businesses decide to bake for gay weddings; others do not and everyone wins. The issue is adjudicated by the people and not government.

    Also, if a person feels they have been discriminated against unfairly (everyone discriminates all the time – sometimes fairly sometimes not), then they are free to take it to court. There, they have to make their case and the baker has to defend themselves.

    By the same token, if a doctor does not want to perform abortions for religious reasons is being forced to by the hospital, that doctor can take it to court for relief.

    The person who feels their religious freedom is being trampled can be either a plaintiff or a defendant, depending upon the situation.

    All the RFRA act does is give the doctor and the baker *standing* with regard to religious reasons. In other words the doctor and baker can mount a defense or a cause of action (i.e. be a defendant or plaintiff) based upon religious freedom. The RFRA wants to statutorily codify that ability and re-affirm the First Amendment. Otherwise the fear is that people can be injured outside of due process. The fear is that a defense/action based upon religion will not be allowed. They STILL have to prove that the actions limit their religious freedom in a serious way. And that’s a very high bar.

    You can’t say you murdered someone because god told you to, and expect that defense to work.

    The baker would have a harder time proving that providing a cake for a gay wedding infringes on their religious freedom compared to the doctor.

    But even there you can have a jury trial and the decision is made by the people. Not as classically liberal as if the decision was made via people’s market choices

    But a WHOLE lot better than the absolute government tyranny of a Boston Mayor refusing to allow a business to open in Boston because he does not like their views.

    1. It makes sense to me. But then I understand the involuntary servitude. You can’t just throw money at me and insist that money makes a contract in which I must follow your demands.

      However, what the government can make your or I do isn’t the real issue. The real issue is that the fascist left believe once you and me decide to do something together (you know, what is meant by the word “corporation”), then we no longer have rights. If corporations have rights, then the government can’t be fascist or socialist. Democrats want fascism or socialism, either one will do; but they can’t have it if states protect corporations like individual citizens. That kind of protection prevents fascism and socialism.

      1. Well….I happen to be an atheist. But that doesn’t prevent me from respecting other people’s religious views.

  6. I’m waiting for the Governors of Connecticut and New York to issue Diktats stating that no worker in their government can visit Michigan on business.

    I’m sure I’ll be waiting for a VERY long time……….

  7. The coersive power of the government should not be used unless there is an overwhelming societal need, and as a last resort.

    In the days of segregation, there was a need, as the behavior was so widespread that it substantially impinged on black peoples’ lives and livelihoods. The best stuff was to be found on the white side of town, and the blacks could not get it.

    Here, things are stood upon their head. The best stuff is, probably more often than not, to be found at the gay-owned and operated bakeries and restaurants. Gay people have no problem securing the things they desire. Yet, they want to force the owners of some insignificant, probably mediocre at best, little pizza parlor, to acknowledge, nay celebrate, how they choose to live and have sex. It’s bizarre.

    Frankly, I would not want food prepared for me by people who don’t want to do it – Jesse Jackson’s account of surreptitiously spitting in the white customers’ dishes comes to mind. I’d rather know who the ones are who don’t want to do it so that I could avoid them, instead of having them forced by law to conceal their antipathy.

Comments are closed.