While I agree wholeheartedly with this, there are some occasions that might be acceptable for a business to do this and still be just fine. For example, what started the whole crap to begin with - wedding cakes. A bakery that refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple on religious grounds wouldn't likely suffer, as the vast majority of cake requests would not fall under this category.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Arkansas lawmakers pass religious-belief bill
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
While I agree wholeheartedly with this, there are some occasions that might be acceptable for a business to do this and still be just fine. For example, what started the whole crap to begin with - wedding cakes. A bakery that refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple on religious grounds wouldn't likely suffer, as the vast majority of cake requests would not fall under this category.
While I agree wholeheartedly with this, there are some occasions that might be acceptable for a business to do this and still be just fine. For example, what started the whole crap to begin with - wedding cakes. A bakery that refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple on religious grounds wouldn't likely suffer, as the vast majority of cake requests would not fall under this category.
If the refusal to make the cake was kept quiet then the business would likely not suffer any consequences. However we live in a world with wide-spread social media - as soon as the refusal to make a cake is out in the public domain, the bakery would likely suffer significant business consequences. To illustrate this point, every single bakery that made the news for refusing to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple has closed within three months of the event being made public. I refuse to believe claims that their sales did not drop and the closing had nothing to do with the media attention.
But this gets back to... should the government regulate businesses from making stupid business decisions that do not cause physical harm to the public (e.g. bad ingredients in food). Shouldn't businesses be allowed to succeed or fail on their own without government interference in decisions on whether to accept business or not? Or should the government be a nanny to businesses and effectively demand that they wear bicycle helmets and knee pads. How far should regulation go?
If the refusal to make the cake was kept quiet then the business would likely not suffer any consequences. However we live in a world with wide-spread social media - as soon as the refusal to make a cake is out in the public domain, the bakery would likely suffer significant business consequences. To illustrate this point, every single bakery that made the news for refusing to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple has closed within three months of the event being made public. I refuse to believe claims that their sales did not drop and the closing had nothing to do with the media attention.
But this gets back to... should the government regulate businesses from making stupid business decisions that do not cause physical harm to the public (e.g. bad ingredients in food). Shouldn't businesses be allowed to succeed or fail on their own without government interference in decisions on whether to accept business or not? Or should the government be a nanny to businesses and effectively demand that they wear bicycle helmets and knee pads. How far should regulation go?
The cake shop in Denver and the florist in Seattle were closed due to lawsuits, not by lack of business. In Seattle the legislation was brought by the State's Attorney General. I'll agree refusing business isn't the preferred course of action. However there are rare instances where a Business' identity is encapsulated in religious concepts or doctrine. The Catholic Church and it's stance on contraception, Hobby Lobby and abortive contraception are prime examples. To force them to practice business outside their core religious beliefs is wrong.
What I can't understand in the baker or florist lawsuits is where the plaintiffs were damaged? It isn't like they were the only baker or florist in the area, they could and am sure they found another business willing to provide them flowers and cakes. In Stutzman's (Seattle Florist) case it was the state that brought charges, I see that case as being the example here.
One of my favorite places to eat is a Mediterranean restaurant here in town, they serve authentic home-made Indian cuisine, best I've ever had, anywhere. Owner is a good acquaintance of mine. I know I'd be refused service and deeply offend him if I ordered a cheeseburger.......even though I know his religious beliefs should I sue him when he refuses me? Of course not, it would be bad manners on my part to ask.
Last edited:
The cake shop in Denver and the florist in Seattle were closed due to lawsuits, not by lack of business. In Seattle the legislation was brought by the State's Attorney General. I'll agree refusing business isn't the preferred course of action. However there are rare instances where a Business' identity is encapsulated in religious concepts or doctrine. The Catholic Church and it's stance on contraception, Hobby Lobby and abortive contraception are prime examples. To force them to practice business outside their core religious beliefs is wrong.
What I can't understand in the baker or florist lawsuits is where the plaintiffs were damaged? It isn't like they were the only baker or florist in the area, they could and am sure they found another business willing to provide them flowers and cakes. In Stutzman's (Seattle Florist) case it was the state that brought charges, I see that case as being the example here.
While there may be a couple of bakeries closed due to lawsuits or regulators. Most simply went out of business because of their poor business decision to discriminate. I will start with the following as an example...
Owners who refused cake for gay couple close shop
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/27/anti-gay-marriage-bakery-gone/24133651/
INDIANAPOLIS — A bakery that drew protests for refusing to prepare a cake for a gay couple has closed its doors.
I don't believe for a minute the claims "the business was still profitable"... if it was then they would have sold the business rather than closed it. The reality is that sales dropped by nearly 90% and the business reputation was so damaged they could not even sell the bakery to another owner.
Bullshit answer. All section seven does is define the word "person". The Context of the law is defined in section Eight.
Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual.
(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes.
(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that:
(A) may sue and be sued; and
(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:
(i) an individual; or
(ii) the individuals;
who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
The context of the law defined in section 8 is virtually identical. Yes it applies to individuals, the businesses they own, Corporations they may hold stock in and the Churches they attend. Not to exclude the Corp and Church themselves.
For your other concerns they are not addressed in the 1993 Federal Act.
The rights of a person who feels they have been discriminated against haven't diminished, they have avenues to seek on an individual basis. This keeps Governments out of the process and protects religious rights.
Try again.
Horseshit response. Section 7 is a fundamental difference in provision to Federal law. The difference which you asked for.
And it has profound consequences with regard to intent of the bill.
While there may be a couple of bakeries closed due to lawsuits or regulators. Most simply went out of business because of their poor business decision to discriminate. I will start with the following as an example...
Owners who refused cake for gay couple close shop
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/27/anti-gay-marriage-bakery-gone/24133651/
INDIANAPOLIS — A bakery that drew protests for refusing to prepare a cake for a gay couple has closed its doors.
I don't believe for a minute the claims "the business was still profitable"... if it was then they would have sold the business rather than closed it. The reality is that sales dropped by nearly 90% and the business reputation was so damaged they could not even sell the bakery to another owner.
You may be right, I don't normally pay attention to such, only when it hits the national panic level and most of the times I'd say it's better to serve all customers. But I'll respect the rights of the business owner to refuse and give my business to another who is willing. But there again I don't see this as an everyday problem, and I totally disagree with racial discrimination. The consensus is that it will open the door for wide spread discrimination, which hasn't been the case in any of the States that have adopted such language.
Horseshit response. Section 7 is a fundamental difference in provision to Federal law. The difference which you asked for.
And it has profound consequences with regard to intent of the bill.
Here is the text of Indiana's law. Basically a photo-copy of the law in other states.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/
Here is the Washington Post's summary of the differences -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ndiana-law-the-same-as-a-law-backed-by-obama/
Horseshit response. Section 7 is a fundamental difference in provision to Federal law. The difference which you asked for.
And it has profound consequences with regard to intent of the bill.
If I'm in business for my self, then my personal identity and my business share a unique set of convictions...... mine. The same applies for a partnership or business where the controlling interests are held by like minded individuals. All section seven does is apply the interests of the individual(s) to his/hers/their assets.
The Law is the same and there are no profound differences or consequences.
You may be right, I don't normally pay attention to such, only when it hits the national panic level and most of the times I'd say it's better to serve all customers. But I'll respect the rights of the business owner to refuse and give my business to another who is willing. But there again I don't see this as an everyday problem, and I totally disagree with racial discrimination. The consensus is that it will open the door for wide spread discrimination, which hasn't been the case in any of the States that have adopted such language.
I agree with you - I do not see how this law will open the door for wide spread discrimination. If business owners want to discriminate then let the free market take care of the situation - they will eventually be out of business.
The eventual question becomes --- if a business can discriminate against homosexual couples on religious grounds then are they free to refuse business to minorities such as blacks on religious grounds? Where is the line drawn. How is this handled under civil rights laws?
Here is the text of Indiana's law. Basically a photo-copy of the law in other states.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/
Here is the Washington Post's summary of the differences -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ndiana-law-the-same-as-a-law-backed-by-obama/
"In broad strokes, the Indiana and Illinois laws are similar. But there are a couple of important differences,"
Differences are differences. That's what you asked for.
Those supporting a religious angle will say those differences will not amount to anything.
If you look around, legal experts are saying it does.
Not just from the State any more but from anyone and any entity, so far without balancing redressit only protects individuals from undue burdens from the State in regards to religious beliefs.