Voicelessness and Emotional Survival > Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board

Indiana: What's next? The right not to serve agnostics and atheists?

<< < (2/2)

Dr. Richard Grossman:

--- Quote from: Gaining Strength on April 05, 2015, 11:50:02 PM ---Having grown up in Birmingham, AL, as a young child my family frequented Ollie's Bar-B-Q, a restaurant famous in part for a landmark legal case in which it was ruled that Ollie's could not refuse to serve customers based on race.  Though such discrimination did not violate state law it did violate federal law.  This entire case hinged on the ruling that federal law applied because the restaurant received its food via interstate commerce and thus federal law would apply. 

I see such strong similarities between these two situations.  No doubt in my mind that had federal law not intervened that we would still be living in the segregation of 1960.

The reason to discriminate have no end.  The possible categories for exclusion are countless.

--- End quote ---

Hi Gaining Strength,

Thanks for the personal example!



--- Quote from: mudpuppy on April 06, 2015, 06:47:27 PM ---Did any business or individual refuse to serve a homosexual for anything not related to a ceremony or event in violation of their religious beliefs and did the law purport to give them the right to do so?

Didn't the law instead allow businesses and individuals the right to decline to participate in a wedding of homosexuals and other specific events which violate their religious beliefs only?

Is a bakery owned by homosexuals compelled under the law to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist nuts which states that "God Hates Fags"?

There actually exists a first amendment which does recognize quite broad and long recognized rights of religious exercise. One might note the country was founded upon such freedoms and by those seeking such freedoms. Compelling someone to violate those rights and beliefs is what is occurring. You can call it "the right not to serve" but what is being promulgated without such laws is the state forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs or face civil and criminal penalties for refusing to knuckle under.

mud

--- End quote ---

Hi Mud,

On this issue, we’re going to have to agree to disagree ;-)  But I'm glad you expressed your opinion.

Richard

mudpuppy:
Not sure what you're disagreeing with Doc, that homosexuals shouldn't have to bake a cake with a message that violates their consciences or that the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, but since I do believe in freedom for everyone, not just protected classes that the state favors, I'll defend to the death you're right to be wrong. : )

mud

Dr. Richard Grossman:
Thanks, Mud.  It's always good to hear another viewpoint, so clearly stated.

Richard

Overcomer:
I guess my belief is if you go into business to provide a service then you are obligated to provide everyone that service.  I guess it's having to put words on the top of the cake that is protected.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page