ADVERTISEMENT

Post Here If You Know Of an Indiana Christian Denying a Service to Someone

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
54,372
35,918
113
Duckburg
on religious grounds.

They found a guy in New Albany who did not want to make a leather belt that said "Satan is Good".
He had one saying "God is Good" displayed, and someone demanded a Satanic equal.

HAVE YOU HEARD OF ANY GAY PERSON BEING DENIED ANYTHING YET?

If yes, post it and let's talk about it.

I assume there are gay married couples/betrothed couples denied rites in a church or by a preacher?
Any others?
 
Are ex-spouses off limits?

Just need to know the parameters of the question . . . .
 
What if a caterer is asked to cater...

...a swinger's party? If it helps, let's assume the party participants are all white and heterosexual.

Should they have the right to decline to cater it on the grounds of objecting to the purpose of the gathering?
 
"Swinger's party"? . . .

You've been over on the OTF again, haven't you . . . and read them ads for the tourneyment, right?

I've got my eye on you . . . .
 
Heh, no.

Actually, I read a story from the UK today that was linked on Drudge discussing the growing popularity of swinger parties in that country. According to this piece, some 1.5 million Brits have taken part in them at one time or another -- which is a number that surprises the heck out of me, if true.

But, the point is, the underlying purpose of such a gathering is adultery. And shouldn't a Christian (or adherent of any other faith that rejects and prohibits adultery) be able to decline the job on these auspices?

I think this issue has too much emotional baggage involved -- because the issue of gay rights is such a hot topic these days.

IMO, people should be totally free to engage in adultery -- be it in a one-on-one trust or in an open forum like a swinger's party. But other people should be just as free to decline having anything to do with it...including providing commercial services for it.
 
Sure - That Can Count - Any Good/Service Based On Religious Belief

but the Swinger Lobby is year's behind the Gay Lobby, so it won't draw much discussion.

I'd say the mere fact that nobody on this board can yet cite an actual single instance of Christian-on-gay discrimination says way more about this "debate" and this "social conflagration" that it deserves.

IMO there are very few people who would deny a good or service to a gay person because they are gay.

I know zero.

Out of those that would, the larger majority group would do it just because they are rednecks - not because of religion.

And yet the few church people who might believe/misbelieve that they should not "condone" homosexuality based on their understanding of their religion - somehow those few people have set the state on fire.
 
Couple of things . . .

(1) You aren't equating a gay wedding - where a monogamous couple exchange vows to spend the rest of their lives together - with a heterosexual swinger's party are you?

(2) Isn't a heterosexual white couple's wedding just a good cover for what really happens, i.e., a swinger's party all but in name only? And if a florist or whatnot will cater to this sort of a wedding . . . (I keed, I keed . . . but only halfway, based on some of the wedding celebrations that I've been to . . . .)
 
What is it with you and "equating"?

No, I'm not making a blanket equivalence the two things. I'm saying that people -- including business owners, who are people last I checked -- should be able to decline to take any part, including providing commercial services, to an event they consider to be in conflict with their religious beliefs. They might not object to doing business with adulterers in a context that has nothing to do with the adultery itself. But they might object to taking part in the adulterous event like a swinger's party. And, yes, they should be able to.

So, if there's any equivalence here, it's merely that many religious people object to both adultery and homosexuality. I didn't imply any equivalency beyond that.

I don't understand your second point at all. A wedding is really just a swinger's party by a different name? Uh, no. And if you don't believe me, ask your wife if you can go to a wedding...then ask her if you can go to a swinger's party. Try telling her they're the same thing!
 
Hmmm

Can you identify anyone who's been sued in Indiana for refusing to bake a cake for gay people? (Or, by the way, any Indiana cases of in person voter ID fraud?)
 
Well . . .

my sense is that you have a habit of thinking of gay relationships in terms of their sex . . . hence raising the question about the equivalence between a gay wedding and a swinger's party.

And the point about the swinger's party and the hetero wedding was to see if you made the same equivalence there . . . nope, and in fact you bristled at it.

Hmmmm . . . .
 
It's not about what I think, Sope.

It's about what somebody might raise as a religious objection. Just as many people object to adultery on religious grounds, so too many people object to homosexuality, in general, and same-sex marriage, in particular, on religious grounds.

That's just a simple and undeniable fact.

Thus my question about swinger parties. And the reason you don't want to say that a religious caterer should be able to decline a request to cater a swinger party, the purpose of which is to facilitate adultery, is because you know that would endorse the general notion that such providers can cite a religious objection to provide services to a particular event.

So how would you answer the question? Should a caterer be able to decline such a request? Or should they be forced to cater it?
 
What If Its Just A Bunch of Promiscuous Singles - No Adultery?

Hell, let's all the way - should achurch be allowed to tell the kids at a church partyy held at the church "no hand holding"?

Who the hell they think they are?
 
No and yes.

If they're selling goods or a service, then it's none of their damned business what use is made of those products and services, unless providing the services would be illegal or for an illegal purpose.

Why? Because people aren't rational, they make decisions based primarily on emotions . . . and being subject to the whims of someone's emotions in commerce is no way to have an orderly society.

Essentially, you're saying that a toll road operator could ask a driver whether they're gay or straight, and whether the driver intended to commit an act of adultery when the driver gets to his/her destination using the toll road. That's nuts.
 
What are you trying to prove?

What if nobody knows of any examples? What have you proven? Please make a reasoned argument using basic statistical theory.
 
Swingers aren't a protected class

Businesses are free to discriminate in all manner of ways, but they can't discriminate on the basis of characteristics like race religion, or national origin, nor should they be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In all of these cases: (1) the characteristic is immutable (except for religion, which is a matter of choice); (2) the group has historically been the victim of invidious discrimination; and (2) the groups like sufficient political power to vindicate their interests through the democratic process. (These are the factors SCOTUS considers in deciding whether to employ heightened scrutiny.)
 
Anyone can cite NUMEROUS examples of Christian-on-gay discrimination

1) John Brown University, a private Christian college in Arkansas, forced an assistant professor named Jason Hough to resign after learning that he was gay.

2) Last summer, a teacher was fired from a Catholic school in California after photos of his wedding to his partner were published in a local newspaper.

3) In 2013 a teacher in Ohio was fired from a Catholic school after her mother's published obituary included the name of the teacher's partner.

4) in 2010, an administrator at a Catholic university in Illinois was fired for getting married in Iowa

5) Recently a security guard at a Christian university in Florida was fired because his employer suspected he was gay

This pdf shows 30 more examples:



Christian-on-gay discrimination cases
 
damn...you and your superior IU education


you seriously had to go to Snopes to figure out that it was satire?!?

good grief
 
the snopes story was where where I first read about this, a long time ago

I think I "friended" snopes on facebook so it shows up on my feed.

I didn't "look up" anything other than to google the snopes story





This post was edited on 3/31 3:36 PM by outside shooter
 
what if it's one of those scandalous interracial orgies

can have that stuff going on in Klandiana
 
the only way to end discrimination is ...

to end all forms of discrimination. This Indiana law was ill-advised and I don't support it but I also don't support Hobby Lobby having to provide abortion pills to their employees or Christians from compromising their beliefs to accommodate someone else's. What next? This could have a snowball effect in the other direction and at some point we have to stop the madness.

We've got to get rid of all protected classes, the Federal Government is the largest discriminator and you don't fix discrimination with more of it. Everyone is equal, that right is guarenteed and now in force. The market will take care of those businesses who discriminate.
 
35 examples are listed, or linked, in my post below

(not in Indiana, but nationwide- the post I respioded to below didn't limit it to Indiana)

Google can give you a lot more.

is God against Googling?

The Bible doesn't seem to mention Google at all, so that's a toughie.

This post was edited on 3/31 3:39 PM by outside shooter
 
Did "the market" end slavery & segregation, give women the vote,

end the burning of witches, etc.?

Usually progress is made when fairness laws are written, passed, and enforced,

while bigoted practices are outlawed.
 
a "long time ago"? the satire site first published it 4 days ago nm


nm
 
oh my

you didn't just compare burning witches to modern times did you? I was speaking about the year 2015. Obviously businesses that discriminate won't last long. Adding more discrimination doesn't wnd discrimination was my point, keep up.
 
Only Because of Bigots Like You

Why do you corn-fed Hoosiers want to impose your sexual morality on those folks who are superior enough to be able handle 50 Shades of Infidelity on a Friday night if they want to?
 
Well, neither are homosexuals. But...

...really, even that's beside the point here.

Seems to me that a cake baker might have no religious objection to baking a cake for a gay person for their birthday or graduation....but might still have an objection to baking one for their wedding. In such a case, are they discriminating against the person or a specific event?

Same goes for swingers. If a guy calls a caterer and asks them to cater an office party, I imagine no caterer would care anything about the man's sex life. If, however, the same man calls about catering a swinger's party, I'm sure plenty of caterers would have religious qualms about getting involved.

And I think it could be fairly said that swingers, as a group, don't have much political power and are often discriminated against. I'm not sure, though, this outweighs any moral or religious objection some caterer might have to serving at one of their, um, events.
 
I'm not saying that at all.


That's why I'm making a distinction between a gay person asking a baker to make him a birthday cake and the same gay person asking the same baker to make him a wedding cake.

It seems plausible to me that a baker might have no qualms about the former, but a sincere objection, grounded in his religion, to the latter. Some may want to shout him down as a bigot for this, as is their right. But that doesn't change the substance of the conflict.

In other words, in the situations I'm talking about, the provider of goods or services would know full well what the purpose is. So I'm not sure where you're going with the "toll booth" thing.
 
There's no difference . . .

between a birthday cake for a gay person and a wedding cake for a gay person. It's a cake, with frosting and decorations . . . that there are two grooms or two brides on top is a miniscule element of the cake.

The baker doesn't have to attend the wedding, doesn't have to clean up any mess at the wedding location . . .

. . . if anybody might have a legitimate objection it's a hotelier who might have to strip the bed and wash the sheets after the wedding night . . . but (a) that's a risk inherent in any wedding, and (b) we've already agreed (I think) that religious objections aren't appropriate in that context . . . .

It's a cake, for heaven's sake.
 
i believe the question that was asked was specific to IN

One case in your was from IN and updated last in 2003. All those cases in indiana point to a real problem.
 
See, that's where you're wrong.


Now, I can believe there's no difference to you. And that's fine.

But, speaking as an adult convert to Catholicism, I can tell you with authority that Matrimony is one of the seven sacraments....birthdays, on the other hand, are not.

Of course, you have absolutely no obligation to respect this yourself. And, quite frankly, most Catholics probably don't respect it much themselves. But some do. Many do. The sacraments are, well, sacred to Catholics. And while you may see no difference in somebody's birthday and their wedding, don't be so presumptuous to say that nobody else should either.

As for the argument that baking the cake doesn't amount to any sort of endorsement of the occasion, I'll just refer back -- at the risk of you emoting again about me equating gays to Klansman -- to my earlier point about providing some service for a Klan event.

Do you think knowingly engaging in such a thing is condoned or sanitized by the defense that "Well, I didn't attend the cross burning. I just made the food for it."
This post was edited on 3/31 6:22 PM by crazed_hoosier2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sglowrider

How to Persuade a Trump Supporter to Reject and Resist Trumpism

Replies
38
Views
4K
The Water Cooler
billyhillui
B
MaxCoke

Nice article about being a human being ... 75% of you won't get it

Replies
47
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
Rockfish1
Rockfish1
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back