back to article Dot-com intimidation forces Indiana to undo hated anti-gay law

Indiana's politicians are racing to "clarify" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that has caused such a kerfuffle in the state. Technology giants like Apple, Salesforce.com, Oracle, EMC, Pivotal, and Angie's List led the charge against the law, which would have allowed business owners to boot out customers who …

Page:

  1. Graham Marsden
    Mushroom

    I wonder how they're going to know?

    Perhaps they could come up with some way for gay people to be easily identifiable, say a pink triangle sewn on to the clothing?

    (Can you pre-emptively Godwin an entire El Reg comments thread...? ;-) )

    1. Bakana

      Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

      No to the Pink Triangle.

      Rainbows.

      Next Problem: Gay Leprechauns...

      1. Ole Juul

        Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

        You can always ask them, I guess.

        "If a gay couple non Christian came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no," said the pizzeria's owner Crystal O'Connor. "We are a Christian establishment. We're not discriminating against anyone, that's just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything."

        There, fixed that. Yep, not discriminating.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

          Someone once said to me a good rule-of-thumb on discrimination is if you take the group of people mentioned and substitute the word "Jew". If the resultant text leaves your blood running cold you know it's bad...

        2. BongoJoe

          Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

          I am more concerned about pizza being served for the wedding breakfast.

          Refusal in this case is in the interests of good taste.

        3. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
          Angel

          Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

          "non Christian"

          I was thinking more along the lines of how I'd handle a non Pastafarian ordering pizza from my establishment ..... without the obligatory side of spaghetti.

          Infidels, the lot of them!

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

          Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is NOT anti-gay, in the same way that the U.S. Federal No Child Left Behind is NOT anti-education. But both laws have unintended flaws that can be misused.

          In the same vein, can't the same Indiana law can be seen as anti-Christian and anti-Semitic when applied to Muslim-run businesses? DOH!

          Thank you, Iain Thomson, for your hyperbole in fanning the flames of anti-Christian bigotry. From the comments here, I see that you have been successful. Hope you're proud of yourself.

          I look forward to the downvotes of the self-righteously intolerant.

          1. JEDIDIAH
            Mushroom

            Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

            > I look forward to the downvotes of the self-righteously intolerant.

            You're an idiot. Who is agitating for the law? The people agitating for this law are the retarded sorts that think their liberty includes the right to oppress. They're like the original Puritans that landed at Plymouth Rock not because the Dutch were such poor hosts. Their "persecution" in England was probably also overrated.

            They came to America to be free to abuse those around them and isolate their followers from different ideas. They were much like a cabal of Mormon "fundementalists".

            Never mind the fact these idiots are acting in a blatantly un-christ-like fashion.

            These people actually need to crack open the book sometime.

            1. BillG
              Headmaster

              Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

              >The people agitating for this law are the r******d sorts that think their liberty >includes the right to oppress.

              Um, @JEDIDIAH, that's a pretty bold statement. Most people seem to feel the law was just worded wrong. So you're going to have to supply some proof that what you ranted is exactly what the people wrote this intended, and this it isn't an "unintended consequence".

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

              The purpose of the law was to prevent the GOVERNMENT from forcing someone to do something that infringed upon their religious beliefs without also providing proof that the (a) the requirement was in the best interests of the state and (b) that there are no less-restrictive ways to do it.

              On the whole, I find nothing wrong with those sentiments - they are basically a direct extension of the US Constitution, and If you find something wrong with them then you are actually advocating state-sponsored oppression of religious expression.

              The law did not say that anyone could discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation - that was mostly FUD sown by those pushing for publicity and their own agenda. Businesses in the state of Indiana and most other states already have the ability to deny services to anyone they choose for whatever reason, and they aren't even required to tell you why they are refusing service. This law doesn't change that.

              1. dan1980

                Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

                @AC

                "Infringed upon their religious beliefs . . ."

                Huh? This is the kind of claim that is always trotted out but it is never explained how exactly one's religious beliefs are being infringed.

                A Christian (or anyone else) is free to hold whatever beliefs they want. But what they actually do is another matter altogether. It's perfectly legal to believe that all black people should be killed. But to actually go out and kill black people is, well, illegal.

                The fact that killing people is illegal, however, does not infringe those 'beliefs', and neither does the requirement to serve customers regardless of their colour or race or orientation.

                A Christian* can hold the belief that gay people are satan-worshipping abominations dedicated to ruining the great Christian traditions of the USA by 'recruiting' children to be gay. They are welcome to do so, but they can hold that belief while serving them pizza or selling them shoes.

                Religious freedom is the freedom of belief - of worship. It is the freedom to believe whatever you want and not be discriminated because of it. It is manifestly not the freedom to act however you want.

                Some people think that it is but those people are wrong. Indeed, the idea that a Christian florist could refuse to sell flowers to someone because they are a Muslim is discriminating on religious grounds - the very thing that people who support these types of laws allege is happening to them - that somehow the requirement to not discriminate is discriminatory.

                It's wrong-headed in every way.

                As a person, you can, of course, discriminate as much as you like. You can choose not to associate with gay people - or French people, or short people, or blond people, or people wearing red shoes, or not wearing red shoes, or people who listen to Enya (that's my rule, at least), or people who support whichever sports team you dislike, or who like mayonnaise on their fries instead of tomato sauce.

                That's your right. You can view those people as outsiders and teach your children that they are deviants who exist solely to destroy your way of life while reading to them from your holy book, quoting the passages that explain that all people under 5ft 8in are malformed and born of the evil god Marmaduke or the one that lays out which colour singlets one must wear on Thursdays and how sleeping on your side is a mortal sin that will be punished mercilessly by the Great Celestial Pig, Clive. You can preach it to your friends and hold services in your garage where you extol the virtues of Birkenstocks and administer the holy rites of anointment with cheese-whip and presentation of grey 8x2 Lego tiles to the righteous while the high priest, Joe from next door, carves the names of sinners into lemon cake.

                That is your religious freedom as an individual.

                BUT, if you own a business that services the public, then you must serve people without discrimination. If you really and truly can't do that - if your religious beliefs expressly forbid you from selling Gerberas to gay people or people called "Kevin" then so be it - you have the right to close your flower shop and no one will ever require you to tie ribbons around crepe paper for lesbians again.

                There are certain things in society that carry obligations. If you want to make home-made mayonnaise to eat while reading Alice in Wonderland and listening to Bananarama's greatest hits, played backwards - go nuts. I won't be coming over to your house any time soon and might recommend that the neighborhood children avoid your door on Halloween but you're free to do what makes you happy. If, however, you want to make some aioli for use as a dressing in your cafe, you have to adhere to certain standards to prevent people getting food poisoning from potential contamination with the raw eggs. If your religion, for whatever reason, insists that eggs be kept at room temperature for 3 hours to properly sancitfy the yolk, well, that's all well and good and you can do that in your own home if you want, but if you want to serve it at a cafe, the authorities are going to want a word with you.

                Now, this whole anti-discrimination is not so wide-reaching as it is sometimes believed and much is dictated on a state-by state basis, given that the federal law is fairly specific and limited in scope. My point is not about what any individual state legislation may or may not prohibit. What I am saying is that one's freedom of religion is a freedom to believe what you want, not act however you want.

                If you believe Norwegian people shouldn't be allowed to buy hotdogs because they're not Americans then that's fine but requiring you, as a hotdog vendor, to sell hotdogs to people of all races does not somehow breach your right to believe that.

                It's interesting that you talk of religious "expression". What does that mean, exactly? What, beyond the right to believe what you want, does the right to religious expression cover, and why should it trump the rights of other people to non-discriminatory treatment.

                Not to want to turn a tragic event into a facetious comment, but were the terrorist attacks of September 11 a group of Muslims "expressing" their religious convictions? If my religion teaches me that disobedient children should be beaten with a rod then how far does this freedom allow me to "express" that belief? Is battering my son somehow a protected right simply because it is a religious conviction?

                The examples that are given by people like Bobby Jindal - specifically the idea of caterers or florist being 'forced' to 'participate' in a gay wedding is interesting in that there is a clear distinction in his view between a restaurant serving diners and a caterer providing catering for a function.

                That is certainly a distinction, but I don't see how it is relevant. Restaurants and caterers are, generally, separate businesses. If you own a catering company then that is your job - catering. That job is providing product (the food) coupled with a service (the catering).

                The point of non-discrimination is that whatever service or product you provide, you should provide it on a non-discriminatory basis. Someone who owns a catering business made a decision to do so with an understanding of what that entails. They weren't forced to run a catering business and, running one, they certainly aren't forced to, for example, provide certain foods (e.g. a Jewish catering company isn't forced to provide lobster or bacon). BUT, having chosen to do so, they should run that business in a non-discriminatory manner, exactly as if they had decided to open a restaurant instead.

                I appreciate the distinction between the two businesses but simply do not accept that this provides sufficient reason to allow one to discriminate where the other cannot.

                And, if it does, why stop at religion? What is really and truly so special about that as a justification for discrimination? What if you're a racist? Cannot the conviction that black people are sub-human and unclean and should not be allowed to marry white people be just as strongly held by a racist as the conviction that two men should not be allowed to marry can be held by a Christian?

                Or a sexist? Couldn't my father have brought me up to truly believe that women are of less worth than men and that their place is at home; that they shouldn't have jobs and that their responsibilities are cleaning, cooking and raising children? If I hold that belief deeply and honestly - to the satisfaction of whatever test is applied - should I be allowed to refuse to sell a woman a car unless her husband is there to make the decision?

                This is the crux of the argument - that a religious conviction not only provides justification to be discriminatory where it would otherwise be unacceptable, but is a stronger and more important form of conviction than any other.

                Taking it on myself to speak for the non-religious amongst us - get over yourselves. There's nothing special about what you believe just because it was written in some books and intoned by robed priests or enthused at you by slick preachers in expensive suits.

                Those who claim that these laws are necessary to protect their "religious expression" are the same people who take it as a personal insult when some store decides to use Halal meat, or replaces its 'Merry Christmas' signage with 'Happy Holidays' to cater to Islamic customers and staff.

                They view everything as an attack on their religion, which they - of course - see as somehow special and to be protected above all other concerns. Because it's not "religious" freedom they care about - it's the protection of one particular set of beliefs. They view America as a 'Christian Nation' and claim that 'liberals' and 'moral relativists' and 'the gay brigade' are "forcing" their way of life upon them.

                No one is "forcing" anyone to "participate" in a gay wedding and threating to fine them if they don't. At least no more than the government "forces" people to have a drivers license and fines them if they don't. Which is to say that if you want to drive, you have to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't drive. You don't get to drive without a license because your religious beliefs state that capturing your image on an identity card is tantamount to enlisting you in Satan's army, which will be commanded from the UN and ordered to take over the world during the tribulation.

                If you don't want to follow the rules that apply to catering businesses then don't start a catering business. You may well have the right to do so, but that right - like so many in society - comes with responsibilities so the choice is yours: be a caterer and cater weddings or don't. Just stop whining that your are being "forced" to do something against whatever belief you hold. You can't have it both ways just because "religion".

                1. dan1980

                  Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

                  Of course, what I have said above relates to any religious beliefs but I have mentioned Christianity most because that's what the proponents of the legislation mention, with Bobby Jindal saying, in one interview: "So I was disappointed that you could see Christians and their businesses face discrimination in Indiana".

                  No concern about Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Sikhs? Mandaeans? Bantu? Raëlians? Wiccans? Jains?

                  And what about Satanists - is Governor Jindal also concerned about them and their freedoms? Satanists surely need every bit as much protection as Christians. Indeed, being numerical much smaller, they arguably need MORE protection. No?

                  The point, again, is that freedom to believe something does not confer or imply the freedom to act upon those beliefs and, as the freedom to believe what you want has never been infringed or curtailed, there is no need to restore it.

                  What these people are saying is that they should have the right to be excepted from certain laws because they are religious and that is a different thing altogether.

            3. Dan Paul

              Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

              I beg to differ. It is YOU that need to be educated.

              The oppression of the Dutch and English Episcopalians against the Puritans is very well documented. This happened during the "Reformation" and adversely affected many religious denominations.

              Forcing people to reject their faith by law upon penalty of death is hardly "overrated" or "retarded" although posting your obvious lack of knowledge certainly is both.

              So the English and Dutch were no better than ISIS or BOKO HARAM because they tortured those who did not follow their ways.

              Try here http://history.hanover.edu/texts/engref/er86.html

              and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Puritans_under_Elizabeth_I

              The Puritans came here to avoid the religious laws of both countries, thus the eventual Freedom of Religion expressions in the Constitution.

              This country was officially founded as a Christian country whether you like it or not.

              And again you don't even understand your own examples when you mention the Mormons, who held radically different religious beliefs from the Christians so they moved from just outside Rochester NY to Brigham City and elswhere in Utah in search of religious freedom.

              I have quite a good understanding of this situation as I was one of 300 Catholics that lived in Brigham City, Utah in the late 1950's and we came from the Western New York area and ultimately moved back there. As long as we didn't try to force our ideals on Mormons, they didn't bother us. That's called "Tolerance", something that you and the rest of you bullys don't grasp.

              And Brigham City was rather "Fundementalist" Mormon as polygamy was fairly common.

              As I said before, your LGBT shouting and activism does not trump my rights to religious freedom. You are no better than Hitler and his minions if you think so. Put plain and simply, these laws protect us from your atheistic, bullying tactics.

          2. David Walker

            Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

            Yes, this law was exactly intended as such. And it's not self-righteous to point out that religious RESTORATION is a completely trumped up issue. There is nothing to Restore - the guarantee of religious freedom is only that - you can freely associate and choose a religion - and it's not been repealed. Christian paranoia about the erosion of the church usually gives examples like: not having civic government putting up nativity scenes, banning the ten commandments from hanging in court rooms, etc. But these are fallacious and non-facts - you can't restore something in government that is/was EXPLICITLY excluded by the Foundational documents. These things were NEVER supposed to be done in the first place and indeed - most of the Founding Fathers say as much:

            "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - George Washington

            "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson

            'The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S."

            AND

            "[T]here remains [in some parts of the country] a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst."

            ― James Madison

            Restoration is a red herring. What these laws are about is a pathetically paranoid, anachronistic, aging, caucasian and increasingly impotent group of racist, homophobic, xenophobic people angry because there are too many blacks, too many minorities, too many gays, too many high school graduates, in an increasingly changing world and they use the facade of occupying the religious moral high-ground to attack others and to create laws they can hide their bigotry behind.

            1. Dan Paul

              Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

              You are the BIGOT, YOU are the Atheist, YOU are the THEOPHOBE, who hates anyone with faith because you are so dissatisfied with your life you have to attack others.

              YOU and YOURS go out of your way to mess with the rights of the religious. WE didn't start it.

              AND YOU don't ever get to tell me how to practice MY religion EVER! THOSE tenets are enshrined in the Constitution regardless of what statements you cherry pick from the founding fathers. Except we know there were way more than you chose for your examples.

              And even the "Separation between Church and State" is a direct result of the religious intolerance that England and the Royals fostered for centuries.

              1. dan1980

                Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

                @Dan (Paul)

                Okay, three things.

                One is the question of whether the country was, as you say, "officially founded" as a Christian nation. This assertion, essentially, relies on the proposition that when a small collection of Puritans landed (mostly) in New England, that that was the "official" founding of the country.

                Your opinion on the matter seems to be clear, but I would point out that you also hold up the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. So, is the important part the Pilgrims and Puritans who arrived in the early 17th century or the wars of independence and creation of the "United States of America" in the late 18th century?

                I think you might find that, while the Puritans (and Pilgrims before them) certainly established colonies, it would be a bit of a stretch to suggest that they, in any sense, "officially founded" the country. You don't specifically claim they did, of course, but your assertion about it occurs in your post about the Puritans rather than the one that mentions the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

                Second, your statement that the Puritans left England to avoid persecution is not entirely accurate. Not entirely inaccurate, but missing some important subtleties that matter rather a lot. At the time of their migration, there had developed a measure of peace between the religious divisions in England and independent churches were already being established. There were also mainstream figures who were openly puritan. Which is not to say that there was not conflict, but that the conflict was not of the nature that some suggest.

                Further, one important reason for their emigration was that they were dissatisfied with the reforms occurring in England, though the specifics are somewhat more complex given that there were different groups with different sets of beliefs and goals. But, essentially, the main reason for their emigration was not to escape 'torture' but to set up their own colonies with their own specific sets of beliefs, following from the Dutch.

                Third, and this is the big one. The you do not have a right to practice your religion however you want. You have the right to believe what you want and, if you want to hold services in your front room dressed in turquoise shorts and wearing a dead fish on your head, then that is your right. BUT, that freedom only extends so far.

                If part of your religious PRACTICE is to sacrifice children then, well, you don't get to do that, no matter how old your holy book or how well-established your religion. You don't get a free pass by indignantly shouting "you don't get to tell me how to practice my religion".

                Now, you can't be told how you must practice your religion but the law tells you things that you can't do, regardless of whether a holy book or a preacher tells you to or not.

                So, you can't be forced to go to a particular church and preachers and priests and rabbis and muftis can't be forced to wear certain official robes or speak in latin. Nor can you be forced to pray to the god Set, nor forced to have your children circumcised.

                But, while you can't be forced to do something religious, you can be prevented from doing something religious - if it clashes with the existing laws. So, a woman can't be forced to wear a niqab or hijab when she goes out but she can be banned from walking around a shopping centre stark naked and no amount of appeal to religious freedom trumps the existing laws on public decency.

                This is the whole debate over Sharia law in non-Islamic countries - you don't get to beat your wife for being unfaithful and you don't get to flog or hang or behead someone because they said mean things about a religious figure.

                That's because beating, flogging, hanging and beheading people is against the law.

                So, while you have absolute freedom to believe as you want, the freedom to excercise your those beliefs is limited in practice.

                That limit is that you may not "excercise" your religion - i.e. perform (or refuse to perform) some action - where there is a compelling interest against that.

                Any practice that has sufficient (compelling) reason to satisfy such criteria is likely already illegal or regulated. Discrimination against people on the basis of race (in the context of businesses offering services) is legislated against and, while sexuality and gender identity is not a protected class federally, many states have enacted such provisions, thus providing the same non-discrimination protection for (e.g.) homosexuals as apply to other groups.

                Therefore, there are several main points around this issue.

                The first is whether having one uniform set of laws applying to everyone regardless of religion (i.e. not legislating based on religion) is a compelling enough reason to restrict the ability of people to discriminate against people based on gender and sexuality.

                I believe that one uniform set of laws that apply to ALL people, is a good thing and once you start - effectively - making or applying laws differently for different religious groups, why not allow Muslims to operate under Sharia law?

                The second is whether there is even a good religious reason to claim that providing flowers for a gay wedding somehow infringes upon a religious conviction in the first place. I appreciate that some people certainly believe that homosexuality is wrong, and a 'sin', and that the Christian Bible has passages that decry it but I can't remember the part where it is specified that one must not provide flowers to homosexuals getting married.

                Now, it's not for me to dictate what is and is not part of a person's religion but it would seem to me that if someone is claiming that providing flowers for a homosexual wedding is against their religion, then any test to determine whether the belief is "sincerely held" should probably ask our florist which dictum of their religion is being contravened by the action they are being asked to perform.

                To me, that would be a logical question because the very purpose of that test is to ensure that the objection is actually a religious objection rather than a personal prejudice masquerading as religion.

                The final point that is at issue is whether this should apply to businesses and, while it certainly does apply, I have yet to see one compelling argument that shows me why it should.

                Just like free speech, freedom of religious belief and religious practice is not absolute.

      2. Code For Broke

        Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

        Did you catch the historical drift on the pink triangle comment? It was quite good as-is, I thought.

    2. boba1l0s2k9

      Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

      If a business wants to deny service to anyone, for any reason: good for them. I'll be free to open an equivalent shop that accepts anyone and I'll advertise that I'm not a hater like that dreadful shop down the road. There's no reason to use government force to mandate that bigots lie about their bigotry by hiding it. Let them be open about their hatred for fellow humans, and let the rest of us try to change their mind through persuasion and financial incentives. Freedom demands that a private business owner should be free to choose not to engage in transactions with anyone, for any reason. If you think freedom requires that we force one private citizen to do business with another private citizen against their will, you are misusing the word: you meant tyranny.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

        If a business wants to deny service to anyone, for any reason: good for them. I'll be free to open an equivalent shop that accepts anyone and I'll advertise that I'm not a hater like that dreadful shop down the road.

        Which is why life was swell in the Jim Crow era, eh? Entrepreneurs were just rushing to open competing businesses that advertised their non-discriminatory policies.

        My word, but some folks are hard of thinking.

  2. Captain DaFt

    "We are a Christian establishment. We're not discriminating against anyone, that's just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything."

    "But, if they dare to think/believe differently than us, they can go to Hell!", eh?

    Odd, I thought the Cristian Ethic was compassion and tolerance to all people, regardless of their beliefs. Apparently some churches think differently.

    1 John 3:17 - But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

    Hebrews 13:2 - Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

    And finally (from me) The Golden Rule:

    Matthew 7:12 - So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

    1. Bob Dole (tm)

      Shh..

      Hush now and don't bring the bible into this. It's not like Christian's actually read that anyway.

      1. paulc

        Re: Shh..

        only the bits they like...

      2. Fungus Bob

        Re: Shh..

        "Hush now and don't bring the bible into this. It's not like Christian's actually read that anyway."

        Yeah, no fair bringing the original source documents in! Especially considering that they say very little about homosexuality and say A Lot against greed and lack of charity to the disenfranchised (widows and orphans).

    2. DropBear
      Facepalm

      So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them

      Oh, but they absolutely do apply that. "I would love to engage in some fine adult action with a lovely lady but would abhor doing the same with some guy - SO YOU BETTER NOT WANT ANYTHING ELSE EITHER, OR ELSE...!". That rule doesn't work all that well without a crapload of caveats...

    3. Vic

      1 John 3:17 - But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

      Bill 1:1 - Be excellent to each other.

      Vic.

    4. tom dial Silver badge

      The Indiana (and Arkansas) RFRAs did not as originally passed, and do not as amended, authorize anyone to discriminate on any basis against anyone else. Nor did either of them lean toward or away from any religion or set of doctrines. They were equally applicable to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others. While they certainly were passed largely on the initiative and with support of Christians, that mainly is because Christians far outnumber adherents to other religious doctrines; it is quite likely that they would have been supported by members of a number of others.

      Citing the Bible, apart from the fact that it has enough contradictions to "prove" nearly anything, may be relevant to the particular establishment and comment, but is not relevant to those who do not accept it as authoritative and of reduced relevance to those, Muslims for instance, or Mormons, whose scriptures have been expanded to include additional guidance.

    5. dan1980

      "We are a Christian establishment. We're not discriminating against anyone, that's just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything."

      Except that they are discriminating. Saying you will provide your advertised services to one person but not to another because you disagree with them is discrimination. That's just a fact.

      Whether it's legal or not or ethical or not is another question but it most certainly is discrimination.

      And (as I said above), how is that in anyway connected to the "right to believe in anything"? If Ms O'Connor can explain how "provid[ng] pizza" for the wedding of a "gay couple" infringes their right to believe that gay people shouldn't get married - or exist.

      "We are a Christian establishment"

      What? No. YOU are Christian. Presumably you try to hire Christian staff and your management style has - at least so you would claim - a basis in your Christian morality. (Turning away 'sinners' is definitely the way I remember Jesus acting - yep.) But you run a BUSINESS and, whatever you own, personal, beliefs, a business is not "Christian", any more than it can be said to be "melancholy" or to prefer the taste of roast chicken over fried or wears a size 10 shoe, but not a peep-toe (of course).

      I really am not sure why people seem to believe that the freedoms they enjoy as individuals are necessarily conferred upon businesses they run. To be honest, it's quite a strange assertion.

      1. Brennan Young

        Discrimination

        dan1980 "Except that they are discriminating. Saying you will provide your advertised services to one person but not to another because you disagree with them is discrimination. That's just a fact."

        Quite so.

        It's even discrimination if you do it for reasons other than that you disagree with them. You might discriminate against customers who have already received a free pizza as part of today's promotion by not letting them have another free pizza.

        Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. Gynaecologists 'sex discriminate' against male patients for very obvious reasons. Similarly with "prejudice". It's a "bad" word, but in reality we all make pre-judgements all the time, and could not really survive without doing so.

        Sometimes prejudices and discrimination are groundless. It takes a minimal level of humility to admit it. Too many people (including far too many atheists) fail to exercise this modicum of humility. Ultimately this harms the ethos of those people. (And they don't care, which says it all).

        What is wrong is not prejudice or discrimination, it is the failure to be aware of those prejudices, failure to understand the position of those discriminated against, failure to admit that the prejudices exist, or to continue to discriminate in the face of evidence which shows the basis of that discrimination to be fallacious.

        In this case, I would argue that you can't claim "being a Christian" as a sound basis for refusing service to homosexuals because Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality, not even in the apocrypha or the 'heretical' gospels. And as every non-conservative Christian knows, is documented in the New Testament as kissing his male followers, preaching love, acceptance etc.. The Old Testament makes reference to homosexuality, sodomy and crossdressing, and calls these practices "abominations", but Christians are categorically *not* bound by any of the laws in the Torah beyond the 10 commandments. Those laws - we are told in the NT - have been 'set aside' by the sacrifice of Christ:

        For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups* one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations.

        Ephesians 2:14-15

        *i.e. Jews & gentiles.

        BTW I am an atheist. And I still think the Bible is an interesting and worthwhile book.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > "We are a Christian establishment. We're not discriminating against anyone, that's just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything."

    In other words, "We won't serve gays but we'll serve everyone else".

    In what way is that not literally discrimination regardless of what you think of the morality?

    1. Tel

      Someone had better tell them that their pizzas are probably not kosher (according to biblical rules) and that they'd better double check to make sure their customers aren't divorced, or masturbators, or wearing clothes of mixed fibres...

      1. frank ly
        Gimp

        @Tel

        I avoid controversy by refusing to wear clothes made of fibres.

        1. John Tserkezis

          Re: @Tel

          "I avoid controversy by refusing to wear clothes made of fibres."

          I go one further and refuse to wear clothes of any type. I couldn't possibly offend anyone now.

      2. Suricou Raven

        Now, I must correct you on this: There is nothing in the bible that forbids masturbation anywhere. Not a word. That's quite an ommission - considering how common it is, if God objects you'd expect him to mention it somewhere.

        You're quite right about the mixed fibers and divorce though.

        1. Anonymous Blowhard

          "You're quite right about the mixed fibers and divorce though."

          Hooray! I can still get a pizza!

          (I might have to be naked though, to avoid the mixed fibres thing)

          1. JEDIDIAH
            Devil

            > Hooray! I can still get a pizza!

            Only if it's a vegetable pizza. Meat pizzas are against the old dietary laws.

            It's likely that this entire establishment needs to be burnt to the ground for being unclean and not kosher.

        2. dorsetknob
          Paris Hilton

          Worshipers of the sky fairy will tell you Its a Sin to Spill / Waste the SEED of Man

          Roll on 2000 yrs and that translates to " No Masturbation"

          Paris because she knows what to do with it

          1. Suricou Raven

            The Onan thing. If you just read one verse, it looks like it condemns masturbation: Onan 'spills his seed upon the ground' and God smites him. If you read the full story you see a bigger picture. Family lines were vitally important in that society, so much that they practiced 'levite marriage' - if a man died childless, his wives would be inherited by his brother, who was then obliged to impregnate one and produce a child. This child was then considered the legal child of the deceased, ensuring the continuation of the line. In a time when many social duties were the specific task of a certain tribal line, and the vast majority of men inherited the occupation of their father, this really was important. Onan disliked his bother though, and out of spite he pulled out in an effort to avoid impregnating his inherited wife - an action that not only went against religious techings, but undermined the preservation of family lines and threatened the structure of society. That is why God smote him.

        3. Stuart21551

          You are right; the misunderstanding, I think, comes from a misreading of the Sin of Onan. Onan was smited, many believe, for spilling the seed; but it was not that that god smote him for, but for his refusal to impregnate his widowed sister in law. (Who, incidentally, was widowed by gods hand, but thats just a by the by -)

          Love my polycot shrts, but. ;-)

      3. Stoneshop
        Devil

        or wearing clothes of mixed fibres...

        Blasphemy (SFW, the rest of that site, not so much)

  4. Bakana

    Actually, it sounds like the Pizza shop has managed to make more Money from one afternoon of Bigotry than they would have gotten in several years of selling Mediocre Pizza.

    The fact that so Many bigots were willing to go on record (Do GoFundMe contributors get IDed?) as supporting these Bigots is a bit disturbing.

    1. Tel

      I would venture to suggest that the campaign on 'GoFundMe' breaks several of that outfit's terms and conditions. Perhaps someone (or a lot of someones) should make their displeasure at GFM known... it may be that the funding can be stopped before it gets to the destination...

  5. JustWondering

    I wonder ...

    ... what Christian Hoosiers would say if they were refused service on the basis of their religion?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Go to a Jewish or Muslim butcher's and ask him for a pound of pork burgers. Then sue him.

      1. handle

        False analogy, Anonymous Coward - you might as well say go to a butchers and ask for a pound of potatoes, then sue him.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          What's a pound? Or do you mean 500g?

          1. Captain DaFt

            Da fuck? I pay a pound, I better get more potatoes than that!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "Go to a Jewish or Muslim butcher's and ask him for a pound of pork burgers. Then sue him."

              This doesn't work because Jews don't even sell that to other Jews. They just don't sell it at all.

              However, I wonder just how far this bias would be tolerated if it was about raw money. For example, what about another 'mark' besides sexuality?

              Play along with me and imagine that in a fictional world someone has credit and was denied business based on their credit.

              If you must, replace the word 'credit' with 'sexuality' in that last sentence to help discern an opinion. So, is that discrimination or just good business?

              Anyways, at least the homosexuals are fighting it in the world of sex. Maybe someone will fight the other monsters someday.

      2. Jess--

        That would only work if he was normally supplying the same goods to other customers.

        The argument here is that the business in question is refusing to supply their normal everyday service to a particular group of customers based on their perceived sexuality.

        I wonder which wedding they would choose to cater for...

        Jess + John

        Jess + Jane

      3. dan1980

        @AC

        Now, if you were a butcher and you were being 'forced' to stock Halal or Kosher meat then that is not on. Likewise, if you were a Kosher butcher and were being 'forced' to stock bacon.

        And this is the thing. In the example of catering, no one is forcing a restaurant that doesn't offer catering to provide catering, nor are they forcing a catering company to provide catering for weddings.

        If one of the services you offer, as a business, is to prepare food, setup bain-maries and spirit burners, provide staff in uniforms and have those staff lay out and possibly serve the food - and to do so at a wedding reception - then that is all you are being asked to do. There is no service or product or facility you are being asked to provide that you do not currently provide.

        The only - ONLY - difference is the customer. In ALL ways that matter to the BUSINESS, the situation is identical - the same supplier orders, the same equipment, the same cleaning for the same uniforms, the same vans to bring it all and the same motions performed by the same staff to layout and serve the same food on the same plates with the same bad music playing in the background, and the same requirement to wait through the same bad speeches before you can serve desert and get the hell out of there.

        At no point in any of that, has anyone been 'forced' to do anything they do not normally do in the course of their job and, more importantly, nor has anyone - at any point or in the slightest way - been forced to believe anything they do not believe or discard any belief they do hold.

        But, at any rate, The problem is neatly avoided by the caters (or florist) saying that they do not do weddings.

        Providing a service to one person and then denying the exact same service to another person on the sole basis of sexual orientation is discrimination. However you feel about it is another matter, of course, but it is still discrimination.

  6. skeptical i
    Devil

    So to speak.

    "State Democrats ... decided to let [the Republicans' amendment] go to a straight vote by all state legislatures"

    Or maybe a straight-acting vote, eh? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like