Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

Potentially amusing? I see that tongue in your cheek. It's got to be a real pisser to the Christian Taliban.What I find most telling, and gratifying, is the way the business community has stepped up and shouted, "Stop it!" Not with a red wine, thank you. Some Gouda would be nice, please?

You weren't supposed to actually read the statute, NoNukes. We say it's a freedom of religion issue. The other stuff in the law is complicated detail you really don't need to know about. I used to know a couple old Japanese-Americans that would disagree. But, given the vigilance these days you may be right. Just to be safe, though, I'll store the idealism on the back shelf and keep an eye out.The push back RAZD cited in his message upstream is quite satisfying. He finds them potentially amusing. He's hosting a party so we can all watch the proceedings together. I hear he is providing popcorn and Gouda. Can you make it? Love to have you there.

No, I get it jar, and I agree with the basic premise. To me where things get sticky is when one person's rights are put aside for the rights of another. I think that people shouldn't be so quick to cast stones at a particular group of people because they feel they have the right to exercise their freedoms. It goes both ways! This is a significant shift in culture that will take some time to sort out.To me a good example is smoking in restaurants or other public buildings. I agree that people have a right to smoke if they so choose; I would not want to infringe on that right. But I have a right to not smoke that also should not be infringed upon. When someone sitting behind me in a restaurant is exercising their right to smoke, they are forcing me to breathe smoke which infringes on my right to not smoke. It becomes a balancing act to accommodate everyone's rights. (I am so glad they passed a law in Michigan prohibiting smoking in public buildings, but I am sure many people felt it infringed on their rights)I think that is where we are at here, with this issue. We still need to respect people's right to believe what they believe, even if we see it as bigoted or discriminating. I think we all agree that a baker should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for a KKK rally where they wanted to have "We hate ******!" printed on the cake. And I think this pastor made a good point as to why this is... because it forces the baker to use his speech to endorse something he doesn't believe in. This is also the same reason why that pastor should not be forced to perform a gay marriage - it would force him to use his speech to endorse something he doesn't agree with.To me, I think that is an obvious and important line to draw in preventing one person's freedoms from infringing on another's. But there is still a lot of grey area involved. It seems even baking a generic cake for a KKK rally would make me uncomfortable; it would be a form of endorsement, would it not? Wouldn't knowingly baking a cake for that type of event suggest that you approve of it - or at the very least don't find it repulsive? Should I be forced to serve that "class" of people regardless of my personal feelings on the subject?Why would baking a wedding cake be all that different?The problem, I think is it becomes a slippery slope - what services would you have the right to refuse because it "endorses" something? A lot of services could be justified on those grounds...The bottom line for me is we need to find a way to preserve everyone's basic rights - even if you don't agree with their position. It seems the "Christian" position (not meaning all Christians or the "True" Christian position) is being thrown under the bus when all they are really saying is that they have rights too. I agree that no one should have the right to discriminate, but I don't think it is as cut-and-dried as it has been made out to be.I think that pastor's point is a good one... no one should be forced to use their speech to endorse a position that don't agree with. Working out the particulars of that... not quite so easy.HBD

Don Adams: The old hide the law in the text trick. That's the third time I've fallen for that this month! Yeah. There is that. I would cite the Pentagon papers if I needed a counter example. But I see your point.RAZD is right about the amusing part. Indiana and Arkansas both backed off of the most odious parts of their shiny new statutes within a couple of days. I would argue that the process of enacting these laws makes it impossible for someone to successfully argue that their legislatures intended the law to defend discrimination.Meanwhile, a whole bunch of Arizona businesses outed themselves, many of them for no good reason. Who is going to order pizza for a wedding ceremony? A lot of prominent businesses lined up on the side of the civil rights with a few outing themselves as haters. And essentially every single Republican candidate for president lined up behind a law that even Arkansas and Indiana recognize as odious.Most people have little to no problem with RFRA as passed back in 1993. Congress and President Clinton actually looked favorably on allowing Native Americans the use of peyote in their religious ceremonies. The big difference this time around is the prospect of the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage on a national basis. The result has been adding warts onto religious freedom acts to validate hateful, backwards positions similar to ones we've seen expressed here.

Interesting question. When it comes to personal services, generally speaking courts do not apply the remedy of forcing performance even when parties have contractually agreed on the performance. In fact such provisions actually trigger the use of the 13th amendment as a defense which I would agree highlights the odiousness of such things.On the other hand, discrimination has historically required a different approach. Where a group is unpopular, discrimination results in creating an entire class of people who simply cannot avail themselves of ordinary every day services like buying gas or ordering a hamburger. There is plenty of history to tell us how that way of doing things goes. And it's history that should never be repeated. I cannot distinguish between the generic homophobes and those who are practicing exclusionary religious beliefs. It's just as difficult to do now as it was when people claimed that interracial marriage violated God's desire to separate the races. I'm not of the belief that we ought to bother making that distinction.Yes, you have a right not to breathe smoke. But you don't have the right to breathe air that has not been inhaled first by gay folk. If your religion requires that, then you have made a bigoted choice. Go back and read the Bible.

So true. But now, as I understand the news this morning, the Indiana legislature has passed the amendment to their RFRA making sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes from business discrimination.I am pleasantly surprised at how hard and fast this society, led by the business community no less, slapped down the states on this issue. I hadn't expected Enlightenment v2.0 to be this far advanced.[abe]Well, isn't this a kick in the pants. Has the Christian Taliban totally lost control of this country? LGBT Pride NightEdited by AZPaul3, : Kudos to The Oakland A'sEdited by AZPaul3, : link

Thank god there is no right to not be made uncomfortable.Also, the speech we agree with is not the speech we need to support, rather it is the speech we most disagree with that needs our protection.In your example of a baker baking a cake for the KKK or a sign printer asked to print a banner for the rally or the owner of a meeting house asked to rent the place for the rally I believe that the need to protect speech we most disagree with is the greater calling. Yes, it may well make the businessman uncomfortable, maybe even hurt future business but as I said, there is no right not to be made uncomfortable and there is a duty to protect others free speech.My answer then is "Yes, of course you should be required to serve that class of people when free speech is involved. Your free speech to tell them you despise their free speech is also there but you may not infringe on theirs."

This schism between the two wings of the GOP may be the political event of the year.May it grow.

HBD werites: Depends on what decorations they ask you to put on the cake. Obviously a huge swastika with the words "Down with fags!" written on DOES cross the line....

Yes. But I think that a baker would in any case have the right not to write that on a cake. At least they would here where it could be seens as inciting racial hatred if he did. Certainly the purchaser of the cake would be open to arrest for asking for that inscription and a person can't commit an offence for refusing to commit an offence - if you follow my drift.But the baker would be expected to bake a cake for the KKK without the writing - that's just normal business. I can't imagine a chap with a white gown, pointy hat and burning crucifix asking for a cake tho'......

Fortunately in the US speech is protected and so they certainly would not be arrested for asking for that inscription, at least so far. Hopefully we will never get to the point where someone could be arrested or even charged simply for that statement.

Sure he would...family night dessert at the fair:

To clarify....the KKK is unlikely to be arrested for simply asking for the inscription but he would risk arrest for having the inscription on the cake and then using it in a way that is likely to incite racial hatred.The baker would therefor not be committing an offence for refusing to write it if he had a reasonable belief that the cake could be used it that way. Basically, there's no way he could be forced to write something like that or be on the wrong side of the law.

Fortunately in the US racial hatred is not a crime, thank God. I would support someones right to incite racial hatred but admit that there are very fuzzy limits. For example I would support someone saying "All gays should die" but if it said "Go out and kill gays" then I would be less sure of my position. In the latter case I imagine that consideration would have to be given to just how effective the likelihood of actual action based on the speech would be. The default position for me would be to protect the speech unless there was clear and present danger of action based on the speech. Again, unless the baker could present a compelling argument that supported a reasonable certainty that acts would follow I do not think his refusal could be justified and that he was in fact refusing service.

I haven't seen the final text, but I would be highly surprised if Indiana went this far. In the draft revision Indiana just made clear that their RFRA could not be used as a defense against discrimination. I've read an article or two which suggests that plans to pass the Indiana law were leaked around Thanksgiving and that the LGBT community has been reaching out to the business community for months. There were attempts to get the Bible changed before it was passed and business had some success in getting some pretty bad language removed.