Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

[The Big Ragu]

Oh. I said spit at me. ... you added my face to the path of their spit!

 

[doctorquant]

Refusing service to someone who spit in your face.

Quite the intolerant bigot, that Ragu.

 

[Big Circus]

Oh. I said spit at me. ... you added my face to the path of their spit!

Nah, just a magic loogie.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Nah, just a magic loogie.

Nice game, pretty boy.

 

[SpeedTchr]

A simple "no" would have sufficed, Ragu.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Huh?

 

[YankeeFan]

Not a single florist has said they would not sell a gay person a floral arrangement, and no baker has said they would not sell a cake out of the display to a gay person.

They've said they would not participate in a gay wedding.

And, what people seem to understand about photographers, but aren't recognizing in people who do floral arrangements for weddings, or who bake/decorate cakes, is that their is artistry involved. You are basically commissioning a custom piece of art. (Also, the florist usually sets up the flowers at a weeding. This isn't just a "pick up" kind of thing.)

Artists turn down commissions that don't fit their style or vision all the time.

 

[Amy]

I understand that, and I think that the florist should have to cater the wedding or find another job.

But I'm responding to Amy's assertion that catering the wedding does not implicate their religious beliefs. It does. They are a participant, no less than the gun salesman in the hypothetical.

In both cases the salesman or caterer are participants in a commercial transaction. In neither case does that participation serve as an affirmation of the some other act - be it approval of a wedding or approval of a murder (putting aside one act is legal and one is illegal) - despite one's religious beliefs that the wedding or murder is sinful.

It is my understanding that the objection of the caterer is not simply providing services but that providing the services to a forces them to approve of something which his or her religion believes in sinful. I don't see how providing a service to a wedding or any other occasion is a statement of approval or disapproval of anything.

I also disagree with deck's view of the bible as well as his need to convince evangelicals or any religious person to abandon the bible. But then, I'm a religious person and a bible is part of my religion.

 

[MisterCreosote]

If the Homowedding will go on regardless of their participation, are they still "participating" in the Homowedding?

Here's what I've been trying to say all along:

It's freedom of religion for the church to not recognize or perform Homoweddings and be free from governmental coercion to do so.

Opening it up to private citizens to do the same for routine business transactions, especially in the absence of offsetting nondiscrimination laws, is state-sanctioned bigotry.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I don't think they should abandon the Bible. That mischaracterizes my position.

Also: I'm Catholic.

Let's get that on the table, so this doesn't become deck vs. Christianity.

 

[JayFarrar]

I'm interested in the line of thought that says someone delivering something to an event is participating in that event.

So the person who delivers Election Night pizzas to the newsroom is participating?

 

[Dick Whitman]

In both cases the salesman or caterer are participants in a commercial transaction. In neither case does that participation serve as an affirmation of the some other act - be it approval of a wedding or approval of a murder (putting aside one act is legal and one is illegal) - despite one's religious beliefs that the wedding or murder is sinful.

It is my understanding that the objection of the caterer is not simply providing services but that providing the services to a forces them to approve of something which his or her religion believes in sinful. I don't see how providing a service to a wedding or any other occasion is a statement of approval or disapproval of anything.

Whether or not they artfully express their objection to participating, they don't want to assist in an act that they consider a sin. It's not different than the gun salesman, who probably does not approve of the murder, either, and therefore would seemingly have a moral obligation to refuse the sale.