U.S. Politics - Indiana is super awesome

[Fragile Bird]

Or it could be that the majority of Arkansas voters actually support the bill, hence it passing the legislature in the first place

Or it could also mean the crazies have taken over the legislature.

What the hell, Arkansas wouldn't miss the headquarters for Walmart moving out of the state, would they?

[TerraPrime]

In other news...

An interesting take on wealth inequality...

https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is-turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is-actually-2a3b423e0c

But of course, we have top preserve all those pretty, pretty buildings, so..... Even if he's right, I'm not sure there's much to be done about it.

Whether reforms in housing regulations are needed or not is its own worthwhile debate, but I reject the framing that it is the replacement of reforming corporate taxation structure. Data that I have seen are quite indsiputable that the relative percentage of tax contribution from coporations have declined significantly over the years, from roughly 70% to about 40% iirc. That is a de facto shifting of monies from the working class to the capital class (some of which overlap when the corporation is traded in public), or in other words a concentration of wealth.

[TrackerNeil]

Or it could be that the majority of Arkansas voters actually support the bill, hence it passing the legislature in the first place

I would be careful about interpreting the actions of politicians as reflective of the will of the voters. I really would.

[DanteGabriel]

Or it could also mean the crazies have taken over the legislature.

Arkansas legislature? Home of the McJesusite who owns a day care that runs largely on government funds, leaned on the state child welfare director to fast-track his adoption of previously sexually-abused girls against the recommendations of child welfare staff, became convinced that the girls were demonically possessed, isolated one girl in her room because he thought she was using telepathy, and gave them away to the guy he'd fired from his day care, who then sexually abused the older girl? And who continues to retain his post and his day care business with fulsome defenses offered by his colleagues?

Nah, I am sure everything is just peachy in that august legislative body.

[awesome possum]

More specifically - if an identical business operated in the United States, do you think that it should be against the law for them to serve exclusively Muslim clients? Should a Christian be able to successfully sue them for refusing to serve them?

Yes, I think it should be if it is a public business of any kind. If they want to be exclusive, let them be a members-only private business.

[Crazydog7]

If organge is the new black crazy can be the new sane

[awesome possum]

And just for the LOLs

“I think these bills are horrible,” said Dusty Dionne, High Priest and High Summoner of the Aquarian Tabernacle Church of Washington State. “But if they are going to open up this can of worms, we are going to shove it right in their face.”

Reverend Dionne, reached at his church in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains, took time out from planning for his church’s Spring Mysteries Festival—a re-creation of an initiation ceremony for the cult of Demeter in which ancient Greeks “learned to no longer fear death”—to speak to The Daily Beast. He explained what bills like the one that Indiana passed and that other states are considering would mean for Wiccans and Pagans.

For one, it would mean Wiccans would be free to at last marry whomever, or whatever, they wanted.

“Many of us believe that love is the law. Though it is not a quote-unquote Wiccan tenet to have polyamorous marriages, it is under Wiccan law that love is the law,” he said. “Whatever we want to do with marriage we can do. Carte Blanche. If I want to marry a horse, I can marry a horse.”

Dionne also pointed out that Wiccans have been “herbalists forever,” which would mean not just the freedom to use marijuana, but a host of psychotropic drugs banned by state government.

And if Wiccan residents of Indiana or other states that passed religious freedom ordinances would want to test for any substances, according to the high priest, Wiccans would be free to refuse.

I suddenly feel much more Wiccan.

[DanteGabriel]

Yes, I think it should be if it is a public business of any kind. If they want to be exclusive, let them be a members-only private business.

I agree with the others who don't think a business should be allowed to refuse customers based on religion. Though I think the earlier point that these Muslim photographers seem to have religiously-based restrictions on what, or whom, they are allowed to photograph, is an interesting case, because they very well could say, "This is how we work, take it or leave it." And I suspect only Muslim couples would want to hire them. And then I think they would be fine, legally speaking.

But there is another thing that makes this Muslim photography business different from the Christianist-run businesses who seek to discriminate against LGBT people: the Muslims are up-front about it and announce their intention openly. While this law is on the books in Indiana, I encourage these eager-to-discriminate businesses to similarly announce their desire to avoid providing service to LGBT folks. Put up a sign in your window. Put it on your webpage. Have the courage to own your hateful, small-minded convictions and let your customers know where you stand.

[Swordfish]

That is a completely different situation though :)

That is them being offended, not the client being offensive as in the other case.

I'm not sure I understand your distinction.

But consider:

http://gazette.com/editorial-we-must-defend-free-speech/article/1547636

Bill Jack of Castle Rock asked three Denver-area bakery owners to create Bible-shaped cakes and adorn each with a scripture opposing homosexuality. The bakers refused, and Jack filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Colorado's civil rights statutes forbid discrimination on a basis of "creed." Jack's creed involves opposition to homosexual relationships.

[Swordfish]

Yes, it very much is.

The difference being refusing to service an idea or message as opposed to a person (or at least an aspect of their personhood).

I'm not sure about your example because I'd imagine a lot of assumptions (I'm no lawyer, but if they refuse because of the assumption you are gay -- or your cake is for a gay couple -- you'd have a better chance of bringing a successful suit.)

That isn't what happened in the gay marriage cake situation either though, is it?

My understanding was that they offered to make them different kinds of cakes.

[Fragile Bird]

Um, every human rights commission that I know of has said the freedoms listed in statutes do not include the freedom to discriminate against other groups.

But then again, I live in a jurisdiction where sexual orientation is a listed prohibited ground.

[all swedes are racist]

That isn't what happened in the gay marriage cake situation either though, is it?

My understanding was that they offered to make them different kinds of cakes.

Sorry... I'm not following. Haven't there been several "gay marriage cake situation", so I'm not sure the specifics you are referring to. But the gist is, they refused to make gay wedding cakes... They do other wedding cakes, no? That's discrimination, based on an aspect of a person (or couple in this case) that is protected against discrimination, by law.

[aceluby]

I'm not sure I understand your distinction.

But consider:

http://gazette.com/editorial-we-must-defend-free-speech/article/1547636

If you own a t shirt printing company and a guy comes in asking you to print "I hate gays" on a bunch of shirts, the owner has the right to refuse that request for any number of reasons. It doesn't matter because it's a single customer asking for a service that the owner will not provide to anyone. It's a completely different scenario that owning a t shirt company and refusing service to someone because they belong to a group the owner doesn't like. One is denying service because of content, the other is denying service because of the people involved.

The guy above is just an asshat, and denying services to people being asshats has been a right for business owners since forever.

[Swordfish]

Sorry... I'm not following. Haven't there been several "gay marriage cake situation", so I'm not sure the specifics you are referring to. But the gist is, they refused to make gay wedding cakes... They do other wedding cakes, no? That's discrimination, based on an aspect of a person (or couple in this case) that is protected against discrimination, by law.

The question was about the difference between the situations being discussed. Namely, cake makers refusing to make specific kinds of cakes.

If they did not refuse to make other types of cakes for the same people requesting the 'gay wedding cakes' (sorry, this is funny wording), then I'm still not clear on what the distinction is from the example I provided.

It's the difference between 'I will not make this type of cake' and 'I will not make cakes for this type of person'.

[aceluby]

The question was about the difference between the situations being discussed. Namely, cake makers refusing to make specific kinds of cakes.

If they did not refuse to make other types of cakes for the same people requesting the 'gay wedding cakes' (sorry, this is funny wording), then I'm still not clear on what the distinction is from the example I provided.

It's the difference between 'I will not make this type of cake' and 'I will not make cakes for this type of person'.

What's a 'gay wedding cake'? We just call them 'wedding cakes' here. Is it graphically depicting anal sex and scissoring or something?

[Fragile Bird]

What's a 'gay wedding cake'? We just call them 'wedding cakes' here. Is it graphically depicting anal sex and scissoring or something?

They have two grooms on them. Or two brides. Oh, the horror!

They might even say evil things like Congratulations on your Wedding Day, Mike and Dave!

[Fez]

What's a 'gay wedding cake'? We just call them 'wedding cakes' here. Is it graphically depicting anal sex and scissoring or something?

They range from the simple to the... slightly more fabulous.

[Maester Drew]

With the Muslim photographer, I am curious to know if the reason it is so exclusive is because he is most familiar with an Islamic wedding. In that regard he can provide the best service possible to the couple. If he is not familiar with a Christian wedding it may mean that the service would be of poorer quality due to lack of experience.

I am only suggesting a possibility, I do not agree with making a business exclusive.

[all swedes are racist]

The question was about the difference between the situations being discussed. Namely, cake makers refusing to make specific kinds of cakes.

If they did not refuse to make other types of cakes for the same people requesting the 'gay wedding cakes' (sorry, this is funny wording), then I'm still not clear on what the distinction is from the example I provided.

It's the difference between 'I will not make this type of cake' and 'I will not make cakes for this type of person'.

Um, exactly?

You see the difference between "we don't make wedding cakes" and "we don't make wedding cakes for gay couples", right?

Sure, I get they aren't saying "we don't make cakes for gay people"... But that's just a different shade of wrong. It's still discriminatory.

Eta: the difference with the bakers who refused the anti-gay message on the bible shaped cakes is that they are refusing to espouse the bigoted message. They are not refusing to make cakes for Christians, nor refusing to make cakes with any generally Christian themes, as far as I can tell. It's the hateful negative message they are taking issue with, and rightly so I'd say.

[awesome possum]

I agree with the others who don't think a business should be allowed to refuse customers based on religion. Though I think the earlier point that these Muslim photographers seem to have religiously-based restrictions on what, or whom, they are allowed to photograph, is an interesting case, because they very well could say, "This is how we work, take it or leave it." And I suspect only Muslim couples would want to hire them. And then I think they would be fine, legally speaking.

But there is another thing that makes this Muslim photography business different from the Christianist-run businesses who seek to discriminate against LGBT people: the Muslims are up-front about it and announce their intention openly. While this law is on the books in Indiana, I encourage these eager-to-discriminate businesses to similarly announce their desire to avoid providing service to LGBT folks. Put up a sign in your window. Put it on your webpage. Have the courage to own your hateful, small-minded convictions and let your customers know where you stand.

For as short as my answer was, I had to sit and think on it for a little while. Islam (or rather certain practices of it) is the only religion I can think of offhand that requires a specific dress code. So these Muslim-only photographers may be the only ones around who, for example, can have a family come in with all the women wearing full body coverings and not bat an eyelash. Or that the photographer is someone who believes all females over a certain age should be completely covered, only will do certain traditional poses most appealing to Muslims, etc.

While I disagree with those beliefs, I sympathize with them slightly more than "My Lord and Savior who taught acceptance and kindness says I should think the gays are icky."

The problem is, just as with these business owners who claim that serving homosexuals offends their deeply indoctrinated beliefs, it's impossible to know if a Muslim would serve Muslims only because of religion or because they're a bigot. So that's why I say just ban it all for public businesses. If you're a Muslim who runs a business out of your home where you are contacted for services, I don't really see a problem with it. It's not cool but it's really not hurting anyone. If you're a Muslim who runs a studio that has a door that is open to the public, then you're open to the public.