Should Final Four be relocated from Indiana to protest recent anti-gay legislation?

[Ballerhogger]

No, what does the final four and gay marriage have to do with anything?

[NotaHypeJob]

The comparison between blacks and gays is always stupid, a person can't hide their blackness.

[JohnnyNightrain]

There is a lot of ignorance in this thread... a lot.

First of all, as people have mentioned, this law isn't anything like the federal law or the law of any other state laws. I think this was already posted, but it's still a good read:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

Basically, it protects individuals from lawsuits when they discriminate based on religious grounds. I live in downtown Indianapolis and I think most people do not know this law was, mainly, a result of a place, One Eleven Cakery here in Indy, who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple last year. Fortunately, the bakery went under and is no longer in business. Secondly, Pence and the Republicans fought to keep gay marriage illegal in our state, too, until the federal government came in and slapped them on the wrist and said they couldn't do that. We have very anti-gay politicians here (they also tried to de-fund Planned Parenthood, until the federal government, again, slapped them on the wrist) and they thought they were going to be cute be sneaking in an anti-gay law. Oops.

This law is all about discrimination. C'mon, standing directly behind Pence when he signed the bill was a guy who equated homosexuality to having sex with animals. Totally ridiculous. Most telling, however, is when he was asked point-blank, six times, whether or not it would allow discrimination against gays and he refused to answer.

This law offer no protections. There are certain sects of Christians who, legitimately, think black people are dark because of the curse of Ham. So, this law means they could refuse them service and not be sued on the basis of religious freedom.

If you are a business opened to serve the public, you have to serve everyone equally. Religious mythology has no place, whatsoever, in laws. I worked in a library in Indiana for years and I saw way more swastikas and racist tattoos than I ever wanted to see in my life, but we still had to serve those people as long as they were not intimidating anyone or causing anyone to feel unsafe. That is a huge point. simply being gay is the same as simply being black. It's not a choice. It's a biological trait that, literally, does not affect anyone. Religion is completely subjective. It's man-made. Therefore, anyone could claim "religion" when they discriminate. That's the problem.

The best thing about all of this is that Pence is not going to be re-elected and definitely has zero shot at being the president, so when his term is up, he'll go away. He is such a complete moron. It's funny watching him unravel.

As for the NCAA, they should move, but it's too late now... it would be a huge breach of contract, but if the law passes as is, I think they call up their lawyers and we don't see the tournament here again in a few years.

[FrieAaron]

What's with all the "buying cakes" arguments in this thread? This isn't just about walking into a bakery. That's insanely overly simplistic.

Because they're trying to twist this far more complicated topic into some kind of Ayn Rand novel about a poor miserable bigoted Baker who has to live in a nightmare socialist Indiana town where he is forced to sell his pastries to gay people.

[-Sammy-]

You are taking a micro view when this is a macro issue. You bring up the issue of a cake, when the U.S has a history, of companies denying people access to real estate in certain areas, access to mortgages, access to employment.

Okay, I understand what you mean by 'access' now; thanks for clarifying.

When we talk about things like housing and employment, we're talking about welfare issues (welfare in the sense of access to basic essential resources needed for survival). At SOME point, we can look at a dispute between two parties and determine that one party's actions are having a direct adverse effect on another's welfare, and at THAT point, the government becomes obligated to act. But when we talk about things like real estate and employment, we're also talking about many, many intertwined public issues (taxes, mostly), which means that on some level, the government HAS to get involved, because directly or indirectly, government property is now a factor.

So there are two difference between those examples and my cake. The first, obviously, is that my cake is not a welfare issue for you. The second is that government property is not involved in any form. That means that it is NOT public property, and therefore I have complete jurisdiction as to what to do with it.


The bottom line is that regardless how repulsive or antiquated you may feel someone else's religious views are, he has a right to them, and he has a right to live his life and conduct his livelihood according to them, so long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. The only way for you to win this argument is to demonstrate that you have a right to demand that he sell you his cake because you want it.

[JohnnyNightrain]

What's with all the "buying cakes" arguments in this thread? This isn't just about walking into a bakery. That's insanely overly simplistic.

I posted about it in my above post, but, yeah, this law does stem from buying cakes, hence the cake talk.

[FrieAaron]

The comparison between blacks and gays is always stupid, a person can't hide their blackness.

You're right. Gays have the great fortune of being able to live their lives in fear hiding who they are so they don't find themselves victims of violence. Sad that any group of innocent people should have to rely on such a mechanism.

[KayDee35]

They can't tell your sexuality if you're buying a cake or going to a business. Businesses do not ask for your sexuality. If you want them to personalize it with John and Steve getting married, get your own damn icing and put it there yourself. Let's be honest, they aren't being denied, it's just them trying to push their agenda. They have the freedom to buy their cake elsewhere too.

If you have a non-Christian or otherwise unusual name, should the bakery also be able to tell you get your own damn icing and put it there yourself? If you're not white, should they able to deny you white icing too because you can just put it on your own damn self? If you're a woman, should they be able to tell you that they will only use pink colored icing and if you don't like it, you can pick your own damn color and put it on yourself?

If they don't believe in divorce, should they be able to refuse making a cake for someone if they find out that this is for their second marriage?

Just how far are you willing to let it go before you draw a line? I'm genuinely curious.

If most of the businesses in a town do not want to serve blacks, should they be able to deny them gas and food when they're passing through their fair town?

[-Sammy-]

Right, except freedom can be clearly defined. True freedom is for everyone, so your right to do as you please ends at infringing on someone else's freedom. So yes, you are free to feel that sexuality is wrong, let's get real here again, because that is the heart of the matter, but you are not free to limit someone else based on that opinion.

Agreed. But my refusal to sell you my cake isn't a limitation on you in any way. Freedom is not defined as 'getting whatever you want simply because you want it.' You can't FORCE me to sell you something I don't want to sell you.

(Please note that I'm dealing strictly in the hypothetical. If I were a cake-seller and you wanted a cake, I would happily sell you one.)

[FrieAaron]

Right, except freedom can be clearly defined. True freedom is for everyone, so your right to do as you please ends at infringing on someone else's freedom. So yes, you are free to feel that sexuality is wrong, let's get real here again, because that is the heart of the matter, but you are not free to limit someone else based on that opinion.

Agreed. But my refusal to sell you my cake isn't a limitation on you in any way. Freedom is not defined as 'getting whatever you want simply because you want it.' You can't FORCE me to sell you something I don't want to sell you.

(Please note that I'm dealing strictly in the hypothetical. If I were a cake-seller and you wanted a cake, I would happily sell you one.)

Correct, this is the rationale. And of course it's a much simpler case to make when discussing a bakery. It gets a lot more complicated, as KayDee alluded to, when we start talking about private businesses that are getting closer to life necessities - grocery stores, gas stations, daycares, etc.

[Curmudgeon]

When you elect to bake cakes and hold them out for sale in commerce, you are obligated to play by the rules. Until the right wingers in Indiana passed this new law, the rules were relatively clear: if you are operating in commerce you cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc. So no, if you hold yourself out as a commercial establishment, you do not have the right to refuse service, except on economic grounds, i.e. the customer can't or won't pay. Folks who can't handle the fact that they are unable to discriminate should find another way to make a living.

Whatever happened to the golden rule? Have some of these folks who purport to be Christian forgotten it? If we always treated others as we would like to be treated ourselves, there would be no need for anti discrimination statues. Because "others" means everyone, not just the people you feel like treating well.

IMHO the NCAA should relocate the final four. There are plenty of other venues. Send a clear message.

[trustykilo]

They can't tell your sexuality if you're buying a cake or going to a business. Businesses do not ask for your sexuality. If you want them to personalize it with John and Steve getting married, get your own damn icing and put it there yourself. Let's be honest, they aren't being denied, it's just them trying to push their agenda. They have the freedom to buy their cake elsewhere too.

If you have a non-Christian or otherwise unusual name, should the bakery also be able to tell you get your own damn icing and put it there yourself? If you're not white, should they able to deny you white icing too because you can just put it on your own damn self? If you're a woman, should they be able to tell you that they will only use pink colored icing and if you don't like it, you can pick your own damn color and put it on yourself?

If they don't believe in divorce, should they be able to refuse making a cake for someone if they find out that this is for their second marriage?

Just how far are you willing to let it go before you draw a line? I'm genuinely curious.

If most of the businesses in a town do not want to serve blacks, should they be able to deny them gas and food when they're passing through their fair town?

One, if they didn't want to serve me, why would I go there ever again? Two, to answer your questions, yes yes yes. They want to discriminate, take your business elsewhere. If that's the best cake in town, get someone else to buy your cake, take that cake to another bakery across the street and have them put your icing the way you want. If anything, it would create more business for it's rival company. All the more reason to start a bakery that you want and serve everyone you want. But forcing a business to do what you want? Nope.

Obviously, the last question is race baiting but yes. I believe in the free market. If they choose to discriminate, they probably will get lots of hate and lose customers. If they survive (not going bankrupt), more power to them. Plenty of businesses already discriminate on other criteria. If you don't like it, move on or start your own.

Forcing a business to work with you when they don't want to is borderline slavery. Especially since they can't charge you different prices when the customer is rude and hard to deal with.

[flying_mollusk]

You are taking a micro view when this is a macro issue. You bring up the issue of a cake, when the U.S has a history, of companies denying people access to real estate in certain areas, access to mortgages, access to employment.

Okay, I understand what you mean by 'access' now; thanks for clarifying.

When we talk about things like housing and employment, we're talking about welfare issues (welfare in the sense of access to basic essential resources needed for survival). At SOME point, we can look at a dispute between two parties and determine that one party's actions are having a direct adverse effect on another's welfare, and at THAT point, the government becomes obligated to act. But when we talk about things like real estate and employment, we're also talking about many, many intertwined public issues (taxes, mostly), which means that on some level, the government HAS to get involved, because directly or indirectly, government property is now a factor.

So there are two difference between those examples and my cake. The first, obviously, is that my cake is not a welfare issue for you. The second is that government property is not involved in any form. That means that it is NOT public property, and therefore I have complete jurisdiction as to what to do with it.

The bottom line is that, however repulsive or antiquated you may feel someone else's religious views are, he has a right to them, and he has a right to live his life and conduct his livelihood according to them, so long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. The only way for you to win this argument is to demonstrate that you have a right to demand that he sell you his cake because you want it.

But who gets to decide whether something is pertinent to general welfare? The legislature, right. So if the state of Indiana does not want to protect gays, don't pass a law banning discrimination against gays. But if the local city of Indianapolis does want to ensure gays get their cake, that is within their purview, correct? If the local citizens don't like it, vote out the city council.

But what this law does is gives additional rights to fundamentalist Christians over everyone else. They are actually put on a pedestal. It is the state saying, hey local city, you cant protect gays. We don't want you to ensure they don't get discriminated against. So Christians want to be able to practice their faith against gays, AND like in Indianapolis. They want it both ways.

Which begs the question-why do Christians get to be exempt from laws they don't like? Im an atheist. I dont like paying taxes. I want to be able to speed and drive in the HOV lane. Should I start a religion tomorrow called the church of realgm and says these laws are inconsistent with my faith? Can I get out of these local laws? So really, religious groups are getting favorable treatment over everyone else.

Btw, this all stems from a case called Romer v. Evans in Colorado. The state tried to pass a law saying no local cities like Denver could ever protect or give protection to gays. The Supreme Court struck it down. These new laws are the other side of the same coin.

Basically, rural people hate how cities are cosmopolitan and want to tell them want to do.

[KayDee35]

Agreed. But my refusal to sell you my cake isn't a limitation on you in any way. Freedom is not defined as 'getting whatever you want simply because you want it.' You can't FORCE me to sell you something I don't want to sell you.

You're basically agreeing with segregation and discrimination as long as it is done by a private entity, which was the case prior to the Civil Rights movement. Is that correct?

[Neutral 123]

You are taking a micro view when this is a macro issue. You bring up the issue of a cake, when the U.S has a history, of companies denying people access to real estate in certain areas, access to mortgages, access to employment.

Okay, I understand what you mean by 'access' now; thanks for clarifying.

When we talk about things like housing and employment, we're talking about welfare issues (welfare in the sense of access to basic essential resources needed for survival). At SOME point, we can look at a dispute between two parties and determine that one party's actions are having a direct adverse effect on another's welfare, and at THAT point, the government becomes obligated to act. But when we talk about things like real estate and employment, we're also talking about many, many intertwined public issues (taxes, mostly), which means that on some level, the government HAS to get involved, because directly or indirectly, government property is now a factor.

So there are two difference between those examples and my cake. The first, obviously, is that my cake is not a welfare issue for you. The second is that government property is not involved in any form. That means that it is NOT public property, and therefore I have complete jurisdiction as to what to do with it.


The bottom line is that, however repulsive or antiquated you may feel someone else's religious views are, he has a right to them, and he has a right to live his life and conduct his livelihood according to them, so long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. The only way for you to win this argument is to demonstrate that you have a right to demand that he sell you his cake because you want it.

Well first, the government here has already shown an agenda to deny gays access to things like marriage, and has the support and apparently is closely collaborated with people who have said anti gay things, and have an anti gay agenda. So in this instance, the government has shown an open hostility towards gays.

Going back to your example. It is still flawed. You are still taking a micro view. This isn't about individuals, but overall outcomes. Of course we can look at the society we have now and say that a gay couple can probably still find a cake if one place denies them, but we are not far removed from a society where this attitude was far more common, and if allowed to fester could return. So instead of talking about one place, we could be talking about many places. We could be talking about many types of businesses. The fact of the matter is, discrimination must be eliminated. Allowing it to fester will only ensure it continues in areas that are more critical than getting a cake.

What's funny is that the only thing here that's a clear lifestyle choice is religion. Yet it's being defended to the point where it is being used as a weapon to infringe on the rights of others.

[trustykilo]

When you elect to bake cakes and hold them out for sale in commerce, you are obligated to play by the rules. Until the right wingers in Indiana passed this new law, the rules were relatively clear: if you are operating in commerce you cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc. So no, if you hold yourself out as a commercial establishment, you do not have the right to refuse service, except on economic grounds, i.e. the customer can't or won't pay. Folks who can't handle the fact that they are unable to discriminate should find another way to make a living.

Whatever happened to the golden rule? Have some of these folks who purport to be Christian forgotten it? If we always treated others as we would like to be treated ourselves, there would be no need for anti discrimination statues. Because "others" means everyone, not just the people you feel like treating well.

IMHO the NCAA should relocate the final four. There are plenty of other venues. Send a clear message.

And you get to choose how they make a living? You have the freedom to not partake in their business.

[TheUroborosWorm]

The moment someone uses this new law ground to open a wahhabist restaurant and refuses to serve womans because there are men in the same room, or without burka, or just cristians because well, because religion...

The law will just be revoked faster than the speed of idiocy.

[flying_mollusk]

Right, except freedom can be clearly defined. True freedom is for everyone, so your right to do as you please ends at infringing on someone else's freedom. So yes, you are free to feel that sexuality is wrong, let's get real here again, because that is the heart of the matter, but you are not free to limit someone else based on that opinion.

Agreed. But my refusal to sell you my cake isn't a limitation on you in any way. Freedom is not defined as 'getting whatever you want simply because you want it.' You can't FORCE me to sell you something I don't want to sell you.

(Please note that I'm dealing strictly in the hypothetical. If I were a cake-seller and you wanted a cake, I would happily sell you one.)

Nobody has true freedom to do whatever they want. I want to open up a crack cocaine store in Bloomington Indiana. They wont let me. I shouldn't be able to say, well my religion requires it, so you have to let me sell crack. Can I?

[JohnnyNightrain]

When you elect to bake cakes and hold them out for sale in commerce, you are obligated to play by the rules. Until the right wingers in Indiana passed this new law, the rules were relatively clear: if you are operating in commerce you cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc. So no, if you hold yourself out as a commercial establishment, you do not have the right to refuse service, except on economic grounds, i.e. the customer can't or won't pay. Folks who can't handle the fact that they are unable to discriminate should find another way to make a living.

Whatever happened to the golden rule? Have some of these folks who purport to be Christian forgotten it? If we always treated others as we would like to be treated ourselves, there would be no need for anti discrimination statues. Because "others" means everyone, not just the people you feel like treating well.

IMHO the NCAA should relocate the final four. There are plenty of other venues. Send a clear message.

Yes. I think "sending a message" has been overlooked, too. This is the one way regular people can change things and force a politician's hand. Whether or not Pence does anything about it, he's just committed career suicide by being openly defiant and flippant. Again, religion has no place in the law. The federal law was made to protect religion at a, mostly, ceremonial level. Indiana's law allows religious people to discriminate. Completely different.

You can refuse service on behavior; not being. That's what it comes down to, and this law overrides that.

[Pointgod]

People are so lucky they can say "leave it the way it is, sports shouldn't have anything to do with politics". Easy to make such statements when you aren't the one being discriminated against.

I wonder what the responses in here would be if the law was discriminating against blacks instead.

Have you seen the posts on this board when it comes to a discussion on race? Don't be so sure that the responses would be any different.