Pro Religious Freedom Act Indiana pizzeria that closed after threats gets $130K in support

[PRB]

If anybody, or new DP members, want more info, then just let me know.

DP? what's that? Daily Paul?

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, you can make all sorts of comparisons. But I like the ones that best fit the actual scenario. What makes this case different than what's been typical in discrimination cases is that this isn't discrimination based on a group but rather discrimination based on an event. Subtle but important difference. The owners said they are fine with serving gays. I believe them. They don't want to service an event that they disagree with. You mentioned black businesses having to service white people. That's the case under current federal civil rights law. And frankly you'd be hard pressed to find a black business owner that didn't want white business! But....a black business having to serve a Tea Party event? Having to listen for hours to people drone on and on about how they can't stand Obama and that Obama is really a Muslim and everything else? Now that would be a problem for people. Realize the paradigm shift here. Catch the fine print. I would be against an ambulance driver being able to show up to an accident and refuse to help someone because that person was gay. That makes me less that 100% libertarian? Fine. Maybe in a "perfect free market", that doesn't exist, where people can start hospitals and ambulance services without government permission this would all work out. But I don't think a pizza owner should have to do a gay wedding or a black wedding or an interracial wedding. I believe, after a lot of thought, that the real reason for the civil rights act was to get the KKK off the backs of white southern businessmen who wanted black dollars. "Hey Bubba! Sorry but we can't discriminate. It's the law." Nowadays the markets will sufficiently punish racists. And over time, if the market wants too, it will sufficiently punish "homophobes." Just ask Chik-Fil-A.

+Rep for identifying FORCE as the source of the problem.

When two people have sex, both parties must concent. If one party does not concent and sex is forced by either party, it is deemed Rape. Both parties must also retain the right to say No, thereby nullifying Force. The effort that is being made here is using Force By Law to legalize one party raping the other. This is DOUBLETHINK. Holding on to two opposing ideas within a statement. It would be like saying "it is okay for women to rape men, but men are prohibited from raping women". Rape is rape, and this is transactional rape, where gay is used as nothing more as an excuse and is the source of the Doublethink. Solar Powered Flashlight is typically also used as an example of Doublethink, where it is expected to work in the dark, but he dark is the only place the flashlight will not function. Solar Powered Flashlights are interpreted as "funny" because of how obvious the two opposing ideas are. What is really on the line here is the Right to Say No. When we turn Excuses in to Legal Reasons, we enable converting Rights into Priviledges. If people want to retain the Right to Say No, we must support both the positive and negative version of the Right. If I want to retain the Right to Say No to you, I must also support your Right to Say No to me as well. Rights are only limited in their Scope by the Equal Rights of others. And that is exactly what is not happening with that Law. What the Law is saying is Gays can Say No to whoever they want, but Businesses do NOT retain such Rights, thus, Rights in general are whittled away.

Make no mistake that this is not simply a Gay Rights issue. Gay is used as an excuse to use Legal Force to cause Compulsory Concent that only needs to be held by One Party at the expense of the other. jmdrake also got it right because he changed the context to a different situation. Should Gay business owners be Forced to do business with Straight people. But lets try several other situations. Should Black business owners be Forced to do business with White customers? Should White business owners be Forced to do business with Black customers? If a Muslim Female demands sex from a Buddhist Male, should the Buddhist Male be Forced into sex? Flip it to the opposite, where a Straight Pagan Asian Female be able to demand sex from a White Christian Female? Should a Business Owner be able to demand people give them money in exchange for a product or service the forced party does not want? Although Insurance probably comes to mind, think Pizza. Should the Gay owner of a Pizza Business be able to demand that everyone buy their Pizzas? Should a Christian Gay Female be able to demand Straight Hispanic Muslim Males buy their pizzas? By changing the Context, we see that this disparages upon the Right to Say No based on emotional bias to one of the excuses and only results in Less Rights for everyone. Validation is manufactured through the emotional bias one has on the Group Divider, Gay vs Straight, Male vs Female, Christian vs Muslim, simple Divide and Conquer by validating compulsion based on the Divider instead of the Unifier of Equal Rights. Bias is generated by the perceived Importance and Size of the dominant group or individual. The last thing this Law does is validats Govt Intervention and existence. It stems from the concept that Rights come from Govt, which is nothing more than more Group Think Validation. This group of people, because they are a part of a "Legitimate Govt" has more Rights than those who are not a part of the Govt, thus the "Superior Rights of Govt" can be damned and this Law is Invalid because it disparages the Rights of both Individuals and Groups in favor of one with Validation by Govt. The only solution we have is to support both the positive and negative form of the Right to Say No, which places a higher degree of value on Equal Rights instead of a selective group. When we both retain both forms of the Rights, Right to Say Yes, and Right to Say No, we create Equal Rights where one persons Rights are only limited by the Equal Rights of others.

Key Points:
- Right to Say No
- Doublethink
- Equal Rights

Compulsory Action is the Antithesis of Freedom. Cooperation and Mutual Concent are the foundations of Freedom; Compulsion is the foundation of Tyranny.

 

[Deborah K]

Someone rep jmdrake for me please?

 

[devil21]

Someone rep jmdrake for me please?

did

 

[juleswin]

It's not a "special right" to exercise your religious beliefs it's a Constitutional right. A person who identifies as a Christian, does so because they believe in Christ and follow his teachings as they are explained by Christ and his representatives in the New Testament. It clearly states in the N.T. (as well as the Old) that homosexual behavior is an abomination. If a pizzeria makes a decision to refuse services to a group of people who identify as homosexuals - based on their religious beliefs, the pizzaria can easily qualify it by referencing the Bible.

I'd like to make a few points about this:

First, there are many businesses of faith that will cater to gays, because they view the teachings of the Bible differently. As you have most assuredly witnessed in these very forums - not all people of faith interpret the Bible or view things in the same way.

Also, business owners are always vulnerable to public pressure, so if the overriding opinion in their community is that they are wrongheaded about an issue- they will end up going out of business.

Additionally, gays can easily set up their own pizzerias, etc. and cater to other gays if they wish. Almost all metropolis areas have gay communities which do just that. And so the issue of actual homosexual discrimination is extremely minimal and is being blown out of proportion. Imagine that.

And, as a side note: I think these state laws regarding freedom of religion show how the Constitution (which already protects freedom of religion) is slowly but surely being rendered irrelevant. The only way laws like these should be considered, is if the Fedgov is dismantled (yaye!) and state gov'ts put the Bill of Rights in each of their Constitutions.

And finally, if individual freedom is the goal, then you should have the right to refuse service to anyone, without the threat of death or imprisonment. And others should have the right to avoid your establishment, and start their own.

I say its a special right because its a right exclusive to religious folks. I agree with just about everything to said in the post, but I am still not convinced that its not a special right. Religious folks get exception to some taxes, fighting wars, vaccinations and now discrimination. I just think they should remove the religious qualifier to it and allow everybody to claim that right. I want all those rights without having to lie about being religious.

Btw I think business discriminating against a paying customer is bad for business but people should have the right to hurt their sales. This is still the "land of the free" right?

Welcome Back Deborah K, you must have lost a ton of weight from that winter hibernation

 

[Deborah K]

Religious folks get exception to some taxes, fighting wars, vaccinations and now discrimination. I just think they should remove the religious qualifier to it and allow everybody to claim that right. I want all those rights without having to lie about being religious.

I agree. It shouldn't be necessary to have to claim religious grounds to have those rights.

Welcome Back Deborah K, you must have lost a ton of weight from that winter hibernation

Thank you, Jules. It's good to be back.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So you ARE saying that (self proclaimed) religious people have special rights, OK, you have a point, I'll take that.

Everyone on earth has the same rights as human beings. No such thing as gay rights, women's rights, religious rights, etc.. You mentioned practical, so I addressed that point. How things play out in real life is often quite different.

 

[PRB]

Everyone on earth has the same rights as human beings. No such thing as gay rights, women's rights, religious rights, etc.. You mentioned practical, so I addressed that point. How things play out in real life is often quite different.

How things play out in real life is exactly and only what I am talking about. So yes, you basically admitted that practically, religious people have more privileges, rights and benefits than those who do not proclaim their right to refuse war, vaccines, Obamacare, school, contraception for employees, and a laundry list of other things.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How things play out in real life is exactly and only what I am talking about. So yes, you basically admitted that practically, religious people have more privileges, rights and benefits than those who do not proclaim their right to refuse war, vaccines, Obamacare, school, contraception for employees, and a laundry list of other things.

I don't see it. Anybody can claim to be religious. The same arguments that aren't "religious" parallel the religious ones. You can, for example, be a conscientious objector to avoid battle. Same with vaccines. In fact, the health exemption for vaccines exists in all 50 states, and is easier to get than people think (e.g, just cite allergic reaction). You can be a Mennonite to avoid Obamacare, but Forbes just listed a dozen other Obamacare exemptions that have nothing to do with religion.

Religion is not the only practicality. More than one way to skin a cat.

Anyway, do you, as a Jewish person claim special privilege or right?

 

[PRB]

I don't see it. Anybody can claim to be religious. The same arguments that aren't "religious" parallel the religious ones. You can, for example, be a conscientious objector to avoid battle. Same with vaccines. In fact, the health exemption for vaccines exists in all 50 states, and is easier to get than people think (e.g, just cite allergic reaction). You can be a Mennonite to avoid Obamacare, but Forbes just listed a dozen other Obamacare exemptions that have nothing to do with religion.

Religion is not the only practicality. More than one way to skin a cat.

Let me put it this way, this is not a trick question, I'm honestly interested in knowing if you know. If you don't know, no worries, I'll wait for somebody who does. Are you saying an atheist can utilize all the ways a religious person skins a cat, without actually saying he's religious? Sure, Obamacare has a dozen non-religious exemptions, but what about vaccines, war, and the rest of the laundry list? Do they all allow anybody to make any argument to be exempt? Or must some be exclusively "religious beliefs"?

I mean, I get that atheists and people who oppose religions open CAN technically lie to get what they want, they may engage in logical contradiction but if the law protects them, good for them.

Anyway, do you, as a Jewish person claim special privilege or right?

I'm not a Jew.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm not a Jew.

You're not? I figure you're atheist/agnostic, but you're not culturally? Parents? I find that very hard to believe, considering your posts.

 

[PRB]

You're not? I figure you're atheist/agnostic, but you're not culturally? Parents? I find that very hard to believe, considering your posts.

What? Did I post something about Holocaust or Israel that leads you to think I'm a Jew?

 

[56ktarget]

I guess Paulites don't like the free market response at work

 

[PRB]

I guess Paulites don't like the free market response at work

huh???

 

[oyarde]

I guess Paulites don't like the free market response at work

Actually , I do like free markets , very much .

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What? Did I post something about Holocaust or Israel that leads you to think I'm a Jew?

Ah yes; the scoundrel answering a question with a question. Instead of just answering, you continue to justifying your fibbing by seeing all of this in the context of your lawyer games instead of the larger context.

 

[pcosmar]

Why not just call their bluff?

Call whose bluff?

No Gay couple wanted this store to cater anything.. NO ONE was refused service.

These people voluntarily made a public announcement that they would not cater a Gay wedding (though they had never been asked) and they got some negative feedback.

Then they closed their shop and cried,,, and people(suckers) are filling their pockets with more money than they could make selling a product.

 

[jmdrake]

I guess Paulites don't like the free market response at work

The free market just made these pizza owners over $170,000 richer for being against gay marriage. I'm not upset. I'm trying to figure out how to cash in! I don't care either way. I just want the $170K.

 

[jmdrake]

Call whose bluff?

No Gay couple wanted this store to cater anything.. NO ONE was refused service.

These people voluntarily made a public announcement that they would not cater a Gay wedding (though they had never been asked) and they got some negative feedback.

Then they closed their shop and cried,,, and people(suckers) are filling their pockets with more money than they could make selling a product.

And good for them. It's not every day that you get to make your enemies look stupid and fill your pockets at the same time. And for the "suckers" filling their pockets, they got to feel good about themselves by helping a cause they supported get publicity. Kinda like donating to a moneybomb

 

[phill4paul]

Call whose bluff?

No Gay couple wanted this store to cater anything.. NO ONE was refused service.

These people voluntarily made a public announcement that they would not cater a Gay wedding (though they had never been asked) and they got some negative feedback.

Then they closed their shop and cried,,, and people(suckers) are filling their pockets with more money than they could make selling a product.

To the tune of $842k. That's the equivalent of selling 56k pizzas @ $15 each. They would have to sell 142 pizzas a day, 7 days a week, in a town of 2,200 people to rake in that amount of cash in a year.