Thread: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Originally Posted by Fiddytree

Breaking a law later found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States and subsequently protected against with additional legislation?

That has nothing to do with the law at the time or the property rights of the businesses they refused to leave. Lets also remember they borrowed the tactic from labor unions that violated the property rights of their employers by sitting down on the job and refusing to leave or allow any further production from being done. Their whole plan here was to violate the rights of others to fight for something they had no right to in the first place. I'm sorry but I have zero respect for those people in the picture.

Originally Posted by Henrin

Lol, there are those kids breaking the law again. Guess who owned the property they refused to leave? Hint: It wasn't them. You guys really bought hook line and sinker for the rhetoric sold to you in grade school, didn't you?

Sorry....what you fail to recognize is that the bigoted business ownder had no right to ask them to leave. Sorry Charlie.

Originally Posted by disneydude

Sorry....what you fail to recognize is that the bigoted business ownder had no right to ask them to leave. Sorry Charlie.

Are you saying private property owners have no right to ask someone to leave?

Originally Posted by Henrin

I'm sorry, but the owner of any property has the right to tell anyone to leave.

You know how lefties feel about private property rights...

There is little doubt that modern libertarians are heavily influenced by oligarchic propaganda and often attempt to conceal their racist bigotry behind the claim that an individual can happily refuse to follow societal norms all the while they benefit from a society which expands as more citizens are allowed to fully participate.

Originally Posted by disneydude

Of course....I suspected as much from you. You cry and whine about "links" and then when presented with the facts you simply disregard and spin. I would have been surprised if you had reacted otherwise. I know your ilk all too well. Carry on.

Had your links demonstrated anything important I would have said so. As it is, they merely confirmed my suspicion that you were making a mountain out of a molehill. You actually made my point.

Originally Posted by JasperL

So, people are able to act consistent with their conscience....so long as it's legal. In other words, it depends, which is what I said to begin with.

And your theory tells us exactly nothing about what a religious person would or would not be compelled to do under the law and with the protections of the RFRA and state equivalents.

Originally Posted by JasperL

It's not too "fined-grained" for me. You make a sweeping statement, I say, no, "it depends" to recognize the nuance, and several posts later you're finally recognizing that of course it DOES depend, and of course the difficulty and UNCERTAINTY is where that line is drawn. The law is intended to move the line towards "conscience" and legal discrimination in some cases - or at least that's what supporters tell us - and in communications with their supporters repeatedly mention protecting religious persons from homosexuals and LGBT. So at least some people believe it will give businesses the right, in some cases, refuse service to gays.

We don't actually know yet where this will end up, and that's part of the problem and why some groups oppose the law.

Please see #1090.

Originally Posted by Captain America

Attachment 67182421

Completely off base. Please see #1090.