• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Jack Hays said:
Except that several of your categories overlap to a great extent. Blacks were the unexpected difference makers.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that overlap is primarily age and religiosity, and that if you take those factors into account the black factor is no longer relevant to the passing of Prop 8.
 
WorldWatcher said:
I didn't say otherwise.

What I said was that a for-profit business calling themselves a "private club" does not automatically exempt themselves from Pubic Accommodation laws - which is different from what you said.

* Selective membership and admission policies, such policies cannot intended to evade Public Accommodation laws

* Bylaws and adherence to bylaws

* Membership control over governance, non-membership control will disqualify an entity from being exempt from Public Accommodation laws.

* A clear non-business statement of purpose, commercial or business directed purposes don't qualify for exemption from Public Accommodation laws

* Operation as a "non-profit" entity, "for-profit" activities will typically disqualify an entity from being exempt from Public Accommodation laws

* Advertisement and use of facilities, advertising availablity of resources typically will disqualify an entity from Pubic Accommodation laws​


https://www.nationalclub.org/clientuploads/NCALegalQABooklet_FINAL_no print marks.pdf
Private club legal definition of Private club
http://www.cmaa.org/uploadedFiles/PCS/MayJune02legal.pdf
http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/...#search="public business versus private club"


>>>>
Click to expand...

Ahh. I think we were just talking past each other. It seems we agree after all
 
sangha said:
Your facts aren't facts. Melissa's Cupcakes is still in business. They're running it out of their home
Click to expand...

And they still have the huge fine hanging over their heads, and didn't they have a nice little storefront before? Yeah, they are completely undamaged. :roll:
 
eohrnberger said:
And they still have the huge fine hanging over their heads, and didn't they have a nice little storefront before? Yeah, they are completely undamaged. :roll:
Click to expand...

boo hoo

seriously im so unmoved by that i refuse to even use proper punctuation grammer or spelling to express it
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, and that overlap is primarily age and religiosity, and that if you take those factors into account the black factor is no longer relevant to the passing of Prop 8.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Substantial black defection from the left coalition was enough to make the difference.
 
Jack Hays said:
Well, no. Substantial black defection from the left coalition was enough to make the difference.
Click to expand...

And what was the reason for black people deviating from the typical liberal position? The pigmentation in their skin? No, it was age and religiosity, the same two factors (among conservatism, where applicable) that overlapped pretty much all the demographics.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
And what was the reason for black people deviating from the typical liberal position? The pigmentation in their skin? No, it was age and religiosity.
Click to expand...

The point is that on this question alone they voted with their age mates.
 
Henrin said:
Well, I don't think that makes any sense. If I fail to save some guy that fell overboard I didn't kill him and more likely no one else did. The guy just fell off the boat. No one is responsible for that.
Click to expand...

It's one of the beautiful things about the common law we inherited from England that it does not impose a duty to rescue in most cases. Justice Holmes once noted that a man can sit on a pier, calmly having a smoke, while only a few yards away a helpless woman is drowning, and even if he never lifts a finger to help the law can do nothing to him. In most other countries, that is not the case. Maybe the people there know too many of them are not quite what they should be.

In England and America, at least, it has been a source of pride for centuries that free, civilized people do not need any law to make them do the right thing--that it is a slight to our honor to assume we need anyone to tell us to be decent. Our law has always assumed that a situation like Holmes described, even if it can be imagined in theory, is in fact unthinkable.
 
Jack Hays said:
The point is that on this question alone they voted with their age mates.
Click to expand...

...and religion, along with the other people who made their votes guided by age and religion. I'm sure you're also quite familiar with the LDS role in Prop 8?
 
sangha said:
Govt can regulate business. I know you don't like that but we don't live in the libertarian dictatorship
Click to expand...

Well then let's quit doing a half ass job then. If a customer says that they don't want to engage in commerce with a business because the owner is gay, they need to be fined and made to do business with gays.
 
matchlight said:
It's one of the beautiful things about the common law we inherited from England that it does not impose a duty to rescue in most cases. Justice Holmes once noted that a man can sit on a pier, calmly having a smoke, while only a few yards away a helpless woman is drowning, and even if he never lifts a finger to help the law can do nothing to him. In most other countries, that is not the case. Maybe the people there know too many of them are not quite what they should be.

In England and America, at least, it has been a source of pride for centuries that free, civilized people do not need any law to make them do the right thing--that it is a slight to our honor to assume we need anyone to tell us to be decent. Our law has always assumed that a situation like Holmes described, even if it can be imagined in theory, is in fact unthinkable.
Click to expand...

Depends on the district you're living in, which may have a good samaritan law.
 
eohrnberger said:
And they still have the huge fine hanging over their heads, and didn't they have a nice little storefront before? Yeah, they are completely undamaged. :roll:
Click to expand...

How much is the fine?
 
JasperL said:
Seriously? So if your daughter falls overboard and some man is 10 feet away with a rope and life preserver and instead of throwing it to your daughter and saving her life, he grabs another beer and continues watching the beautiful sunset. You're good with that?

Of course you wouldn't be - you know it, we know it - if you're a normal human being, you're likely to rip his head off if given half a chance, so why make this pretense that it's morally neutral? Literally no one would conclude that if it was their loved one who wasn't saved.
Click to expand...

My argument was not dealing with the moral aspect of the situation, but only the factual aspect of the situation. Morally speaking if someone is in trouble you should do you best to help them and if you don't I have no problem with people condemning you for your failure to do so.
 
maquiscat said:
Well then let's quit doing a half ass job then. If a customer says that they don't want to engage in commerce with a business because the owner is gay, they need to be fined and made to do business with gays.
Click to expand...

The american people do not agree with the libertarians' warped sense of fair play. Instead, they have decided to give the govt the power to regulate businesses but not shoppers. Thankfully, we do not live in a nation where our laws must meet the approval of libertarians.
 
Cardinal said:
That's great, but as a member of the majority (white male, dresses mainstream), I don't need to ask myself, "Gee, I wonder if I'll be discriminated against if I try to do business here." A member of the minority would have to deal with that, and would find themselves at a significant disadvantage in the course of doing business, getting an education, etc. By making that type of discrimination illegal you prevent a de facto caste system. If the result of this is that bigots feel irritated by their inability to marginalize the focus of their pettiness, I feel that's an absolutely reasonable price.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about anyone belong allowed to refuse to do business for any reason, as many of us are putting out here, then yes you would have to wonder that, as you may be entering into a minority owned/run business. Maybe it's a woman owned business that refuses to conduct business with men.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The minute a person has to take out a license to shop in a municipality, you might actually have a point. Until then, not so much. But I'll humour you and say quite clearly that I've never had occasion where I went to purchase something and either left a store or refused a purchase I wanted to make based on the race, gender, religion, age, or sexual orientation of the owner of the store or salesperson who served me. I'm not a religious person, so I can't say what would possess a person to refuse to be waited upon by someone based on any of the above criteria. That's because I don't discriminate based on who a person is. But I do discriminate based on how I'm treated and/or the actions of an individual I'm interacting with. I don't suffer fools lightly and they get none of my time.
Click to expand...

I've never gone to sell something and then withdraw the offer because of any of those thing, even when I could legally do so. Just because you are not like that doesn't that there are not people out there like that. Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure that most of us would not discriminate even were we allowed to do so. But there is a major difference between what one should be legally allowed to do and what they would do.
 
They simply don't know the history of the KKK in Indiana in the 1920s with D.C. Stephenson.
EnigmaO01 said:
You have no idea believe me. We were the origin of the KKK.
Click to expand...
As far back as I have looked, Indiana has almost always voted with the Confederate South--and switched parties with them .
 
matchlight said:
It's one of the beautiful things about the common law we inherited from England that it does not impose a duty to rescue in most cases. Justice Holmes once noted that a man can sit on a pier, calmly having a smoke, while only a few yards away a helpless woman is drowning, and even if he never lifts a finger to help the law can do nothing to him. In most other countries, that is not the case. Maybe the people there know too many of them are not quite what they should be.

In England and America, at least, it has been a source of pride for centuries that free, civilized people do not need any law to make them do the right thing--that it is a slight to our honor to assume we need anyone to tell us to be decent. Our law has always assumed that a situation like Holmes described, even if it can be imagined in theory, is in fact unthinkable.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but that line between decent and not decent isn't always so clear. And we have all kinds of laws that really do nothing more than tell us to be decent - don't cheat people, kill them, public nuisance laws, don't sell tainted or poisonous products. We are discussing healthcare - there is in fact a law to require hospitals to treat people in the ER without regard to ability to pay. If Cruz gets his wish and ACA is repealed, how many will die for lack of access to health insurance? If it's 100, are we a decent people? 1,000? 100,000? 1 million? Those aren't easy lines to draw.
 
maquiscat said:
If we're talking about anyone belong allowed to refuse to do business for any reason, as many of us are putting out here, then yes you would have to wonder that, as you may be entering into a minority owned/run business. Maybe it's a woman owned business that refuses to conduct business with men.
Click to expand...

It's a theoretical "wonder" only. In reality, discrimination of the type we're discussing isn't going to confront a white, Christian male in this country even one time in a lifetime. Exceptions would be exceedingly rare, like seeing a white rhino in the wild.
 
Blemonds said:
That is exactly what is happening in America. If you want to run your business according to your Christian beliefs, you can literally be forced out of business. That form of discrimination is celebrated by liberals all across America
Click to expand...

I have a lot of rentals. I admit, I discriminate. Over many years of renting I have a good profile of good and bad renters. And this profile does show a pattern with specific groups of people. This includes homosexuals. Do I tell them outright, "Sorry, your type has an issue with paying your bills.." Um, No.
 
Cardinal said:
Depends on the district you're living in, which may have a good samaritan law.
Click to expand...

I haven't done a study of duty-to-help laws in all fifty states, but "good samaritan" laws as I understand them affect people who have already begun to help someone in distress. Their usual purpose is to encourage people to help, e.g. drivers who come upon people injured in a crash, by exempting them from liability provided they exercise reasonable care. These laws normally require the helper to finish what he started--i.e. you can't begin to help and then just walk away, maybe leaving the person in a worse position than when you found him. Your responsibility normally ends when police or medical help arrives. I think a person who would not help someone whose life was in danger for fear of being sued is despicable.

There may be state laws that now impose a duty to help on anyone who can, I don't know. Too bad, if so. But that duty did not exist in the common law.
 
eohrnberger said:
And they still have the huge fine hanging over their heads, and didn't they have a nice little storefront before? Yeah, they are completely undamaged. :roll:
Click to expand...


The government didn't fine the business (yet as that hearing has not been held), the storefront was closed because business fell off. Market forces at work.


>>>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom