• 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

1.)And not all groups or persons are protected or protected equally.
2.) Of course all people are of some race or sex, and all (in theory) are protected (privileged) from some level of private discrimination based on their race or sex or national origin (etc.). However many individuals are not protected (privileged) from discrimination on the basis of their membership in other groups (e.g. those under 40, or those who have committed crimes, etc.).
3.) Moreover, in practice, whites and Asians are often "legally" discriminated against due to equal opportunity and/or affirmative action programs.
4.) As previously, this is either a disingenuous ploy or outright ignorance. "The fact remains" that there are many laws that compels those who do not wish to serve a group, to do so. In Oregon or Iowa, if you don't wish to serve gays due to their sexual orientation, you will be punished.
5.)More disingenuous tripe. You cannot refuse service to anybody you want if the motivations behind the refusal is banned by law. You cannot refuse to serve 'anyone' if the basis is their race, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc..
6.)Being such an expert, I am surprised you don't know that.

1.) false based on legality and definition they are
2.) see #1
3.) again see #1 EEO/AA protects all of us
4.) actually its based on facts, AS MY STSTMENT IS WRITTEN, its 100% true and trying to dishonestly change it to something else is a complete failure and straw man.
if you disagree simply post the law that says "i must serve gays", you will completely fail and your lie or ignorance of the law will be shown.
5.) thank you for proving me 100% right, see where you use dthe word IF, that proves me right.
maybe read the thread before you jump in the middle and totally own your own posts.

the claim was made that there is force to serve protected groupp, that is 100% false. No law exists.

what you just posted an example of AFTER the if is a law that makes ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION a crime . . NOT simply not serving anybody who belongs to a groups/

so the fact remains i can in fact deny service to anybody i want
what i can not do is violate peoples rights or break the law
simply denying service does NOT do that

6.) i did no that and it was exactly my point, thank you for making it for me. Next time try to understand what is being discussed and you wont repeat the mistake you made. Thanks!
 
There's more than just a bit of irony in these situations. The business owner says that he doesn't agree with a person's choices so he chooses not to do business with that person. That person (the one from the tolerance crowd mind you) responds by saying that he does not agree with the business owner's choices so he is going to use the full force of the law to inflict harm on the business owner.

Tolerance is certainly a complex (and obviously hypocritical) issue

You are correct. "Tolerance" and bigotry are a two-way street. The gays who are repelled by a baker's religious beliefs and who crave to force the baker to serve them are not being tolerant, they are self-righteous gay crusaders backed force.

For those who actually are tolerant, its not that difficult. If a person does not want to trade, date, or associate with you...you move on. If you don't want to trade, date, or associate them, they move on. THAT is tolerance.

But for those that can't move on, like the gay persecutors of the baker(s), they are little more than stalkers - they just can't stand the thought of being rejected and, like all stalkers, wish to destroy those who exercise their right to associate with whom they please.

Too bad they can't be locked up.
 
Last edited:
so the answer is yes they have a choice to refuse to serve them, further proving the lies and falsehoods you have been repeating post after post completely false.

Good job on admitting you were wrong!

So on what basis the fine for the Christian bakers then?

Would seem to me that the same should apply to them, that they have the right to refuse to service the alleged damaged gay couple.
What basis for the gay couple's complaint? Or are you saying that their complaint is without merit and without basis?
Or are you saying that the right to refuse to conduct business with another party isn't a right that Christian bakers of wedding cakes should be permitted?
 
can ANYBODY please post this imaginary law for me that forces me to serve gays? (or any person based on gender, race, religion, etc)

anybody?
 
wedding cakes = wedding cakes. There isnt a distinction between wther they are for interracial couple homosexual couple, bi sexual couple, christian couple etc.
once again it shows you dont understand this topic

My response was to a wedding cake that had 2 brides or 2 grooms or 'Steve and Allen, marriage forever' on it.

Generic, nondescript cakes, I'm not seeing a problem. I've already stated it shouldn't matter who's buying the cake, as their money spends the same, and the same ingredients and labor are involved.
 
1.)So on what basis the fine for the Christian bakers then?
2.)Would seem to me that the same should apply to them, that they have the right to refuse to service the alleged damaged gay couple.
3.) What basis for the gay couple's complaint?
4.) Or are you saying that their complaint is without merit and without basis?
5.)Or are you saying that the right to refuse to conduct business with another party isn't a right that Christian bakers of wedding cakes should be permitted?

1.) thats what im asking you!? lol
what is it, answer the question with facts and it will solve all your misconceptions
2.) they can refuse service to anybody they want in general
3.) ahhh now you are making progress, answer that question, what is the basis . . in court . . what will be discussed . . i can assure you it most certainly wont be refusal of service
4.) no thier ACTUAL complaint is 100% justified, what you think the compliant is is worthless and not true.
5.) nope not saying that either.

you have the right to swing your fist and move about freely.
if you decide you want to swing your fist in a space somebody already is and you punch them in the face, do YOU get to complain they infringed on your right to move freely?
or do they get to complain that you assaulted them and infringed on thier rights by doing so?

if you find the TRUE, FACTUAL answer to what the complaint, case, breaking the law is about you will answer your own questions.
 
can ANYBODY please post this imaginary law for me that forces me to serve gays? (or any person based on gender, race, religion, etc)

anybody?

Wouldn't what you're asking fall under the civil rights act?
 
1.)My response was to a wedding cake that had 2 brides or 2 grooms or 'Steve and Allen, marriage forever' on it.
2.)Generic, nondescript cakes, I'm not seeing a problem. I've already stated it shouldn't matter who's buying the cake, as their money spends the same, and the same ingredients and labor are involved.

1.) yes a WEDDING cake
2.) that wouldnt be a wedding cake then would it. like the other poster pointed out, i go in to the shop look at a book of WEDDING CAKES and tell them I want number 11. its a done deal. WHen i ask for a black guy on it and white bride they cant illegal discriminate against me based on that.
if its a genreal public access business they sell wedding cakes or they dont
 
Wouldn't what you're asking fall under the civil rights act?

civil rights act forces me to serve people based on that stuff? explain
link to what you speak of?
 
Last edited:
wow thats a nice long waste of a post based on your biased and dishonest opinions and feelings that dont matter. LMAO

Nobody educated, honest and objective falls for "the gay agenda", "force of acceptance", "market will fix itself" dishonesty mentally retard "rhetoric", it just gets mocked and laughed at for the desperation it is.
Ill stick with the actually topic and go with facts, reality and rights over your views.

ANd the fact remains:
there are no laws forcing or compelling anybody to do business with gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no right to service
there is no force to accept gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no force to serve gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no force to say yes
religious rights are not infringed
right to associate is not infringed
right to a contract is not infringed
there is a choice

you challeneges are 0-lifetime against me and nothing has changed
sorry that equal rights winning conflicts with your wants and views but the war is basically over, these little desperate bigoted last minute battles will end up HELPING equal rights. They will help just like banning did and its sweet sweet irony. THese things give ANOTHER path to be challenged and destroyed in the courts setting a precedence that will further cement in equal rights for my fellow Americans, the ones you so wish didnt have equal rights. MAKES ME PROUD your side is losing and losing big and I chuckle every time i see the hate, dislike and fear that equal rights causes among those that share you views and I thank god america is righting wrongs and improving itself on this front. :D
GOod luck though, keep up the good fight against equal rights! We love the entertainment.

your post fails and facts win again
So I can open a business that serves only heterosexual white males?
 
So I can open a business that serves only heterosexual white males?
not enough info to accurately answer
maybe, depends on your business and reasoning :shrug:

whats your business?
 
My response was to a wedding cake that had 2 brides or 2 grooms or 'Steve and Allen, marriage forever' on it.

Generic, nondescript cakes, I'm not seeing a problem. I've already stated it shouldn't matter who's buying the cake, as their money spends the same, and the same ingredients and labor are involved.

The cake in the case you keep referring to, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, was a generic nondescript cake. It did not have any figures on it nor any writing.
 
1.) of course because i believe in protecting my fellow Americans rights

And those rights you are protecting are?

2.) false since there is no force. I mean we know you keep claiming this lie but theres never any proof lol

So can a business be sued if they fail to provide service to someone for a reason that is banned? Yes or no?
 
Morning CJ. I'm tired today. Much fun last night. Rangers brought Ottawa's hot streak to an end.:mrgreen:

I assumed you knew what I said. I wanted to just restate it. That's what my problem is with the entire issue. It's okay to refuse service to anyone you want, as long as it isn't someone of the protected class and you aren't specifically saying the reason is because of the protected class. Technically any business can decline service to any gay person today. You just can't say it's because of that. That's what also makes this law BS. I get that it had to be done in the 1960s because of the treatment of blacks, but we've overcompensated to the point that it's just ridiculous. That's why these threads always end up as they do, with both sides lobbing insults at each other, making rude blanket statements about political parties, screaming about "the LAW!", and the constant barrage of over the top dramatic hyperbole.

Go Rangers.

I can agree with all that. It just makes me wonder sometimes why people would choose to go into a business where they set themselves up to be offended or needing to exercise "rights" in their day to day business lives. And I don't understand how some people can be so fragile in their faith, as an example, that selling a gay person a cake will doom them to the fires of hell and eternal damnation.

And on the aside, I predicted a few weeks back that the Rangers and Kings are going to meet in the final again this year - I didn't predict a winner, but it's hard to win two in a row, so you might be in for a happy June.
 
Grocery store

ok grocery store. That you want to only sell to heterosexual white males.

now whats your premise, well just change one thing for now.
WHen a heterosexual white woman walks in, loads up her buggy and gets to the cash register what happens now, whats the reason you dont sell to her?
 
1.) yes a WEDDING cake
2.) that wouldnt be a wedding cake then would it. like the other poster pointed out, i go in to the shop look at a book of WEDDING CAKES and tell them I want number 11. its a done deal. WHen i ask for a black guy on it and white bride they cant illegal discriminate against me based on that.
if its a genreal public access business they sell wedding cakes or they dont

'We don't offer figurines on cakes'
'We only offer matched set figures, and can't break them up'
'It's not a product configuration we offer'
 
ok grocery store. That you want to only sell to heterosexual white males.

now whats your premise, well just change one thing for now.
WHen a heterosexual white woman walks in, loads up her buggy and gets to the cash register what happens now, whats the reason you dont sell to her?
Cause she's a woman. I wouldn't even allow her in the store.
 
ok grocery store. That you want to only sell to heterosexual white males.

now whats your premise, well just change one thing for now.
WHen a heterosexual white woman walks in, loads up her buggy and gets to the cash register what happens now, whats the reason you dont sell to her?

The store only serves white heterosexual males, so a white heterosexual female would be obviously outside of that group. Duh??
 
1.)And those rights you are protecting are?
2.)So can a business be sued if they fail to provide service to someone for a reason that is banned? Yes or no?

1.) take your pick, any of the rights that are infringed on or laws broken in the many court cases that deal with this. Civil rights, equal rights etc.
2.) i cant answer until you give me more info, what buisness, what someone and what "banned reasons" do you speak off
 
civil rights act forces me to serve people based on that stuff? explain
link to what you speak of?

I thought title ii of the Civil Rights Act
prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation.
I'm not aware that a business can get away with refusing service to a black person because they are black or to a female because they are female.
 
1.) take your pick, any of the rights that are infringed on or laws broken in the many court cases that deal with this. Civil rights, equal rights etc.

Give me the name of one of these rights.

2.) i cant answer until you give me more info, what buisness, what someone and what "banned reasons" do you speak off

:roll: It makes no difference at all. Can a businesses be sued for not servicing someone for a reason that is banned? Yes or no?
 
The store only serves white heterosexual males, so a white heterosexual female would be obviously outside of that group. Duh??

that doesnt really answer my question.
what do you tell here.

are you saying you would say "sorry lady we don't sell to any women in here"?
 
Last edited:
The store only serves white heterosexual males, so a white heterosexual female would be obviously outside of that group. Duh??[/QUOT]

that doesnt really answer my question.
what do you tell here.

are you saying you would say "sorry lady we don't sell to any women in here"?
She wouldn't even be allowed in the store.
 
that doesnt really answer my question.
what do you tell here.

are you saying you would say "sorry lady we don't sell to any women in here"?

It doesn't matter what I say. She is a woman and the store doesn't sell to women. She will be removed and refused service like all other women.
 
Back
Top Bottom