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

Originally Posted by roguenuke

And they are free to do that, especially since he really didn't give them any information about what his religion, race, sex, sexuality (there are gay people who oppose same sex marriage), nationality, or other protected classification would be. He could assume that they assumed one of these things, but then he would still have to have some sort of evidence. The most he would have is "well I told them I wanted this cake with these words on it, then they hung up". I'm sure any court case would be easily thrown out after viewing that tape and seeing that the man was setting them up and that he wasn't even being denied service for a protected class. "Douchebag" isn't a protected classification.

He was out to make a point and I think he made it well enough. Oh and just so you know, I think people that sue for being denied service are douchebags. Just sayin.

Originally Posted by vesper

And you can't use your bigoted views against religion to violate another man's rights over another. Either we all have rights or we have none.

What are my bigoted views about religion? I believe strongly that everyone should have the right to practice any religion that they choose to...however you cannot use your religion as a shield to get around the laws of the country. Sorry...but claiming "religion" does not give you carte blanche to write your own rules. It doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by roguenuke

LOL!!

Please prove this ridiculous assertion. No one cares if Christians own businesses. What people do care about is if anyone, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Hindu, atheist, whoever tries to justify discrimination in their open-to-the-public business with "my beliefs are that this type of person is wrong, sinning, etc.".

See the cases of the baker and photographer forced out of business. What is the eventual outcome of a Christian merchant who stands on his beliefs and refuses over and over to provide products or services for homosexual weddings?

Originally Posted by disneydude

Your link does nothing to support your claim. Try again. Try a little harder next time.

On a side note: I worked at the ACLU of Utah while I was in law school back in 1988-91. While I was there we were involved in a number of battles. Some involved over-crowded prison conditions, others involved civil rights issues...but one particular involved the right of an after-school student bible study group to have access to the school. We at the ACLU fought it and won. People often love to bitch and whine about the ACLU and often don't have a clue about many of the cases the ACLU has fought.

Then you know how the ACLU shops for cases, so stop pretending otherwise. They look for cases that will get through appeals making the strongest case, in order to have the biggest impact. DC vs Heller happened in DC for a reason. The Fluck case (at a Catholic university) was picked for a reason.

This is nothing new, goes back to at least the civil rights era, and the Rosa Parks case.

No need to pretend otherwise.

Originally Posted by Blemonds

Interesting. that means the discrimination was not based on the sexual reference but rather the event. Thanks for pointing that out

Like I said....it is similar to saying that blacks can watch the movie...but they gotta sit in the balacony. The theater owner isn't refusing them service....right?

"You can eat in my restaurant, but you have to sit out back on the porch and you can only order the soup...the rest of the menu is for whites-only".

Originally Posted by Paperview

The logic is: Being intolerant of intolerance is the ultimate act of tolerance.

Being intolerant of intolerance is the ultimate act of intolerance

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Wrong. He made cakes for weddings. They were having a wedding. He refused to sell them a cake for their wedding because of their being homosexual, their being a same sex couple. That makes it their classifications that was the reason for the refusal, not the event.

Sorry, but they were long time customers which means their sexual preferences were not an issue. It was the event that was an issue

Originally Posted by roguenuke

And they are free to do that, especially since he really didn't give them any information about what his religion, race, sex, sexuality (there are gay people who oppose same sex marriage), nationality, or other protected classification would be. He could assume that they assumed one of these things, but then he would still have to have some sort of evidence. The most he would have is "well I told them I wanted this cake with these words on it, then they hung up". I'm sure any court case would be easily thrown out after viewing that tape and seeing that the man was setting them up and that he wasn't even being denied service for a protected class. "Douchebag" isn't a protected classification.

Perhaps the best case would be a gay atheist who is anti-gay marriage, trolling those bakeries. He could easily record himself saying hes a gay atheist and he wants an anti-gay marriage cake for a wedding. See how easy this is?

And no-douche-bag isn't a protected classification-and I have a problem with protected classes in general (outside of medical conditions and children).

My problem here is not with gay marriage-I actually support that-my problem is with a stunning double standard, use of the govt to coerce non-protected class private businesses and citizens, and the invasive nature of the left in what should be a personal transaction between private citizens.