Page 304 of 320 FirstFirst ... 204254294302303304305306314 ... LastLast
Results 3,031 to 3,040 of 3196

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

  1. #3031
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gdgyva View Post
    well written and i agree with all of it

    excerpt from the article


    If even a few Christians, Jews or Muslims understand marriage to be the sacred union of man and woman in the eyes of God, activists seeking a fresh definition shouldn’t expect an immediate surrender. This doesn’t justify the refusal of a wedding cake, the baking of which hardly qualifies as an endorsement, but nor does it justify charges of bigotry, as is often said of religious people struggling with profound social restructuring.

    This isn’t an excuse for what is, in fact, discrimination by any other name. It is an attempt at compassion sorely missing from most discussions of this and other laws that try to carve out a tiny space for people whose religious beliefs are being put asunder. As gay activist and conservative author Andrew Sullivan wrote last year, “We should give them [religious believers] space.”

    Such as by, say, going to another bakery?

    The market ultimately may settle these matters before the courts do. Pence’s latest move was prompted by corporate pressure as well as a few boycotts on state-funded travel to the Hoosier state.


    the vast majority of businesses will never have an issue with SSM

    the few that do, do so because of beliefs of owners/management

    i cant imagine the stress some of these people have come under because of these issues

    you can bet they werent looking for the notoriety....
    Andrew Sullivan came out with some great reads after that incident in California (I think) where a high level executive had to leave his job because he had donated to Prop 8 years ago. Sullivan is a man whose words on the subject I respect. He was one of the very first people to come out publicly in support of gay marriage a few decades ago, and since then he has remained slow and steady on this issue. His writings were what actually made me realize that SSM should be legal. His arguments are calm and forceful, but they're based in logic and pragmatism instead of hysterics, over the top hypotheticals, and screaming. He has been saying over and over that this has gotten out of control, and that the religious people are entitled to their beliefs.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  2. #3032
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorgasm View Post
    Then explain Pence.
    Pence is doing what many other states have done, signing into law something first done by the federal govt, in keeping with the views of the people of his state.

  3. #3033
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,023

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    As for the brag, see the link I provided. It was the 90's so I doubt a youtube clip exists, but you are welcome to look for it.

    DADT suppressed the rights of gays, which the left claims is a bad thing. He could have just ordered that gays would be admitted to the military. Its clear many in the left regret DADT, if you google it you will see that.

    Yes, the 90's was 15+ years ago, but up until an election 2 years ago, Obama was against gay marriage. Not against selling gays wedding cakes-but the actual marriage.
    The 90s, when this happened, was more like 20 years ago.

    I don't care what any politician claimed to be for or against years ago. Especially not ones that I didn't even vote for. But again, don't let me interrupt yet another partisan rant.

    As for DADT, had Clinton attempted to just allow gays to serve openly in the military, he would have faced a lot of opposition (hell we had to do an entire study on it for over a year to get rid of DADT 2-3 years ago). He did not have the power to change the UCMJ like that, which at the time didn't even come into opposition with a ruling the SCOTUS had made saying that laws against sodomy, which were in the UCMJ, did not violate the Constitution. That ruling was in 2003.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #3034
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The 90s, when this happened, was more like 20 years ago.

    I don't care what any politician claimed to be for or against years ago. Especially not ones that I didn't even vote for. But again, don't let me interrupt yet another partisan rant.

    As for DADT, had Clinton attempted to just allow gays to serve openly in the military, he would have faced a lot of opposition (hell we had to do an entire study on it for over a year to get rid of DADT 2-3 years ago). He did not have the power to change the UCMJ like that, which at the time didn't even come into opposition with a ruling the SCOTUS had made saying that laws against sodomy, which were in the UCMJ, did not violate the Constitution. That ruling was in 2003.
    Well let this serve as a reminder-the left seeks to introduce social change through the coercion of govt-sometimes that ends up differently than intended.
    As for DADT, you have to see the irony in admitting he did it for political expediency. Which goes to show that politicians rarely make stands based on personal convictions. Clinton was playing politics, then and now.

  5. #3035
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,023

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Well let this serve as a reminder-the left seeks to introduce social change through the coercion of govt-sometimes that ends up differently than intended.
    As for DADT, you have to see the irony in admitting he did it for political expediency. Which goes to show that politicians rarely make stands based on personal convictions. Clinton was playing politics, then and now.
    He is a politician. That is what they do, plan/play politics. Anyone who thinks any politician, Democrat, Republican, or other (with some rare exceptions, usually falling in the "other" category) make reasonable stands based on their personal convictions is naive at best, a complete dupe at worst. There are some that make a stand on personal convictions in a way that is completely irrational, and not going to be a good candidate for actually caring about the interests of all the people they represent, or even most of them, because most of them are of the idea that they were elected because every single person that voted for them agrees with absolutely everything they have said or done. Doing this then makes them an idiot or just crazy (some specific politicians come to mind for this one).

    Change happens. The "left" saw the direction the wind was shifting when it came to gay rights. Heck, so did the right, hence DOMA. Even then, those my age supported same sex marriage in higher numbers than our parents, despite being in high school. Some did this because of peer influence (we had a pretty openly gay guy in my high school that was pretty respected, even in a western-NC high school (we were still having issues with people not approving of interracial relationships, which ironically enough the guy who was gay was mixed race, raised by his white grandparents)).

    Media was showing this change in attitude towards homosexuality. Heck, it was the 1990s sitcoms that introduced many of those my age to the concept of not just gay marriage, but even different family types, especially for those raised in nuclear families (which actually wasn't me). The first same sex wedding on US TV was in 1991, on "Roc". We had three men raising three little girls on "Full House", even claiming in either the 2nd or 3rd episode to each be Stephanie's father. Both Roseanne and Friends had same sex weddings in the mid-90s. And Roseanne had at least two regular gay characters (and wasn't the sister bisexual?). Shows like Star Trek: TNG even had episodes that could be said to introduce LGBT issues, in their own way, including having a species that was symbiotic, starting out as inside a male host, then being moved to Riker, then to a female host, all while having/maintaining feelings for Dr. Crusher or the episode that basically was a plug against conversion therapy where the alien race was completely androgynous except for a very few who felt that they should be one gender or the other, something their society disapproved of, to the point of putting those who refused to conform to having no gender in therapy to see the error of their ways.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 04-01-15 at 07:04 PM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #3036
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    He is a politician. That is what they do, plan/play politics. Anyone who thinks any politician, Democrat, Republican, or other (with some rare exceptions, usually falling in the "other" category) make reasonable stands based on their personal convictions is naive at best, a complete dupe at worst. There are some that make a stand on personal convictions in a way that is completely irrational, and not going to be a good candidate for actually caring about the interests of all the people they represent, or even most of them, because most of them are of the idea that they were elected because every single person that voted for them agrees with absolutely everything they have said or done. Doing this then makes them an idiot or just crazy (some specific politicians come to mind for this one).

    Change happens. The "left" saw the direction the wind was shifting when it came to gay rights. Heck, so did the right, hence DOMA. Even then, those my age supported same sex marriage in higher numbers than our parents, despite being in high school. Some did this because of peer influence (we had a pretty openly gay guy in my high school that was pretty respected, even in a western-NC high school (we were still having issues with people not approving of interracial relationships, which ironically enough the guy who was gay was mixed race, raised by his white grandparents)). Heck, it was the 1990s sitcoms that introduced many of those my age to the concept of not just gay marriage, but even different family types, especially for those raised in nuclear families (which actually wasn't me). The first same sex wedding on US TV was in 1991, on "Roc". We had three men raising three little girls on "Full House", even claiming in either the 2nd or 3rd episode to each be Stephanie's father. Both Roseanne and Friends had same sex weddings in the mid-90s. And Roseanne had at least two regular gay characters (and wasn't the sister bisexual?).
    I never really utilized television to learn about these things (Im now 34). Yes, there were single sex relationships, single parent households, etc. But it wasn't formative to me. I believe the premise of Full House was a widowed father, and his friends/family who all happened to be male helping to raise his daughters. Ive met the actress that was Stephanie, btw. Her husband at the time was in my friends band.

    I know things change, I dont see it as the govts role to force social change on anyone, however.

  7. #3037
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,277

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) i agree good thing i never made that claim, if you disagree simply qoute me saying otherwise you will fail . . .in fact there are quotes of me saying your exact phrase
    2.) see #1 since your premise/strawman is based on a lie i never said the only thing wrong is your claim
    3.) translation: facts proved your post wrong so now you are deflecting. Ill be sticking with facts over your proven wrong biased pinon, thanks

    please let us know when you have ONE fact that supports your failed and proven wrong claim . . .one . . . . thank you
    your post fails and facts wins aagin
    ???? If you agree with me, what the hell are you arguing with me about????

    God. It's like being trapped in a room with the DP version of Charlie Sheen.

  8. #3038
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,023

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    I never really utilized television to learn about these things (Im now 34). Yes, there were single sex relationships, single parent households, etc. But it wasn't formative to me. I believe the premise of Full House was a widowed father, and his friends/family who all happened to be male helping to raise his daughters. Ive met the actress that was Stephanie, btw. Her husband at the time was in my friends band.

    I know things change, I dont see it as the govts role to force social change on anyone, however.
    DADT was not forcing social change. It was recognizing that homosexuals can serve their country and should not be banned from serving their country just because they are attracted to and have relationships with people of the same sex. The problem with DADT is that it still forced homosexuals to keep their relationships and attractions secret (at least officially) in order to serve, something that heterosexuals never had to do when it came to the military (at least not most, only those breaking other, much more reasonable rules had to or they would get in trouble). They didn't have to lie about their attractions, but still might have had to lie, or lie by omission about their relationships or attractions.

    And I'm the same age you are. While Full House was as described, I don't see people all up in arms about them raising three girls, as guys, together claiming "they need a mother" (which, although they did have a reoccurring adult female character eventually, they still did not get an actual mother).
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #3039
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    DADT was not forcing social change. It was recognizing that homosexuals can serve their country and should not be banned from serving their country just because they are attracted to and have relationships with people of the same sex. The problem with DADT is that it still forced homosexuals to keep their relationships and attractions secret (at least officially) in order to serve, something that heterosexuals never had to do when it came to the military (at least not most, only those breaking other, much more reasonable rules had to or they would get in trouble). They didn't have to lie about their attractions, but still might have had to lie, or lie by omission about their relationships or attractions.

    And I'm the same age you are. While Full House was as described, I don't see people all up in arms about them raising three girls, as guys, together claiming "they need a mother" (which, although they did have a reoccurring adult female character eventually, they still did not get an actual mother).
    Yes, it kind of was. You yourself stated that homosexuals could be discriminated against (even if indirectly). This was a way to remove those barriers, via govt mandate. Govt often imposes social change via the military because the military has to comply.

    A friend of mine served as a combat engineer in the early days of the Iraq war, he was sexually assaulted while he was sleeping in a trench, this guy is brilliant (now an engineer) and not hateful in any way, and he told me it had an enormously destructive effect on morale in his unit. Am I saying gays should not serve in the military? Not at all, Im saying there are unintended consequences to such coercion.

    For the record, Im not against the premise of Full House in any way, and I think that the 3 guys pulled it off (in a tv fiction way), but I think humans have evolved with 2 opposite parents. If nothing else, its important for children to have imprinting from both sexes. Im not saying that 2 loving gay parents should not have children-Im saying its optimal to have two opposite sex parents, all other factors being equal.

  10. #3040
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,023

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Yes, it kind of was. You yourself stated that homosexuals could be discriminated against (even if indirectly). This was a way to remove those barriers, via govt mandate. Govt often imposes social change via the military because the military has to comply.

    A friend of mine served as a combat engineer in the early days of the Iraq war, he was sexually assaulted while he was sleeping in a trench, this guy is brilliant (now an engineer) and not hateful in any way, and he told me it had an enormously destructive effect on morale in his unit. Am I saying gays should not serve in the military? Not at all, Im saying there are unintended consequences to such coercion.

    For the record, Im not against the premise of Full House in any way, and I think that the 3 guys pulled it off (in a tv fiction way), but I think humans have evolved with 2 opposite parents. If nothing else, its important for children to have imprinting from both sexes. Im not saying that 2 loving gay parents should not have children-Im saying its optimal to have two opposite sex parents, all other factors being equal.
    Because it was government mandate that set up those barriers to begin with. The very applications to join the military asked "Are you homosexual?". If you answered "yes", you were denied entry into the military. With DADT, the form became a page 13 that actually still required you to sort of lie if you had same sex attractions. It didn't ask if you were homosexual, but required you to initial and sign that you understood that having homosexual attractions in the military could get you kicked out if you acted on those attractions or openly admitted to such attractions on any official forms. I actually signed this upon my enlistment in the Navy, and have a copy of it.

    Optimal, is and always will be a subjective term.

    There have been cases (one major one I know of) where a group of males sexually assaulted their male LPO because they hated the guy. Everyone in the incident, the victim and the perpetrators, were straight, had girl friends/wives. Sexual assault is about power, not attraction, which is why we hear about sexual assaults happening so often to elderly people, because they offer an "easy" target to those types of people. There are no actual "unintended consequences" to allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Hell, your own story proves this since it would have been before the DADT repeal. It was because of a single sick person, not a whole sexual orientation of people, that your friend was sexually assaulted. Some of the most horrific male on male sexual assaults have been heterosexual male(s) on heterosexual male.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •