Page 309 of 320 FirstFirst ... 209259299307308309310311319 ... LastLast
Results 3,081 to 3,090 of 3196

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

  1. #3081
    Sage
    SenorXm/Sirius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,352

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

    Arkansas senator Bart Hester, who presented the original bill in his chamber told reporters: "The Arkansas RFRA did not mirror the federal RFRA law. That was intentional."
    So when conservatives and their pundits were saying over and over these past 2 days that these state laws in Indy and Arkansas were the same as the Fed law they were wrong? Or were they lying?

    They look foolish now.
    "Big or small, I don't like rabbits. They always look like they're about to say something, but they never do."
    Raj Koothrappali

  2. #3082
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Im not denying that men do anything-last I checked it takes two to tango. Im a man-I know men. Im saying its a real problem.
    I also know that a man, in the front lines in a war, had his sense of morale destroyed as he was being shot at-because of DADT.

    Im a Paramedic-Im aware that things happen outside of whats in the paper. I suspect you know this as well.
    Again. He claims it was because of DADT. In reality, it was his own discomfort and the discomfort of other guys about having to serve with gay men, which they were almost certainly already doing without knowing it. The difference was that the gay guys didn't have to lie to get in, get that opportunity to serve their country, and however shallow it may seem, get that opportunity to get the great benefits like steady pay, healthcare, 20 year full retirement, college money, and much more. Straight men and women prior to DADT could do so without having to lie about who they were attracted to, gay men and women couldn't. After DADT, the lying wasn't as overt, rather more of just hiding who they were with a little less worry if someone only suspected they were gay (and that was dependent on what job you had).

    My husband was a Marine, out there in the deserts, joining after DADT was in place, with the least of his worries being "oh my god that guy is gay or might be gay". He was a sailor when it was repealed and again not really much of an issue. Even more of "not an issue" for me in the Navy reserves. We had one guy during the training question berthing arrangements and there were people from the rest of the unit basically telling him to get over it, he wouldn't be required to sleep naked with any man, gay or straight if he didn't want to.
    "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.

  3. #3083
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Not all non traditional families are equivalent. I appreciate the tame innuendos-its what allows us all to laugh, from kids to adults-see I love Lucy and the absolutely timeless radio from the 30's, 40's, and 50's and early TV just do it right. Its STILL funny, and STILL clever.
    Families are families. There is really no objective ideal, perfect, or "optimal" family, whether traditional or non-traditional families. All sorts of families work just as well at raising children, including same sex parented families, where the parents actually are in a relationship as well as families were two or more people of the same sex are raising children while not in a relationship. Mainly, there are just factors that tend to cause issues with children, and not having a person of a certain sex in the household parenting has never been shown to be one of those factors.
    "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. #3084
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SenorXm/Sirius View Post

    They look foolish now.

    even more so, but true.

  5. #3085
    Tavern Bartender
    Kinky tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-02-17 @ 05:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,185

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Anyone remember this a while back?

    New Mexico Governor's Hairstylist Refuses Service Over Gay-Marriage Stance | TIME.com

    I wonder how people feel about the hair stylist refusing service over the governor's beliefs and lifestyle choices. Why should they be some hero for "equal rights" when in fact people are acting equally on their beliefs, just on the other side of the fence?

    People shouldn't be forced to do things that go against their convictions or moral character, period.
    I remember that story.

    I agree with your last sentence. I know that will cause someone on here to scream "You're a bigot!" but that's because somehow that statement is always taken solely in the context of homosexuality (with an occasional deviation to race). I really don't care who is homosexual any more than I care why people think homosexuality is a sin. I don't think anyone should be forced into association against their will, whatever the reason. If you fight against the use of animals in circuses, should you be forced to cater a party for the owner of a circus that uses animals? That's one example but I could come up with hundreds more just for myself.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  6. #3086
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    06-21-17 @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    667

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

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    like we "got over" gay marriage bans? We will never stop fighting oppression. We've been doing it for 50+ years and more organized and united, with far more support, than ever
    Of course you will never stop - what grievance group ever stops? As someone once quipped "It starts as a social cause, then becomes a business, and eventually ends up as a racket".

  7. #3087
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    06-21-17 @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    667

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SenorXm/Sirius View Post
    So when conservatives and their pundits were saying over and over these past 2 days that these state laws in Indy and Arkansas were the same as the Fed law they were wrong? Or were they lying?

    They look foolish now.
    The only look foolish because the lunatic axe-grinders care more about manipulating the issue that using a dollop of intelligence. They cry (such as Tim Cook) that it protects discrimination against gays. Yet, if you read the texts, these latest RFRA laws do what all the others do, which is to require that there be a compelling state interest in the suppression of an exercise of religion. The text (as we have tirelessly shown) says nearly exactly the same thing. Whatever can be said of "protecting discrimination" in Indiana's and Arkansas law can be said of every other RFRA law in the country.

    There are differences that are immaterial to the charge made. The laws are less ambiguous. They expand the range of entities who can use an RFRA defense. They allow a judicial defense prior to actual harm (if harm is likely), and covers to civil suits by anyone, not just by government.

    In other words, the change is in who can argue for a religious exercise protection, the timing of its use, and in what kind of judicial proceeding it can be argued. BUT IT IS NOT DIFFERENT in its effects on discrimination, in what it does. It does not "protect (gay) discrimination" any more, or less, than any other RFRA.

    So its overdue that the critics be honest with themselves and the public. There objection has nothing to do with these laws differences 'giving protection to discrimination'. That is a red herring. What spawned the insanity is that after the experience of the Hobby Lobby case, the left opposes religious exemptions to any government mandate, and therefore are apoplectic over the prospect of letting more people seek them, in a wider range of judicial proceedings. AND, to them, its galling that these states would pass a law when they don't have laws protecting against sexual orientation discrimination.

    And here is the irony - it seems that Indiana is going to "fix" its law because that law didn't need fixing. So they are going to write another law protecting against sexual orientation discrimination.

    The controversy was a red herring...from start to end.

  8. #3088
    Sage
    SenorXm/Sirius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,352

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

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    The only look foolish because the lunatic axe-grinders care more about manipulating the issue that using a dollop of intelligence. They cry (such as Tim Cook) that it protects discrimination against gays. Yet, if you read the texts, these latest RFRA laws do what all the others do, which is to require that there be a compelling state interest in the suppression of an exercise of religion. The text (as we have tirelessly shown) says nearly exactly the same thing. Whatever can be said of "protecting discrimination" in Indiana's and Arkansas law can be said of every other RFRA law in the country.

    There are differences that are immaterial to the charge made. The laws are less ambiguous. They expand the range of entities who can use an RFRA defense. They allow a judicial defense prior to actual harm (if harm is likely), and covers to civil suits by anyone, not just by government.

    In other words, the change is in who can argue for a religious exercise protection, the timing of its use, and in what kind of judicial proceeding it can be argued. BUT IT IS NOT DIFFERENT in its effects on discrimination, in what it does. It does not "protect (gay) discrimination" any more, or less, than any other RFRA.

    So its overdue that the critics be honest with themselves and the public. There objection has nothing to do with these laws differences 'giving protection to discrimination'. That is a red herring. What spawned the insanity is that after the experience of the Hobby Lobby case, the left opposes religious exemptions to any government mandate, and therefore are apoplectic over the prospect of letting more people seek them, in a wider range of judicial proceedings. AND, to them, its galling that these states would pass a law when they don't have laws protecting against sexual orientation discrimination.

    And here is the irony - it seems that Indiana is going to "fix" its law because that law didn't need fixing. So they are going to write another law protecting against sexual orientation discrimination.

    The controversy was a red herring...from start to end.
    Read the highlighted carefully.

    Today in Politics: Indiana Law Deepens Strain Between Republicans and Business

    Walmart, Apple, Eli Lilly and General Electric may be vastly different companies, but they have at least one thing in common: opposition to the Republican-backed legislation described by proponents as religious freedom laws that have brought a backlash to Indiana and Arkansas.

    With likely Republican presidential candidates having lined up to support state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the issue is likely to persist through 2016 in debates and campaign ads. But more worrying to Republicans may be the overt resistance from corporate America, a traditionally loyal constituency and source of donations.

    The legislation creates the latest rift between Republicans and large businesses after frustration surrounding the “fiscal cliff” face-off, the government shutdown and immigration battles that many executives say harmed the economy. With corporate workforces becoming younger and more progressive, platforms of low taxes and less regulation are not enough to appease anymore.

    Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric and a frequent Republican donor, was the latest to write to Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, arguing on Wednesday that the law could harm his workers and that the company does not tolerate discrimination.

    Cook Medical, which was founded by the billionaire Gayle Cook, a big Republican donor in Indiana, also pressured Mr. Pence, saying on Facebook, “We value diversity at all levels.”

    Walmart’s foray into a social issue and its call for Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas to veto his state’s bill was the most surprising. Jim Walton, a son of the company’s founder, donated thousands of dollars to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican Party of Arkansas and Senator Tom Cotton last year.


    As the legislation shakes out, Democrats are unlikely to let go.

    “You’re going to have Chuck Schumer and others talking turkey to members of the business community and asking them to think about what’s really in their interest and the interest of their investors,” said Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, referring to the Democratic senator from New York.

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...=politics&_r=0
    "Big or small, I don't like rabbits. They always look like they're about to say something, but they never do."
    Raj Koothrappali

  9. #3089
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    02-18-17 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,828

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

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    like we "got over" gay marriage bans? We will never stop fighting oppression. We've been doing it for 50+ years and more organized and united, with far more support, than ever
    When will we fight the oppression against people who don't want to actively support homosexual weddings?

  10. #3090
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,084

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blemonds View Post
    When will we fight the oppression against people who don't want to actively support homosexual weddings?
    Yeah that last fight for the "rights" of those who didn't want to support mixed race marriages shows how this will end. It is shameful how bigotry is becoming less socially acceptable in our modern society.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Posting Permissions

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