• 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

Call it what you must, but you live in this country and you will obey. Under the system you would have set up, only the acceptable will have civil society. This is because you have no conception of culture. You only see de Jure liberty.

When talking to libertarians, one must apply force to prevent the wanton destruction their ideas would cause should the world lose its sanity and actually embrace it.
If you want to live in an oppressive society, so be it. But I will keep fighting for liberty.

BTW, I am not a libertarian.
 
If they operate their business as a public accomodation, I do have a right to their labor.

No you don't. No one has the right to anyone's labor. Forced labor is not liberty, it's slavery.



Libertarians usually have a morally perverse concept of liberty

I'm not a libertarian.
 
Call it what you must, but you live in this country and you will obey. Under the system you would have set up, only the acceptable will have civil society. This is because you have no conception of culture. You only see de Jure liberty.

Hmmm...I'm not sure you want to make that statement when talking about someone else's understanding of culture. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the effect social acceptance on culture. Since you know, you're the expert on culture and libertarians know nothing about it.
 
I know how much you dislike getting thoroughly schooled in debate, so I'm not surprised you're running away. I'm a native Hoosier myself, and quite proud of my native state. (I'm a firm supporter of SSM, btw.) This bill is like many others in many other states, not to mention the federal law. The only outrage is the faux kind generated by political poseurs. I'll be in Indiana over Labor Day weekend for a graduate school reunion, and I look forward to spending a little extra to help the state's economy.

Well, it is nice to have someone to tell others that their outrage is 'faux.' Just curious, can the rest of us tell you how you should feel, or does this just work one way, from Jack to the inferior proles....:roll:

BTW, maybe there wouldn't be as much faux outrage if supporters of the law didn't make their feelings about homosexuals, and gay marriage so clear, or that the law was needed to protect those who opposed SSM. Example, Eric Miller, lobbyist for Advance America -

"Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!"

So supporters tie the bill to "protecting" businesses from homosexuals, whatever that means, but gays should just ignore what the supporters say and not worry, be happy... If it does anything to protect businesses from teh gey, what would that be that doesn't involve some kind of discrimination against homosexuals? I'm at a loss. Maybe you can help?
 
Yes, I do and yes, you are.

No, you don't. If someone is forced into labor for your benefit they are your involuntary servant. We have an amendment against that kind of thing in case you forgot.
 
Maybe you do. Saying you have the right to my labor is not liberty.
Refusing goods and services to someone based on something that that individual inherently is, race, gender, religion, nationality and sexual orientation is not liberty. That is not a definition of liberty and you won't find it in any dictionary.
 
Refusing goods and services to someone based on something that that individual inherently is, race, gender, religion, nationality and sexual orientation is not liberty. That is not a definition of liberty and you won't find it in any dictionary.
Forcing someone to provide goods and services to people they don't want to is not liberty either.
 
Refusing goods and services to someone based on something that that individual inherently is, race, gender, religion, nationality and sexual orientation is not liberty. That is not a definition of liberty and you won't find it in any dictionary.

I would very much like to see your definition of liberty.
 
Refusing goods and services to someone based on something that that individual inherently is, race, gender, religion, nationality and sexual orientation is not liberty. That is not a definition of liberty and you won't find it in any dictionary.
Neither is denying a citizen the basic religious rights afforded them in the Constitution.

Hey Chin. when is it justice when it denies another their basic freedoms?
 
Someone may already have posted this, but if not, here is a pretty good law review article on this subject for those who feel like a little mental exercise. It doesn't focus on the federal or state RFRA's, but on the First Amendment freedom of speech.

http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/...y-Just-Shoot-Me-64-Vand.-L.-Rev.-961-2011.pdf


I think the author's analysis of the Elane Photography case is spot on. The New Mexico Supreme Court got it wrong by ignoring what the U.S. Supreme Court has said in its decisions about expressive speech and government-compelled speech. See pp. 982-993. The Supreme Court declined certiorari in the case, but it was not approving the state court's decision by doing that. The Court can only hear a very small fraction of the cases it's asked to hear each term.
 
Forcing someone to provide goods and services to people they don't want to is not liberty either.
Waah, Open a private club and then you can deal with whatever group you want. If you have a business that caters to the public and you're reaping government benefits, you don't get to pick and choose who you want to do business with based on who that potential customer inherently is. You can refuse to do business if it's not conducive or doesn't apply to your business maybe. If somebody wants to hire Me to rehab their house and they want contemporary modern and My business only does vintage restoration. I can refuse to do business with them on those grounds. I can't refuse them service because they're Black.
 
Neither is denying a citizen the basic religious rights afforded them in the Constitution.

Hey Chin. when is it justice when it denies another their basic freedoms?
You're free to practice your religion in your church, your house even on a street corner. If you have a public business that caters to the public, reaping government benefits then you cater to the public, you cannot pick and choose which demographic you want to serve based on your personal religious beliefs.
 
Waah, Open a private club and then you can deal with whatever group you want. If you have a business that caters to the public and you're reaping government benefits, you don't get to pick and choose who you want to do business with based on who that potential customer inherently is. You can refuse to do business if it's not conducive or doesn't apply to your business maybe. If somebody wants to hire Me to rehab their house and they want contemporary modern and My business only does vintage restoration. I can refuse to do business with them on those grounds. I can't refuse them service because they're Black.
What government benefits do private businesses reap?
 
Someone may already have posted this, but if not, here is a pretty good law review article on this subject for those who feel like a little mental exercise. It doesn't focus on the federal or state RFRA's, but on the First Amendment freedom of speech.

http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/...y-Just-Shoot-Me-64-Vand.-L.-Rev.-961-2011.pdf


I think the author's analysis of the Elane Photography case is spot on. The New Mexico Supreme Court got it wrong by ignoring what the U.S. Supreme Court has said in its decisions about expressive speech and government-compelled speech. See pp. 982-993. The Supreme Court declined certiorari in the case, but it was not approving the state court's decision by doing that. The Court can only hear a very small fraction of the cases it's asked to hear each term.
Because of such cases like Elane Photography it has compelled at least 30 states to tighten their laws in regard to such superfluous cases to ward off the wolves that are ready and willing to deny the basic rights of others in the name of their cause. Rather selfish when you boil it all down.
 
Waah, Open a private club and then you can deal with whatever group you want. If you have a business that caters to the public and you're reaping government benefits, you don't get to pick and choose who you want to do business with based on who that potential customer inherently is. You can refuse to do business if it's not conducive or doesn't apply to your business maybe. If somebody wants to hire Me to rehab their house and they want contemporary modern and My business only does vintage restoration. I can refuse to do business with them on those grounds. I can't refuse them service because they're Black.

What government benefits and what do they have to do with the topic?
 
Well, it is nice to have someone to tell others that their outrage is 'faux.' Just curious, can the rest of us tell you how you should feel, or does this just work one way, from Jack to the inferior proles....:roll:

BTW, maybe there wouldn't be as much faux outrage if supporters of the law didn't make their feelings about homosexuals, and gay marriage so clear, or that the law was needed to protect those who opposed SSM. Example, Eric Miller, lobbyist for Advance America -



So supporters tie the bill to "protecting" businesses from homosexuals, whatever that means, but gays should just ignore what the supporters say and not worry, be happy... If it does anything to protect businesses from teh gey, what would that be that doesn't involve some kind of discrimination against homosexuals? I'm at a loss. Maybe you can help?

The outrage is faux because the issue is faux. No rights are being denied to anyone, LGBT or otherwise. Indiana's law is consistent with the federal statute and relevant SCOTUS decisions.
 
Tax write offs that kind of ****. Writing off business expenses, everything under the sun. Come on now.
People that own houses get those same kinds of benefits. Does that mean I can walk into your house and demand you accommodate me?
 
Back
Top Bottom