Page 58 of 320 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068108158 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 3196

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

  1. #571
    Guru
    HenryChinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chitown
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    3,005

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Sounds like you know them intimately. Great that one of them was coincidentally refused medical treatment within minutes of Pence signing this bill so we could all read an anecdote about how a doctor is already refusing to treat a gay man in Indiana because of this law. Call me skeptical, but I'd like to see a little more proof than your second hand information.
    If Dave says that He was denied service from a clinic/doctor, then He was. His word is gold to Me. When I speak to him, I will get specifics. I want details as well.
    Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.

  2. #572
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,301

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    They simply don't know the history of the KKK in Indiana in the 1920s with D.C. Stephenson.

    As far back as I have looked, Indiana has almost always voted with the Confederate South--and switched parties with them .
    No surprise there.

  3. #573
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,039

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



    Read your links again, they say "fined up to...".


    No fines have been levied yet, the hearing on fines and damages was just last week and no ruling yet on amounts has been issued.


    Sweet Cakes discrimination closing remarks: Should the baker pay for a pattern of discrimination? | OregonLive.com



    >>>>

  4. #574
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    04-26-17 @ 09:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    41,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    1.)Hmm
    Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In a Ven diagram (remember those from high school) each of the above groups is a subset of the total population. The one group that doesn't seem to be represented would be White Males from birth to age 40.
    2.)Non sequitur. I believe that your 'facts' are confused. It would appear that the Christian bakers in question were in fact fined.

    3.)Fines laid for not servicing a protected group, or so it would appear. Granted, I've not followed the case closely. Some developments may have changed the situation.
    4.)So then the justification for fining the Christian bakers is what, exactly? Or was that an illegal action by the government that assessed these fines?

    1.) wow really? thank you for proving you are SEVERELY uneducated on this topic.
    See I told you that your attempts would fail. Lets look at what you falsely suggested wasnt a protected class.
    White Males from birth to age 40.
    White = RACE, which is protected
    Male = GENDER/SEX which is protected
    This person will also have a religion or lack of one which is protected
    This person will also have a sexual orientation, which in many places is protected
    should i go on or do you finally understand the fact that your claim is wrong and WE ARE ALL a protected class and this is a basic fact that you just proved for me lol

    2.) "Non sequitur" add that to the list of things that you do not know what they mean lol
    none of your articles show they were in fact fine only there they could be or might be or there was a risk. If you have one that shows they were in fact fined post the actual words and links and support it. ALso note that i side if they were i asked you what would they be fined for. This is very important as the answer further destoys the falsehoods you believe in.
    3.) and it would appear you are factually wrong . . again, there is no such fine for "not serving a protected class" lol but thank you for further proving you have no clue about this topic.
    4.) thats what im asking you! lol and you havent truly answered it. You keep saying you THINK, it APPEARS they were fined for "not serving a protected class" that as been proven 100% false. SO again I am asking YOU, what was the risk of fine for? do you even know? seems like you dont


    sooo here we are again your claims have been proven false again and you still havent presented one fact that supports them, not one
    your post fails Facts win again

    and you dodged the question just like i said you would but im going to ask you again!

    if you disagree simply tell us all the law that forces me to serve everybody or gays or Christians . . please tell us the la in your next post.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #575
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    04-26-17 @ 09:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    41,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Read your links again, they say "fined up to...".


    No fines have been levied yet, the hearing on fines and damages was just last week and no ruling yet on amounts has been issued.


    Sweet Cakes discrimination closing remarks: Should the baker pay for a pattern of discrimination? | OregonLive.com



    >>>>
    don't help him learn facts lol

    the best part is, which he is clearly missing, is that even if the fines are levied they will not be fines for "failing to serve a protected class".
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #576
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,476

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization’s annual birthday party.

    Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a cake for the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.


    You can't discriminate against them using your religious beliefs as the reason why. This situation is no different than what we're discussing - people using their religious beliefs as a reason to refuse service.

    You can, however, refuse to serve them or engage in commerce with them because they repulse you.
    Actually, it is illegal to refuse service to someone because they repulse you
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #577
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:03 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,800

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Actually, it is illegal to refuse service to someone because they repulse you
    But can you refuse service if you think they are ugly or smell funny?

  8. #578
    Sage

    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    22,241
    Blog Entries
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Read your links again, they say "fined up to...".


    No fines have been levied yet, the hearing on fines and damages was just last week and no ruling yet on amounts has been issued.


    Sweet Cakes discrimination closing remarks: Should the baker pay for a pattern of discrimination? | OregonLive.com



    >>>>
    Fair enough. Pending final determination by a court.

    I'd observe that the mere threat of fines from a government entity, especially such large ones, casts doubt on whether it is feasible to actually have a choice in this situation. That, and a case of government bullying might yet be made.

    A counter suit from the Christian Bakers against the government entity that levied the fines perhaps?

    Even Agent J seems to be of the position that there's a choice here as to whom to serve or whom not to serve.
    It's a global Jihad, stupid. Allowing that poison into the country is only going to increase the damage it inflicts on others.
    Trump: "When You Open Your Heart To Patriotism, There Is No Room For Prejudice"
    Trump to NYT: “Try reporting accurately & fairly!”

  9. #579
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    05-19-17 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,820

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Actually, it is illegal to refuse service to someone because they repulse you
    No, it is illegal to refuse service if the repulsion is based on a protected class alone.

    I am a white male. It is illegal to refuse me service because one finds white males repulsive (gender, race are protected classes). If I put on a big 'ole "Rebel Pride" T-shirt, it is legal to refuse me service if they find me repulsive. "white guy wearing a T-shirt advocating a certian socio political view" is simply not a protected class.

    I could make an argument that refuse to serve me in my Rebel Pride T-shirt constitutes discrimination against my ethnicity (white southerener), but I dont think the argument would work. I could still be a white southerener and not wear the T-shirt, or hold certain social views about the CSA. The owner stating: "No service to you, I am sick of red neck accents in here", would probably support an case of ethnic discrimination because accents are innate.
    Last edited by Cryptic; 03-27-15 at 10:44 AM.

  10. #580
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,476

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Big ole giant "meh" for me.

    Would I push for such a law being needed? No. But I'm also not one to think that we're at such a place in society where one will routinely enter into a location where only one option for a particluar place of business or where this kind of thing would be so rampant that it will have any kind of truly impactful factor on an individuals life.

    I think our society is in such a place that if you established that outside of essential services (like medical care) a business owner has the ability to dictate who he wishes to provide his services to that it would have little actual effect on peoples lives and the reality is that most business would cater to all as it's far more financially viable of a decision.

    Strangely enough, my issue with this law isn't so much the notion of discrimination in a private matter being allowed, but rather the seemingly discriminatory way in which it's authorizing the discrimination via claims of a "religious" belief.
    I think you should consider two things

    1) While it's common to believe that "we've come a long way, baby" and such discrimination would be rare, there is obviously a portion of the population in that state that does want to discriminate and that portion was large enough to get a majority of the state's legislature to pass the law. This suggests that, while it may not be a majority position, it's common enough to be problematic particularly if those people are concentrated in specific areas.

    2) This kind of discrimination can be very disruptive to business. An individual who lives in the area will probably be able to find providers that will not discriminate against them, providing the practice isn't widespread in the area. But what about businesses whose HQ's are located elsewhere but have customers in the area?

    for example, take a distributor who sells a product to businesses. They buy in bulk, store it in their warehouse, and then truck the product to customers over a wide geographic area when ordered. Should they have to wonder if their drivers will be able to get their trucks repaired if they break down? What about buying gas for the trucks while they're on the road? How about if their customer refuses to let the trucker unload because they object to who/what the trucker is?

    IOW, allowing this sort of discrimination is not as benign as it appears at first glance.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Posting Permissions

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