• 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

No, I don't think it's that easy. The fact a municipal ordinance or state law exists, by itself, does not make what it requires or prohibits lawful. Like every other law in the U.S., it has to comply with the Constitution. A local ordinance that prohibited everyone in that jurisdiction from possessing a firearm, for example, could not be enforced. And the same goes for state public accommodations laws. In the Dale case, the Supreme Court held a New Jersey law that prohibited a chapter of the Boy Scouts from revoking the membership of a homosexual scoutmaster, on the ground that the Boy Scouts were a public accommodation that was discriminating against the scoutmaster because of his sexual orientation, was invalid because it violated the freedom of expressive association guaranteed by the First Amendment.

I can appreciate that and it would be relevant if the business we're talking about here was one that involved membership, dues, and other conditions of association. You're local bakery or variety store isn't such a business.
 
1) Religious values = criminals. Hmm.
2.)I guess all religious fundamentalists need to move out of that state then.

3.). I think what you want to say is that when you open a business you are forced to do business with gays as well as other protected classes.

4) See #1.
5) You may see it as a just equal right measure, there is the taint of forced social engineering and domination of value system other than that you that you support. Some freedom that.

6.)I can just see gangs of LGBT folks hunting down any business where they feel slighted only to bring similar results.
Stamp out those thoughts and values we disagree with.

7.)If diversity is such an important thing, why is it that diversity of religious beliefs and other value systems isn't? Just because?
8.)Frankly, it still make more sense to me the policy business policy 'we reserve the right not to server someone'.

1.) sorry didnt say that one time LMAO making stuff up and posting lies will only further amplify the failure of your claims
2.) that would be stupid, being religious doesnt force you to break the law, another fail
3.) no i would never say something so mentally retard and false since its not true. There is no force to do business with "gays" lol
4.) i agree never said what your lie claimed i did and there is factually no force
5.) see another mistake, doesnt matter what "i" see it has anymore than what you see it as. Im simply going by rights, freedoms and or the constitution when they actually apply
6.) as already proven what you see are very different from facts and reality. Values and thoughts are in no danger, ANother fail
7.) wtf? lol when did i mention diversity? another failed strawman
8.) what makes sense to you doesnt matter to rights, law and or the constitution when it applies :shrug:

the solution is an easy one, dont break the law and or infringe on peoples rights
 
Why should I be required to pay for the public school system when I don't use it? We are all part of a single country and we all live with the mores of society and the laws. I hate the concept of government telling private businesses that they cannot refuse to deal with customers with which they do not wish to do business. It is no different than telling consumers they must patronize a particular business.

As an example, I don't buy Levi Jeans because I don't like the company's politics. That is my preference. Since there are other sources for jeans I'm fine. I can exercise my freedom of choice. If a photographer doesn't want to photograph gay people or any other people, he should have the same freedom of choice. The gay people can give their business to a more sensible photographer. They have the same freedom of choice. I can buy jeans from whom I want and lose nothing in the process. The gay people can find another photographer and probably end up with better photographs made by someone who values their business.

I'll give you another example. I was fired as a customer and banned by Paypal because they didn't like some of the products I sell on my web sites. I wasn't willing to drop the products but I did drop Paypal as a payment method at their insistence. That wasn't good enough for them. Apparently they wanted to punish me for refusing to bend to their will. I think it was stupid business to close my account because they couldn't regulate what I sell but I viewed it as their right. I don't have a right to use their service and they have no requirement to do business with me. I didn't complain or sue anybody, I just moved on with my life. The gay people should have moved on and found another photographer.

To me it is beyond the role of government to dictate who businesses or customers people must choose to patronize or accept as a customer. Bringing up nonsense about roads and government services is a pretty empty argument in my view. The photographer pays for these things with taxes just like the gay people.

Well, all I can say is that we have a differing view of what is a personal, private right and what is a responsibility in a society where licenses are issued to operate a business. I have no problem with whatever freedom of association you care to enforce for yourself on your own time and in your own personal life. However, you do not get to carry that over to determining which clients you'll sell your wares to. You can determine what wares you'll sell or not sell on religious grounds, but you cannot discriminate about who shall be able to buy those wares once you decide what you will sell.
 
Why should I be required to pay for the public school system when I don't use it? We are all part of a single country and we all live with the mores of society and the laws. I hate the concept of government telling private businesses that they cannot refuse to deal with customers with which they do not wish to do business. It is no different than telling consumers they must patronize a particular business.

I think all that makes perfect intellectual sense on a blackboard in a lecture hall at Mises University or wherever, but it imposes a real burden on those who are arbitrarily and unpredictably discriminated against. It's really not a fair assumption that the person discriminated against suffers no harm, or that the owner of a business with a license to serve the public should be permitted to impose that harm on a basis such as race or sexual orientation. The benefits to a peaceful, orderly, business environment and society are just clearly substantial and the burden IMO is very slight.

I don't know anything about you, but I'm white, male, straight and Christian, and I'm fully aware that this means I will never suffer any kind of real discrimination in this country. So I'm very hesitant to embrace a 'right' to discriminate that I know will (as a general rule) only be used by those like me to harm those not like me. I'm blessing a policy that benefits those with power and imposes a real burden on those without it.

Furthermore, even for the person on this thread who claims to be in a mixed race marriage and is supportive of the right to discriminate, that's probably not a huge burden in the U.S. in 2015 only because people have been fighting against discrimination, including with some pretty landmark legislation, for many decades and there are only a very few disfavored minorities against which it is legal to discriminate.

As an example, I don't buy Levi Jeans because I don't like the company's politics. That is my preference. Since there are other sources for jeans I'm fine. I can exercise my freedom of choice. If a photographer doesn't want to photograph gay people or any other people, he should have the same freedom of choice. The gay people can give their business to a more sensible photographer. They have the same freedom of choice. I can buy jeans from whom I want and lose nothing in the process. The gay people can find another photographer and probably end up with better photographs made by someone who values their business.

I don't see that as equivalent in any way. You actually have a choice - you can buy, or not buy those jeans. There is no possible way you can describe a harm from you making a choice to buy Wranglers versus Levis. You're able to choose to buy any brand of jeans. Anti-discrimination laws allow EVERYONE (as a general rule) to have those exact same choices.

I'll give you another example. I was fired as a customer and banned by Paypal because they didn't like some of the products I sell on my web sites. I wasn't willing to drop the products but I did drop Paypal as a payment method at their insistence. That wasn't good enough for them. Apparently they wanted to punish me for refusing to bend to their will. I think it was stupid business to close my account because they couldn't regulate what I sell but I viewed it as their right. I don't have a right to use their service and they have no requirement to do business with me. I didn't complain or sue anybody, I just moved on with my life. The gay people should have moved on and found another photographer.

This kind of discrimination is also just not comparable. They are permitted to have terms of service and they apply those terms to all their customers. The equivalent would be Paypal, and Visa and Mastercard and AMEX denying your business service because you're black or gay or Muslim, and effectively prohibiting you from doing business online. You're saying that kind of discrimination - acts that would deny you the ability to be in business - should be allowed. I disagree.
 
1.) sorry didnt say that one time LMAO making stuff up and posting lies will only further amplify the failure of your claims
2.) that would be stupid, being religious doesnt force you to break the law, another fail
3.) no i would never say something so mentally retard and false since its not true. There is no force to do business with "gays" lol
4.) i agree never said what your lie claimed i did and there is factually no force
5.) see another mistake, doesnt matter what "i" see it has anymore than what you see it as. Im simply going by rights, freedoms and or the constitution when they actually apply
6.) as already proven what you see are very different from facts and reality. Values and thoughts are in no danger, ANother fail
7.) wtf? lol when did i mention diversity? another failed strawman
8.) what makes sense to you doesnt matter to rights, law and or the constitution when it applies :shrug:

the solution is an easy one, dont break the law and or infringe on peoples rights

3) How can you make that claim? There most certainly is force to do business with protected classes.
You certainly are NOT allowed to decline to do business with them. So in essence you are forced to do business with them because you can't say 'no'.
 
That is true. But nothing requires a state public accommodations law to prohibit private businesses from declining to enter into contracts with people because of their sexual orientation. That is up to the state, and I don't know what there is about Indiana's public accommodations law that makes this law--apparently an RFRA--necessary. It's not clear why Indiana could not have accomplished the same thing just by omitting sexual orientation as a prohibited basis for discrimination in public accommodations.

Bottom line - the BSA case is irrelevant here.
 
Pence obviously realizes the GOP bench is too deep this time for a run at VP so he'll just run for governor again--or will he take a shot at retiring Sen. Coat's seat ?
 
1) How can you make that claim?
2.) There most certainly is force to do business with protected classes.
3.) You certainly are NOT allowed to decline to do business with them.
4.) So in essence you are forced to do business with them because you can't say 'no'.
1.) because i use something called facts
2.) no there is factually ZERO force to do business with anybody . . . zero . . . are you claiming that you must do business with EVERYBODY then because everybody is protected . . everybody
sorry you are wrong but i see where your mistake is, hopefully you see it too
3.) also false, you most certainly are allowed to decline business with anyone
4.) in essence you have been proven factually wrong.
 
Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com



Wow. WTF Indiana????
You trying to out-religious the bible-belt states?
Is Indiana becoming Mississippi2.0 or something?

This is going to be interesting to watch.

I'm torn on this issue.

Aside from breaking existing laws a Government entity shouldn't be allowed to force you to do or not to do something on your private property.

Being forced to act against your beliefs whether they're considered " hateful " or " bigoted " ( highly subjective ) is crossing the line IMO.
 
I see. You have nothing but platitudes.

I am not surprised.

They shove their lifestyle in the faces of too many Americans and it's coming back to bite their butts. When they were simply an oddity that you knew existed but, it didn't affect your day-to-day then no one hardly noticed or cared. You come out and demand everyone accept you or get sued or thrown in jail and people take offence.
 
3) How can you make that claim? There most certainly is force to do business with protected classes.
You certainly are NOT allowed to decline to do business with them. So in essence you are forced to do business with them because you can't say 'no'.

Wrong.

People are free to start their businesses as membership clubs. Then they are free to discriminate. No one is forced to run their business as a public accomodation, but if they choose to do so, they have to actually serve the public.
 
They shove their lifestyle in the faces of too many Americans and it's coming back to bite their butts. When they were simply an oddity that you knew existed but, it didn't affect your day-to-day then no one hardly noticed or cared. You come out and demand everyone accept you or get sued or thrown in jail and people take offence.

Very true.

Its a tiny minority thats bullying their way into relevance by throwing around thoughtless charges of " Hate " and " Bigotry " .

Problem is, they're still a tiny minority and their strategy is marginalizing them even more.
 
1.) because i use something called facts
2.) no there is factually ZERO force to do business with anybody . . . zero . . . are you claiming that you must do business with EVERYBODY then because everybody is protected . . everybody
sorry you are wrong but i see where your mistake is, hopefully you see it too
3.) also false, you most certainly are allowed to decline business with anyone
4.) in essence you have been proven factually wrong.

If you can't say 'no', it's not being forced to say 'yes'. And I'm factually wrong on this point.
Certainly a unique version of reality you have there.

If you can't say 'no', then you have no choice but to say 'yes', and that would be the same as being forced to say 'yes', and the choice to say 'no' has been taken away from you.
 
Wrong.

People are free to start their businesses as membership clubs. Then they are free to discriminate. No one is forced to run their business as a public accomodation, but if they choose to do so, they have to actually serve the public.


For profit "membership clubs" are typically not except from Public Accommodation laws. To be exempt they have to be: Not-for-Profit, have bylaws and criteria, have a restrictive membership relative to the statement membership, and be governed by an elected board of the members.


Nobody would think that Costco, Sam's Club, and BJ's Warehouse would be exempt from Pubic Accommodation laws even though people pay a membership fee to join.


>>>>
 
They shove their lifestyle in the faces of too many Americans and it's coming back to bite their butts. When they were simply an oddity that you knew existed but, it didn't affect your day-to-day then no one hardly noticed or cared. You come out and demand everyone accept you or get sued or thrown in jail and people take offence.

i know just like slaves, when they just worked the fields it was fine.Women too when they just kept thier asses in the kitchen that was fin but when they got all uppity and wanted equal rights its now a problem. Oh how i miss the days of whipping slaves and beating my wife. BWHAHAHAHA

also nobody is demanding acceptance nor has anybody been sued or thrown in jail for non acceptance, post such lies only makes your claims further fail
 
1) Religious values = criminals. Hmm.
I guess all religious fundamentalists need to move out of that state then.

1.1). I think what you want to say is that when you open a business you are forced to do business with gays as well as other protected classes.

2) See #1.

3) You may see it as a just equal right measure, there is the taint of forced social engineering and domination of value system other than that you that you support. Some freedom that.

I can just see gangs of LGBT folks hunting down any business where they feel slighted only to bring similar results.
Stamp out those thoughts and values we disagree with.

Harrumph.

If diversity is such an important thing, why is it that diversity of religious beliefs and other value systems isn't? Just because?

Frankly, it still make more sense to me the policy business policy 'we reserve the right not to server someone'.

What's next of the legislative agenda? Forcing someone to frequent LGBT establishments? Forcing the electorate to buy something they don't want? (Oh wait, that's been done already).



Minor correction, it is not an LGBT agenda, but a socialist agenda, where they piggy back on "issues" when sometimes the majority would kindly wish they shut the **** up.

OK, say I just had a sex change. Do I want some ass hole passing laws forcing people to sell to me? No. Nor do I want to force some baker to do what he doesn't want to do.....that's what the Democratic party is for.

On these 'made up' issues, I am reminded of the fact Canada, because of legislative neglect has absolutely NO law on abortion whatsoever. A woman, legally can terminate after the water breaks. But, it turns out, with no government/political involvement, Canada ends up with about the most reasonable statistics on abortion in the world.

It is called the "free market system" for a reason, as gay politician and friend recently said to me "why sue? Invest and open your own bakery..."

You see, socialists don't think that way....they can't see the benefit of profit, private sector job creation nor how the economy works.
 
use either word, i dont need to try again because the answer is the same. LMAO
Compel Compel - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: to force (someone) to do something
: to make (something) happen : to force (something)
Ah, okay. One meaning of the word "force" implies that a person has no choice in the matter, but since you are using the word in the sense that is synonymous with "compel" it looks like you just don't understand the law.

Courts can indeed compel bakers to serve gay couples. For example, a judge can issue an order to cease and desist from discriminating against gay couples. Ignoring legal appeals, etc., this leaves the baker with three options: 1) comply with the order, 2) refuse to comply and face penalties, 3) voluntarily close the business.
 
1.)If you can't say 'no', it's not being forced to say 'yes'.
2.)And I'm factually wrong on this point.
3.) Certainly a unique version of reality you have there.
4.)If you can't say 'no', then you have no choice but to say 'yes', and that would be the same as being forced to say 'yes', and the choice to say 'no' has been taken away from you.

1.) and the fact remains you can say no thanks for proving your on post wrong
2.) yes, yes you are factually wrong
3.) see this further proves where your mistake is, reality is reality. I havent given you any version of it because that would not be reality. The reality is you can say no and there is no force to say yes.
4.) you keep repeating this but there is no force to say yes and thats why your whole argument and straw man complete fails
facts win again
 
Very true.

Its a tiny minority thats bullying their way into relevance by throwing around thoughtless charges of " Hate " and " Bigotry " .

Problem is, they're still a tiny minority and their strategy is marginalizing them even more.

They need to look to Russia for their future if they keep this up. Being ostracized from society.
 
1.)Ah, okay. One meaning of the word "force" implies that a person has no choice in the matter, but since you are using the word in the sense that is synonymous with "compel" it looks like you just don't understand the law.
2.)Courts can indeed compel bakers to serve gay couples. For example, a judge can issue an order to cease and desist from discriminating against gay couples. Ignoring legal appeals, etc., this leaves the baker with three options: 1) comply with the order, 2) refuse to comply and face penalties, 3) voluntarily close the business.
3.)When asking the court to order a defendant to do (or not do) something, plaintiffs can file what's called a "Motion to Compel"

1.) what you think it looks like doesnt matter to facts. there is no force to do service . . none. . . zero . . . this fact will not change
2.) what the court will be doing is reinforcing the law and not allowing the baker to practice illegal discrimination, just like the courts can enforce rape laws
but there is no law that forces business with gays . . none . . .zero . . zilch . . if you disagree simply post the law, prove it . . your will fail
3.) yes to not infringe on peoples rights and break the law . . .not compel them to do business with gays or give services to gays

thank you for further proving you're own claims wrong and showing you dont understand the law.
facts win again
 
1.) what you think it looks like doesnt matter to facts. there is no force to do service . . none. . . zero . . . this fact will not change

What happens when they fail to provide their service for a reason that is banned? Can they perhaps be sued for that? When they lose the lawsuit do they have a choice to pay or are they forced to pay?
 
lets recap the facts

there are no laws forcing or compelling anybody to do business with gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no right to service
there is no force to accept gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no force to serve gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
 
Minor correction, it is not an LGBT agenda, but a socialist agenda, where they piggy back on "issues" when sometimes the majority would kindly wish they shut the **** up.

OK, say I just had a sex change. Do I want some ass hole passing laws forcing people to sell to me? No. Nor do I want to force some baker to do what he doesn't want to do.....that's what the Democratic party is for.

On these 'made up' issues, I am reminded of the fact Canada, because of legislative neglect has absolutely NO law on abortion whatsoever. A woman, legally can terminate after the water breaks. But, it turns out, with no government/political involvement, Canada ends up with about the most reasonable statistics on abortion in the world.

It is called the "free market system" for a reason, as gay politician and friend recently said to me "why sue? Invest and open your own bakery..."

You see, socialists don't think that way....they can't see the benefit of profit, private sector job creation nor how the economy works.

This is true. Socialists successfully used women, the working stiff and minorities as a political crutches and the Gays want a piece of that action.
 
lets recap the facts

there are no laws forcing or compelling anybody to do business with gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no right to service
there is no force to accept gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no force to serve gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc

Then what is the grounds for the lawsuit or the law for that matter?
 
1.) and the fact remains you can say no thanks for proving your on post wrong
2.) yes, yes you are factually wrong
3.) see this further proves where your mistake is, reality is reality. I havent given you any version of it because that would not be reality. The reality is you can say no and there is no force to say yes.
4.) you keep repeating this but there is no force to say yes and thats why your whole argument and straw man complete fails
facts win again

If you can't say 'no', and your only answer is 'yes', then you are forced to say 'yes' for the same reasons that you can't say 'no'.

Your continued belittlement of the logical fact as stated above belies the weakness of your argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom