• 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

Govt can regulate business. I know you don't like that but we don't live in the libertarian dictatorship

A libertarian dictatorship? That would like a war between pacifists.
 
Real personal experience, not a leap. My boss allowed concealed carry at work, he sent me to a major store to use the company account to buy materials, and that store sent me out because an employee noticed my gun printing. Now you're saying I have some right to go somewhere else, but no, I don't. It's not my money I'm spending. By turning me out that supplier was harming my ability to work and my employer's ability to work.

And all over something which wasn't harming anyone.
Do stores do have no guns permitted policies in the US?
I know when I was stationed in Zagreb MacDonalds did.
 
Depends.

If they need to close the store for say a death in the family, no. If they refuse to serve someone because they have red hair, yes. Plain and simple, it's discrimination.

I was hoping for some deeper reason then that. Thanks for your answer though.
 
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.

Except business owners, apparently.

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.

So one kind of discrimination is OK while another one is not. I don't find that acceptable. You can deny service to customer A but not customer B. sorry, it doesn't work for me.
 
Whether our govt should exercise its' power is decided through the political process which is democratic.
An elected legislature can trample a man's rights just as easily as a king can.
 
It was Arizona last year. This year it's Indiana.. On the national and state stage the Republicans have been fighting gay marriage for years. He's NOT doing what's best for the state! Many businesses already said they're gone or not doing business there anymore. The Republican Mayor of Indy already broke ranks with Pense because he knows it's going to costs his city millions. This is a political move by him to kiss up to the religious right.

The POTUS declared that marriage was between a man and a woman. Of course, he "evolved". Was that a political move by him to kiss up to the left?

Maybe Mike Pence signed this into law because he actually thinks business owners should get to serve who they want. Sometimes politicians believe in what they do. The Republican mayor of Indianapolis is a politician. Maybe he hates Mike Pence. Maybe he's kissing up to the independents. Maybe he's secretly gay and doesn't want to lose his barber. Who really knows?

Jan Brewer signed that controversial immigration law in 2012. Everyone predicted gloom and doom for Arizona. No more tourism, no more conventions, everyone was leaving! Tourism in Arizona is up.
 
We're talking about business owners and their policies, not rather or not the business owners are gay.


Right, and this thread is about company policies against gays, not the inner workings of a gay person's life.

Report me. Then report yourself for talking about concealed carry and guns in a thread about businesses serving gay people. Then go away.
 
Do stores do have no guns permitted policies in the US?
I know when I was stationed in Zagreb MacDonalds did.
Almost every employer in the US bans weapons, and some prohibit the public from having weapons; the enforcability of such policies against the public can very greatly depending on where you are.
 
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
...and

there is no rational argument presented to support any of the above.
 
Almost every employer in the US bans weapons, and some prohibit the public from having weapons; the enforcability of such policies against the public can very greatly depending on where you are.

So was the company right, legally that is, in asking you to leave the premises?
 
Report me. Then report yourself for talking about concealed carry and guns in a thread about businesses serving gay people. Then go away.
I see you're ready to discuss discrimination policies. That's great. What do you have to say about Public Accommodation?
 
They didn't parade around telling the whole world and demanding acceptance. There's your sign.

Very few "parade around" now. I can go months without seeing a single gay person parading around. What they do is live life openly, same as you do. Hold hands with their loved one, take them to dinner, to work functions, etc.

And why shouldn't they demand at least tolerance? They're human beings who deserve the benefit of the doubt same as you and me.
 
So was the company right, legally that is, in asking you to leave the premises?
Legally, it not a right vs wrong dynamic, it's a can vs cannot dynamic. Any business can ask you to leave for any or no reason, what counts is how they answer to a judge in the resulting lawsuit. If they ask you to leave, you have to leave even if they're wrong, because if you refuse then you're wrong. What you do is then complain to their corporate headquarters, who will consider if your taking the story to the media is worth loosing your business. If they decide against you or if there is no corporate office, then you can file a complaint with the city and lawmakers will want the business to explain why they're denying the city the sales tax of the transaction. And if that doesn't work out then you can file a civil lawsuit for denying your right to Public Access.
 
Actually what they are saying is that if a customer wants to refuse a business transaction based upon the business owner's race, gender, creed, sexuality, etc then they may do so, but the business owner cannot do the same in return. Sounds like you favor discrimination in one direction but not the other.

The minute a person has to take out a license to shop in a municipality, you might actually have a point. Until then, not so much. But I'll humour you and say quite clearly that I've never had occasion where I went to purchase something and either left a store or refused a purchase I wanted to make based on the race, gender, religion, age, or sexual orientation of the owner of the store or salesperson who served me. I'm not a religious person, so I can't say what would possess a person to refuse to be waited upon by someone based on any of the above criteria. That's because I don't discriminate based on who a person is. But I do discriminate based on how I'm treated and/or the actions of an individual I'm interacting with. I don't suffer fools lightly and they get none of my time.
 
A private business should not be forced to serve customers they don't want to serve. Exceptions should exist for medical services, or if there's no viable alternative for the customer. But if a business wants to not serve black people, they should have every right not to, just as everyone offended by that has every right not to shop at their store.
 
Except business owners, apparently.

OK, if you want to avoid the point, that's fine. But again, there is no harm when you make a choice as a consumer. When a business discriminates it is the opposite of choice and the harm is easily identifiable.

And as I said, IMO the harm to a business that chooses to open a business that serves the public to be required to serve the public, without arbitrary and harmful discrimination, is a slight harm and part of owning a business open to the public, same way they have to abide by labor laws, zoning laws, etc.

So one kind of discrimination is OK while another one is not. I don't find that acceptable. You can deny service to customer A but not customer B. sorry, it doesn't work for me.

They're not discriminating against you - they're presumably enforcing uniform terms of service applicable to everyone. And I don't agree that it's OK for discriminatory practices to potentially prohibit some other person from engaging in commerce. If you do, if you think it would be OK for Mastercard and Visa and AMEX to shut out all Muslims, and effectively bar them from the online marketplace because they're Muslim, that's an opinion I don't share, but you have to accept that as a potential downside.
 
A private business should not be forced to serve customers they don't want to serve. Exceptions should exist for medical services, or if there's no viable alternative for the customer. But if a business wants to not serve black people, they should have every right not to, just as everyone offended by that has every right not to shop at their store.
Businesses have no right to hinder commerce unless a customer is harming the business. A free-flowing economy is the healthiest, which makes for a stronger nation. Keep your personal biases at home.
 
A private business should not be forced to serve customers they don't want to serve. Exceptions should exist for medical services, or if there's no viable alternative for the customer. But if a business wants to not serve black people, they should have every right not to, just as everyone offended by that has every right not to shop at their store.

It is a public business.
So you favor repealing all Civil Rights laws that pertain to color. Hey why not throw in disabilities as well?
And why do medical services get a pass? Check into it they do.
 
Businesses have no right to hinder commerce unless a customer is harming the business. A free-flowing economy is the healthiest, which makes for a stronger nation. Keep your personal biases at home.
I see you are okay with coercion and force.
 
1.) you wouldnt have broken any laws for refusing business so why would somebody force you out of business

The Christian bakers refused, and now are out of business. Reality mugs you again.

2.) what you are describing isnt reality or happening
See #1
3.) i would agree IF that was happening but its not, you are free to say no with nothing happening
See #1
4.) i agree 100% it is a very simply concept thats why its confusing you cant grasp it. you can say no so your point is meaningless
facts win again
No, you can't say no. See #1. Your facts aren't facts, you just think they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom