• 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

Cardinal said:
A common trope, but a misrepresentation of the truth, which is that the common factor among those who voted for prop 8 were church goers. Well known is that a major force behind the passing of prop 8 was the LDS based out of Utah.

Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8 | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times







True, their platform is state and business rights, which just happen to be cited every time a discussion on discrimination against gays come up. The correlation is not inconsistent.



I don't dispute this, but I'm curious just the same where you got this (again, not disputing it).



I really can't relate to this. I make a certain kind of product for my clients, anybody can come up to me and pay me for that product. What they cannot do is commission me to make a kind of product that is outside the norm of what I do and I have in fact turned down clients a number of times for this reason. But it wasn't because what the clients were. I simply cannot understand the mentality of living in a country that allows one to start their own business and succeed, only to turn around and put their foot down on someone else. It's utterly un-American in my mind. /soapbox
Click to expand...

300 Republicans Call on Supreme Court to Recognize Gay Marriage
 
tres borrachos said:
My point was that blacks voted in favor of Proposition 8 on the same ballot where they voted for Barack Obama and the Democratic candidates. That was in response to his claim that the Republican base "hates gays".

By that statistic I guess 58% of black voters in California hate gays.
Click to expand...


What you said was "If I recall correctly, it was the black voters who passed Proposition 8 in the blue state of California."


It wasn't black voters that passed Prop 8, I was pointing out that "Blacks" were fairly low on the demographic scale of impact on the final outcome ranking behind other demographics.



>>>>
 
eohrnberger said:
1.)This would render protected groups meaningless, yet there's so much legislation tied to them. So they are not meaningless.
2.)Perhaps in theory, but not in reality.
3.)So which entity fined the Christian bakers? For refusing to server the couple? That'd be government. So obviously there must be a law to empowered them to assess the fine. Unless this particular government was acting lawlessly, which might be the case. Certainly overreach, if you ask me.
4.)I think I just did.
5.)Not in any sort of practical sense.
6.)Not in any sort of practical sense.

7.)You dare not say no for fear that I try to claim sexual orientation discrimination.
8.) Regardless of if I can or not, it'd still cost you a ton of money in legal fees to prepare a defense.
Click to expand...

1.) no matter your opinions we are all protected groups . . all of us. if you disagree describe a person who is not protected . . .you will fail
2.) in reality already proved it with examples, if you disagree give me a person i cant refuse service to and ill show you how
3.) i dont believe the bakers were ever fined BUT if they were the fact you are missing they were NEVER fined for not serving a "protected" group since that is NOT a crime.
SO obviously you are factually wrong and have been for pages but you simply dont understand the topic enough to know that. fact remains there is ZERO laws forcing service to groups in this case.
4.) yes we know you "think" you did but facts, rights, laws, links, examples and reality all prove you wrong
5.) see #4
6.) see #4
7.) since im honest, objective and topically educated on this subject i would have ZERO fear of refusing you service because i know its not against the law. You are wrong again
8.) wouldnt cost me anything because if i said no there are no laws broken :shrug:
fact remains i can "refuse service" to anybody i want and there are no laws forcing me to say yes
facts win again

if you disagree simply tell us all the law that forces me to serve everybody or gays or Christian . . please tell us the la in your next post. You will dodge this question.
 
WorldWatcher said:
What you said was "If I recall correctly, it was the black voters who passed Proposition 8 in the blue state of California."


It wasn't black voters that passed Prop 8, I was pointing out that "Blacks" were fairly low on the demographic scale of impact on the final outcome ranking behind other demographics.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Yes and those were not the correct words. I should know better in the context of a discussion to make sure that every single post relates back to what I'm saying or responding to.

But thanks for the statistic which proves that 58% of the black voters in California (who voted as Democrats on that same ballot) hate gays.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

No they have no term of service requirement that requires on line merchants to drop products when Paypal demands that they do. It is pure discrimination or, as I put it, it is their desire not to have me as a customer.

If the credit card companies wanted to bar muslims from doing business with them, I would view it as stupid business but it should not be illegal business. Stupid businesses, by the way, don't seem to last very long.

Let me explain my position another way. The country was founded on the concept of equality and I certainly support that. It was not founded on the concept of fairness which is the opposite of equality. Equality is an objective measure. For the government to treat everyone the same is equality and that equality is easy for anyone to understand. Fairness is a subjective thing. What is fair or not fair varies from person to person. It treats people differently to benefit one group of people over another. I don't support that. As an example the Civil Rights Act was a positive action because it addressed equality. Affirmative action, on the other hand, was a negative action because it addressed fairness. That doesn't say that it is a bad thing to hire more blacks. It says that it is not the government's role to specify what race a business's hires should represent. That is not equality. Is it fair? Yes for black job applicants, no for employers. We need to get back to equality which is objective.

I believe in freedom on both sides of the transaction. Consumers can choose their suppliers. Suppliers should be able to choose their consumers. It addresses equality. That doesn't mean that there won't be friction or that some people won't be dissatisfied. Life is like that and I prefer to let people live their lives as they fit rather than having the government determine how it should be lived. It just means that freedom goes both ways.

Like everyone else, I don't like personal discrimination. If a business discriminates, it is appropriate for people to say so, just as they would with a business that cheats people. But I draw the line at government intruding in the subject and attempting to achieve "fairness."
 
tres borrachos said:
What's the name of the physician? Shouldn't it be made public? And did the physician tell your friend that he was refusing to treat him because he's gay? Was it a scheduled appointment?
Click to expand...

Dunno, fishing for more information. My friend and his partner have live in the tiny town of Fairmount Indiana since 1980 and this type of thing is nothing new to them. It just may get worse now.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Dunno, fishing for more information. My friend and his partner have live in the tiny town of Fairmount Indiana since 1980 and this type of thing is nothing new to them. It just may get worse now.
Click to expand...

Please post the details when you get them. Are you saying that your friend has been denied medical treatment in Indiana since 1980 because he's gay? And this isn't public knowledge?
 
cpgrad08 said:
The bill needs to be changed so that businesses to reject any customer for any reason they want.
Click to expand...

That's actually more correct of a view than Pence's. First I am not intimately familiar with hospital policy but I do not remember seeing a question about sexual preference on the information sheet either at the emergency room nor at my doctors or surgeons office. Nor has my sexual preference ever been asked to me or anyone in my family at a hospital - so the thought that hospitals are going to start turning away gay people is fiction. Second - from an ideological standpoint - cpgrad08 is correct. If Pence is going to sign some law saying private business can turn gays away, it must be an even playing field. A black business can turn away whites, a muslim based business can turn away christians, a gay business can turn away non-gays... and vice versa.

The question is I don't know where all of that gets us..... what does this improve? To me it simply gives people and now businesses more of an excuse to discriminate against others instead of accepting to others. And lets face it - a business can simply fib about something and deny someone they do not like for whatever reason. If a bakery wants to no bake something for someone they can simply say they are booked up and cannot meet the customer's deadline - then refer them somewhere else. They don't have to say "We don't serve _______".
 
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.
 
Isn't this bill a State version of the Federal law passed in 1993, and mimics the same in 20 other States?
 
Everyone has the right to associate, be it personal or commercial, with anyone who likewise agrees. The key component is mutual agreement. Conversely, everyone has the right not to associate with anyone for whatever reason they choose. Anything else is coercion. It's a pity US law doesn't fully respect this self-evident right of free people.
 
tres borrachos said:
Actually, in this country, you can decide all day long who you will sell your wares to. You can decide you don't want to sell your wares to bikers, hippies, cigarette smokers, brunettes, people with brown eyes, people who smell bad, people who love cats, and so on.

What you can't do is decide you don't want to sell your wares to the protected classes. You can decline service to or an engagement of commerce with any gay person you want to. You just can't say you're doing it because the person is gay.
Click to expand...

Good morning TB - that's fair - I should have clarified what I was getting at, but you've done it for me.
 
Ockham said:
That's actually more correct of a view than Pence's. First I am not intimately familiar with hospital policy but I do not remember seeing a question about sexual preference on the information sheet either at the emergency room nor at my doctors or surgeons office. Nor has my sexual preference ever been asked to me or anyone in my family at a hospital...
Click to expand...


I have never been asked my sexual orientation at a doctors office or in a hospital situation directly, however in all locations they have asked about insurance and family relationships. We take our insurance through my wife's employer so if we were a same sex couple that would become obvious. In addition form ask for emergency contact information and relationship (Spouse, parent, child, etc.).



>>>>
 
tres borrachos said:
Please post the details when you get them. Are you saying that your friend has been denied medical treatment in Indiana since 1980 because he's gay? And this isn't public knowledge?
Click to expand...
I don't know if they have been denied medical treatment in the past. I'm making a general statement that they have been treated differently and unfairly by their community in the past. When they first moved to Fairmount, it was made clear that they were "unwelcome" when it was discovered that they were gay. Even today, now that they bring a huge source of revenue in tourist dollars to Fairmount and really are a fixture there, they still feel unwelcome. Now the businesses in Fairmount may feel that they have the law backing them when they refuse them service.
 
WorldWatcher said:
I have never been asked my sexual orientation at a doctors office or in a hospital situation directly, however in all locations they have asked about insurance and family relationships. We take our insurance through my wife's employer so if we were a same sex couple that would become obvious. In addition form ask for emergency contact information and relationship (Spouse, parent, child, etc.).



>>>>
Click to expand...

Granted it can be guessed or derived through indirect information but who is looking at indirect information? I know of no hospital that publishes it's policy to reject treating homosexuals. Perhaps someone in this thread can provide a hospital that does that as I'd be interested to see if it exists and if it does, how common it is.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good morning TB - that's fair - I should have clarified what I was getting at, but you've done it for me.
Click to expand...

Morning CJ. I'm tired today. Much fun last night. Rangers brought Ottawa's hot streak to an end.:mrgreen:

I assumed you knew what I said. I wanted to just restate it. That's what my problem is with the entire issue. It's okay to refuse service to anyone you want, as long as it isn't someone of the protected class and you aren't specifically saying the reason is because of the protected class. Technically any business can decline service to any gay person today. You just can't say it's because of that. That's what also makes this law BS. I get that it had to be done in the 1960s because of the treatment of blacks, but we've overcompensated to the point that it's just ridiculous. That's why these threads always end up as they do, with both sides lobbing insults at each other, making rude blanket statements about political parties, screaming about "the LAW!", and the constant barrage of over the top dramatic hyperbole.

Go Rangers.
 
HenryChinaski said:
I don't know if they have been denied medical treatment in the past. I'm making a general statement that they have been treated differently and unfairly by their community in the past. When they first moved to Fairmount, it was made clear that they were "unwelcome" when it was discovered that they were gay. Even today, now that they bring a huge source of revenue in tourist dollars to Fairmount and really are a fixture there, they still feel unwelcome. Now the businesses in Fairmount may feel that they have the law backing them when they refuse them service.
Click to expand...

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.
 
chromium said:
Because the rural ****holes in the state want to force the 12 more enlightened counties to allow such discrimination. Where is the "states' rights" crowd now in calling for the rights of counties and cities to determine their own values?
Click to expand...

This is about allowing individuals to determine their own values
 
Ockham said:
Granted it can be guessed or derived through indirect information but who is looking at indirect information? I know of no hospital that publishes it's policy to reject treating homosexuals. Perhaps someone in this thread can provide a hospital that does that as I'd be interested to see if it exists and if it does, how common it is.
Click to expand...


The statement was if any such policy was published, it was "First I am not intimately familiar with hospital policy but I do not remember seeing a question about sexual preference on the information sheet either at the emergency room nor at my doctors or surgeons office."


Questions are asked and information derived. Which is what I responded to.



>>>>
 
AGENT J said:
1.) no matter your opinions we are all protected groups . . all of us. if you disagree describe a person who is not protected . . .you will fail
Click to expand...
Hmm
  • Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
  • Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
  • Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
  • Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
  • Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
  • Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
  • Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Click to expand...
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.
AGENT J said:
2.) in reality already proved it with examples, if you disagree give me a person i cant refuse service to and ill show you how
3.) i dont believe the bakers were ever fined BUT if they were the fact you are missing they were NEVER fined for not serving a "protected" group since that is NOT a crime.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur. I believe that your 'facts' are confused. It would appear that the Christian bakers in question were in fact fined.

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.
AGENT J said:
SO obviously you are factually wrong and have been for pages but you simply dont understand the topic enough to know that. fact remains there is ZERO laws forcing service to groups in this case.
4.) yes we know you "think" you did but facts, rights, laws, links, examples and reality all prove you wrong
5.) see #4
6.) see #4
7.) since im honest, objective and topically educated on this subject i would have ZERO fear of refusing you service because i know its not against the law.
Click to expand...
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?
AGENT J said:
You are wrong again
8.) wouldnt cost me anything because if i said no there are no laws broken :shrug:
fact remains i can "refuse service" to anybody i want and there are no laws forcing me to say yes
facts win again

if you disagree simply tell us all the law that forces me to serve everybody or gays or Christian . . please tell us the la in your next post. You will dodge this question.
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NIMBY said:
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 .
Click to expand...

No surprise there.
 
eohrnberger said:
Non sequitur. I believe that your 'facts' are confused. It would appear that the Christian bakers in question were in fact fined.

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.
Click to expand...



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



>>>>
 
eohrnberger said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
WorldWatcher said:
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



>>>>
Click to expand...

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".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom