• 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

In that post, I explicitly mentioned that there are exceptions, and in another I noted it included exceptions for expressive organizations

Try to keep up.

I can't be bothered to read every one of your posts. I was responding to your statement in one of them, and that statement was not accurate.
 
1.) and that observation would be wrong . . there is a choice . . a choice not to go into business and think you are allowed to break the law.


Hehehe, I had you pegged with this line of reasoning 25 pages ago, and I was shocked frankly that you resisted actually saying it until just now.

All I'm going to say is, gee dude, way to skirt the topic. The topic of debate isn't about whether people of conscience should go into business or not, it is that the state of Indiana has decided to protect those people of conscience that ARE in business already, or who may decide to do so in the future? Your little (Although very obvious what you were thinking) dance around Henrin, and Bergers insights notwithstanding, how about you actually address the reality posed by the OP?

The reality (As if it needs to be said once again) is that in Indiana, people of any stripe can refuse business to people that are gay, based on conscientious objection. It also reinforces several constitutional concepts regarding association, speech, and expression thereof. Just like someone now has a right (Although the constitution - not the fluid one libbos like - already says as much) to choose where they patron, likewise a establishment has the right to choose its customers. Not a smart business decision to turn away anyone willing to give you custom for your services and or products, but, in principle the liberty should be there to do so. The market will sort out whether or not this was a good idea in both directions, so time will tell.

The fact that I mention this is actually two-fold. I see where approving of this law has merit and a good solid argument for it, however, you might find that I actually oppose this law as I find it carried out to its logical conclusion is more divisive than what its intentions are. In short, I see where Pence and the people of Indiana where heading with this, and why they felt with recent infringement on religious freedoms, warranted a reaction, but I think that they never really thought it all the way through to its end. Many things could happen, but it follows that Indiana could literally force all gays (As an example) our of their state because what might happen is that once one business does it, others tend to follow, and if everyone disallows gays, then the laws purpose is defeated and the state is left holding whatever bag is left to hold. I'm torn because the founders were very clear about why states have rights, and how they would become laboratories of democracy, and in the end, things that work will stick, and things that don't will not. Other states would be paying attention and learn as well.

It makes sense in so many ways to have it like that, frankly, and as such, Indiana will (If given the chance) let us all know just exactly what impact enacting these kinds of laws will have. In the end I don't think gays should be denied service based simply on their sexual orientation, BUT, someone like a baker, or photographer or wedding planner providing a service that feels that they cannot service their God and homosexuals at the same time with enough conviction to actually take a principled stand insodoing, does have merit, and in all honesty, I fail to see how any gays that sue them for it, actually show material harm was incurred by said baker, planner or photographer for objecting to their lifestyle? There is no harm done, other than hurt feelings, but hurt feelings is not material harm, gee could you imagine what country we'd be if that were the case?

This was all brought about because a small but very vocal contingent of gays seek out this kind of confrontation with the explicit intent of making it an issue. THIS is the kind of tactic that American's are waking up to, and they should tred very lightly, get over themselves and move on. If they had, it wouldn't require that state legislatures enact legislation being asked of them by their constituents. Wake up call to the militant gays among us. Just suck it up, and go elsewhere, not everyone will bend to your will, there are people out there with the guts to take stand, and many will join them. Don't like these laws? Tough, you made it necessary by your overreaching, militant approach to force everyone to accept you.

Tim-
 
It's clear the business community did oppose this garbage, but unfortunately the reality when dealing with nutjob conservatives, every major boycott will have the effect of many thousands of phone calls. They show little evidence of giving the first damn about (especially outside) public opinion, but they will usually listen to their sugar daddies and business supporters.

yeah, but if you call instead of boycott, you will actually be targeting the assholes who did this. if you boycott instead of call, people like me get fired. who are you mad at, me or them?
 

Good grief, give me an example of a business that in no way can have a dress code. If entire shopping malls can have them, I bet any business can have them if they so choose. Ie, This business must allow Sangha to enter while wearing skinhead / waffen SS wear* and must serve him.

Confess it, you are wrong on this matter. Dont worry, I wont tell too anybody, well not too many people. Confession is good for the soul. I"ll take yours now.... .

*not that you actually wear the stuff.
 
Last edited:
Good grief, give me an example of a business that in no way can have a dress code. If entire shopping malls can have them, I bet any business can have them if they so choose.

Ie, This business must allow Sangha to enter while wearing skinhead / waffen SS wear* and must serve him.

Confess it, you are wrong on this matter. Dont worry, I wont tell too anybody, well not too many people. Confession is good for the soul. I"ll take yours now.... .

*not that you actually wear the stuff.

Have You Reserved Your Right to Refuse Service? - Free Enterprise
We reserve the right to refuse service.

The sign's message is clear and simple, but the truth is that a business can't reserve a wholesale right to refuse service.

As places of public accommodation, private businesses are subject to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. These statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender and sex. Some also include sexual orientation.

And others, well they outlaw even arbitrary discrimination.

For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits all types of arbitrary discrimination. This includes biases based on physical attributes, political beliefs, and geographical origin.

Courts also tend not to favor arbitrary discrimination. In the past, judges have used consumer protection, unfair business practice, and tort laws to punish such practices.

None of this means that you absolutely cannot refuse to serve a customer. It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to do so.
 
View attachment 67182392


Product lines are differentiated by differences in - well - the product. Above is one of the wedding cakes in the Masterpiece Cakes catalog.

1. What part of this cake identifies this as a "same sex marriage cake" in contrast to a "different sex marriage cake" as opposed to just a "wedding cake"?

2. What part of this cake is different when purchased by same-sex couples in contrast to different-sex couples:
A. Is it the recipe?
B. Is it the materials?
C. Is it the decoration (notice this cake does not employ toppers or text)?​




Or is the difference not in fact in the cake, the difference being the customers that purchase such a cake.



>>>>
I'd agree that the customer shouldn't make a difference to the service provider. Their money spends the same as everyone else's, and the same work and materials goes into the service or product produced.
For me, this is a a grey area. Gays must be allowed to order a generic wedding cake just like a birthday cake. Owner should not need to make it a same sex cake per se:

owner: Here is your generic wedding cake. No, I am not going to put a "two grooms" center piece on it. No, I am not going to write "Adam and Steve, united in marriage on it".
Now there, it would seem that the request has gone beyond the offered product / services, but I can also see where that'd be grounds that would have to be argued, the weakest link there being 'you customize nearly everyone else's cake with scripts, don't you?'
 
Not so. New Jersey law made the Boy Scouts a public accommodation, and yet it was free to revoke scoutmaster Dale's membership because it did not want to accommodate homosexuals. Massachusetts law made the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Boston a public accommodation, and yet the parade's organizers were free to refuse to include an Irish-American homosexual group in the parade. In both cases, the homosexuals were excluded because the private persons in charge of the public accommodation didn't want them.

States cannot broaden the definition of "public accommodation" to include every imaginable organization or business, and then force those organizations and businesses to enter into contracts with everyone who wants to have dealings with them. The Christian owners of the Hitching Post, for example, did not want to let homosexuals use the wedding chapel they ran as a business--and they didn't have to.

The proponents of the homosexual agenda have taken an old common-law provision meant to keep travelers from freezing to death because innkeepers denied them lodgings, and tried to make it into a weapon to bully private persons in all sorts of commercial endeavors into contracting to provide homosexuals various goods and services against their will.

And this is a legitimate bone of contention from my view.
 
Ask a Black minister or any Black with a lick of sense if they think there's difference.

It's pretty easy to find examples in our history of people finding support for slavery and for racism in their religion. That it's no longer common in 2015 doesn't make that any less true. And it's also true that the rural South is outwardly religious and has been for all of my lifetime, but somehow a large majority of the voting whites in Southern states somehow squared institutionalized racism and second class status for blacks with their deeply held religious beliefs.

And I really don't see the effective difference between bigotry rooted in intolerance or hate, and bigotry rooted in "religion." From the outside, and to those on the other end of the bigotry, they look pretty much the same. it would seem more intellectually honest to just allow discrimination against LGBT, period, instead of giving it the shine of legitimacy by requiring that there be some basis in religion to justify it.
 
Right....I disagree the Homosexual plight has anything to do with the civil rights movement. Guess I'm a bigot.

What of it?

I'm curious how you come to any meaningful difference between discriminating based on race, and especially religion, versus sexual orientation.
 
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.



>>>>

Information can always be derived. The question should be: Is it be derived and if so by who, where, and how often.
 
Shame on the State of Indiana, especially their bigoted Governor and legislature. You would think that in 2015 we would be beyond this type of hatred and bigotry. This simply shows that for all the progress that America has made, we are still a long ways away from being a country that treats everyone fairly and equally. The bigots will lose.....but the battle remains.
There's more than just a bit of irony in these situations. The business owner says that he doesn't agree with a person's choices so he chooses not to do business with that person. That person (the one from the tolerance crowd mind you) responds by saying that he does not agree with the business owner's choices so he is going to use the full force of the law to inflict harm on the business owner.

Tolerance is certainly a complex (and obviously hypocritical) issue
 
That of course is the goal, to force Christians (mostly) out of the marketplace unless they conform to the homosexual agenda.
2.) This is what passes for tolerance these days. Conform or be harmed

1.) weird im a christian (along with the majority of this country) and it doesnt force me out of business at all, in fact it doesnt do anything to me, it PROTECTS me as a chrisitain. so that lie you just made up fails the test of facts and relaity
2.) well since you made up number 1, 2 also fails.
facts win again
 
1.)Assuming that the contract for services has to be voluntarily entered by both parties, it would seem reasonable that either party could refuse.
Could be the seller's price is too high for the buyer, or the quality of the cakes not meeting expectations, or the seller doesn't have the capacity to fulfill the obligations of the contract, time, flour, staffing, etc.

so the answer is yes they have a choice to refuse to serve them, further proving the lies and falsehoods you have been repeating post after post completely false.

Good job on admitting you were wrong!
 
'We don't offer same sex marriage cakes. It's not a product offering in our product line.' ?

wedding cakes = wedding cakes. There isnt a distinction between wther they are for interracial couple homosexual couple, bi sexual couple, christian couple etc.
once again it shows you dont understand this topic
 
yeah, but if you call instead of boycott, you will actually be targeting the assholes who did this. if you boycott instead of call, people like me get fired. who are you mad at, me or them?

I'm not disagreeing with you about the unfairness of boycotts - from what I've read there is no question the business community opposed this BS. But from a practical standpoint, what might work and what might not work, I'm just not convinced that people who heard the objections from your local business community, and voted for it anyway, will give the first damn what the "public" thinks. Pence, for one, gave the Indiana business community the middle finger. I'm just doubtful he'll care until a big employer moves out or crosses them off the list, or visibly funds challengers to those who didn't listen, etc.
 
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.

And not all groups or persons are protected or protected equally. Of course all people are of some race or sex, and all (in theory) are protected (privileged) from some level of private discrimination based on their race or sex or national origin (etc.). However many individuals are not protected (privileged) from discrimination on the basis of their membership in other groups (e.g. those under 40, or those who have committed crimes, etc.).

Moreover, in practice, whites and Asians are often "legally" discriminated against due to equal opportunity and/or affirmative action programs.

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.

As previously, this is either a disingenuous ploy or outright ignorance. "The fact remains" that there are many laws that compels those who do not wish to serve a group, to do so. In Oregon or Iowa, if you don't wish to serve gays due to their sexual orientation, you will be punished.

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 againfact remains i can "refuse service" to anybody i want and there are no laws forcing me to say yes

More disingenuous tripe. You cannot refuse service to anybody you want if the motivations behind the refusal is banned by law. You cannot refuse to serve 'anyone' if the basis is their race, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc..

Being such an expert, I am surprised you don't know that.
 
There's more than just a bit of irony in these situations. The business owner says that he doesn't agree with a person's choices so he chooses not to do business with that person. That person (the one from the tolerance crowd mind you) responds by saying that he does not agree with the business owner's choices so he is going to use the full force of the law to inflict harm on the business owner.

Tolerance is certainly a complex (and obviously hypocritical) issue

So you oppose the CRA and would like to see it repealed? At least Title II?
 
Religion is a choice, and generally a bad choice. It's protected bigotry.
 
The market will sort out whether or not this was a good idea in both directions, so time will tell.

someone like a baker, or photographer or wedding planner providing a service that feels that they cannot service their God and homosexuals at the same time with enough conviction to actually take a principled stand

There is no harm done, other than hurt feelings, but hurt feelings is not material harm


Wake up call to the militant gays among us.

not everyone will bend to your will, there are people out there with the guts to take stand, and many will join them.

Don't like these laws? Tough, you made it necessary by your overreaching, militant approach to force everyone to accept you.

Tim-
Tim-

wow thats a nice long waste of a post based on your biased and dishonest opinions and feelings that dont matter. LMAO

Nobody educated, honest and objective falls for "the gay agenda", "force of acceptance", "market will fix itself" dishonesty mentally retard "rhetoric", it just gets mocked and laughed at for the desperation it is.
Ill stick with the actually topic and go with facts, reality and rights over your views.

ANd the fact remains:
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
there is no force to say yes
religious rights are not infringed
right to associate is not infringed
right to a contract is not infringed
there is a choice

you challeneges are 0-lifetime against me and nothing has changed
sorry that equal rights winning conflicts with your wants and views but the war is basically over, these little desperate bigoted last minute battles will end up HELPING equal rights. They will help just like banning did and its sweet sweet irony. THese things give ANOTHER path to be challenged and destroyed in the courts setting a precedence that will further cement in equal rights for my fellow Americans, the ones you so wish didnt have equal rights. MAKES ME PROUD your side is losing and losing big and I chuckle every time i see the hate, dislike and fear that equal rights causes among those that share you views and I thank god america is righting wrongs and improving itself on this front. :D
GOod luck though, keep up the good fight against equal rights! We love the entertainment.

your post fails and facts win again
 
Moreover, in practice, whites and Asians are often "legally" discriminated against

Oh noooooooooooooooooooeeeeessssssssssssssssssssss....the po, po whiiite folk, they be treated oh so baaaaaaad................. :roll: :2bigcry: :failpail:
 
Back
Top Bottom