• 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

AliHajiSheik said:
You highlight one town in Indiana and call them trailer trash without any documentation. No reference to anything bigoted they have done, nothing more than the idea that they look like "shanty towns of westboro caliber fanaticism." I've never seen such hypocritical bigotry before, and it isn't pretty.
Click to expand...

believe me, the last thing i'm doing is trying to impress you
 
sangha said:
Wrong. They can run a business, make sales and sell to whomever they want without paying any fines if they choose to do so. But if they run their business as a public accommodation, then they have to serve the public. All of the public.
Click to expand...
You contradicted yourself. The goal is to marginalize Christians in particular and drive them out of the marketplace. Bigotry of the worst kind. State supported bigotry not unlike the Jim Crow laws
 
tres borrachos said:
I'll bet SCOTUS will overturn this easily.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. The Supreme Court has largely left intact the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law was deemed an unconstitutional use of Congress' enforcement powers as it applied to the states, but that's about it. It still applies to the federal government. So now some states are using this law (which, incidentally, was introduced by one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress, Chuck Schumer, passed unanimously in in the House, and signed into law by Bill Clinton) as a model to answer the adoption of same-sex marriage within their borders by court decree. Since SCOTUS said the federal law doesn't apply to the states, some states felt they needed to close that argument. More recently SCOTUS has shown a tendency to uphold religious freedom, as in the Hobby Lobby case.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
I agree, the nature of the business would also be a factor. I shop at an independently owned hardware store (one of the few still operating) next to an independent barber. An owner occupied barber being asked to give the skin head a new head shave (intimate contact) may well be given alot of leeway as to what business impact is needed for a ban to be enacted.

At the same time, I would still bet that size matters, even for hardware store with the diverse customers and non intimate contact. At the end of the day, the Fair Housing Act is very powerful, yet small scale owners are exempt. My guess is that the hardware store owner would be given more leeway than Home Depot regarding bans simply based on his size and being owner occupied.

Another factor is the local jurisdiction. I live in a red state with an emphasis on property rights. Though this is not a property rights issue, there could well be some bleed over from that concept supporting more leeway to an owner regarding what is, or is not a business impact. Likewise, a blue state with an emphasis on civil rights service obligations may not allow alot of fuzziness in what is, or is not a business impact. (though such bans are not truly a civil rights issue either).
Click to expand...

Aside from explicit exemptions based on size (such as the one for housing) I don't think size, in and of itself, is much of a factor, if at all. IMO, I think it's more the circumstances that come along with size.

However, I do think you're right to say that judges in different areas will come to different conclusions. There are definitely parts of the law which are unclear and judges often mirror their constituents in terms of POV.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Right but that's not what's happening. Rarely if ever is the state the plaintiff claiming grievances over lost commerce.
Click to expand...

Not in Indiana, but the argument being made is that it is illegitimate for our govt, at any level, to ban such discrimination. The claim is that it is an infringement of various constitutional rights. What this ignores is the fact that the govt has the power to limit our rights under certain conditions, and avoiding harm to commerce is one of those conditions.

The fact that the people of Indiana have chosen to not take action to prevent that harm does not mean that it could, if it chose to, take such action and remain within the limits the constitution places on the powers of govt.

And in states with such laws, it is usually the state that takes action. The Sweet cakes by Melissa is an example of the state taking action against a business that has discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation citing a religious objection
 
Blemonds said:
You contradicted yourself. The goal is to marginalize Christians in particular and drive them out of the marketplace. Bigotry of the worst kind. State supported bigotry not unlike the Jim Crow laws
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the law that applies specifically to christians or any specific group. The law applies to atheists just as it applies to the religious.

And there is nothing bigoted about prohibiting acts which harm commerce. It is a legitimate function of govt. What you want is "special rights" for christians which is a reprehensible form of theocratic bigotry.
 
Blemonds said:
No, but they are forced to either make the sale pay the fine or quit the business. Quitting is the real goal of the homosexual agenda, forcing people who are not compliant out of the market place. That's what they call tolerance but is actually true bigotry
Click to expand...


Not quite true:

The options are make the sale, pay the fine, quit the business, or not offer the goods and services for which they have a specific problem. This is demonstrated by Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado. They have opted not to offer wedding cakes as part of their business model. Same with "The Hitching Post" in Idaho, the used to offer both religious and civil (non-religious) weddings. Because of the city ordinance they changed their business model and eliminated the option of a civil only ceremony. Since both owners are members of the clergy (an important distinction) and only perform religious weddings, even though they operate a for profit business, they are not required to perform non-religious weddings outside their faith.


>>>>
 
Blemonds said:
You contradicted yourself. The goal is to marginalize Christians in particular and drive them out of the marketplace. Bigotry of the worst kind. State supported bigotry not unlike the Jim Crow laws
Click to expand...

Anti-discrimination laws would require businesses open to the public to effectively declare, "We serve everyone."

Jim Crow laws required or allowed businesses to declare, "Whites Only."

It takes a curious detachment from reality to equate those two laws.
 
JasperL said:
So the law doesn't in fact protect individuals and businesses from supporters of homosexual marriages, bakers will still have to bake for SS wedding, etc., the supporters of the law weren't being honest about what the law would do, and everyone should recognize that they were lying and just forget about it. Got it.

BTW, your legal opinion on the potential effects is noted, but not persuasive, since people with actual law degrees disagree on the potential impacts of the law.
Click to expand...

People are not required to engage in acts which violate their consciences. And in the case of businesses that's pretty narrowly drawn, per the Hobby Lobby decision. As for the baker, I suspect he'd have to bake the cake but I doubt he could be compelled to put two grooms on top.
 
JasperL said:
On this mini exchange, you just told me that the law would prohibit me from acting against on my conscience to deny services to the devil Jews in my community. Now you're telling me the law allows me to act consistent with my conscience. You'll need to take a side.

And on the broader question, you've also quoted legal experts who say there isn't any instance of the RFRA allowing discrimination against LGBT. But clearly some people's consciences demand they DO discriminate. Again, pick a side. This law either does or does not give Christians the right to act consistent with the conscience and deny services to gays. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Neither the federal RFRA nor any SCOTUS decision extends to considering anyone of any belief to be "the devil." That's already out of bounds.
 
Jerry said:
I've been asked to leave just for being legaly armed and that's a spicificaly protected right while sexuality is not, so why should gays have special privileges?
Click to expand...

were you born legally armed? do you find "legally armed" to be a status that you can change if you want to?

please. i don't give a **** about your gun. if you want to wear it into the bath tub, that's fine by me. but don't compare that with kicking gays or blacks out of a restaurant. there's nothing that they can just leave in the trunk if some asshole at a restaurant tries to turn them away.
 
Jack Hays said:
Individual Mormons may have spent millions, as is their right, but the Mormon church as an institution spent only $180,000.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the deception and BS that the Mormon church engaged in. There are documents and recordings that demonstrate the actions of the Mormon church and the efforts that they underwent to hide their illegal activities.
 
sangha said:
There is nothing in the law that applies specifically to christians or any specific group. The law applies to atheists just as it applies to the religious.

And there is nothing bigoted about prohibiting acts which harm commerce. It is a legitimate function of govt. What you want is "special rights" for christians which is a reprehensible form of theocratic bigotry.
Click to expand...
The anti-discrimination law affects mostly Christians when we're talking about homosexuals and in particular same sex marriage. And forcing commerce is not a legitimate function of government unless one favors a government of tyranny. The real bigots in this circumstance is the homosexual couples who just can't learn to live and let live.
 
Jack Hays said:
People are not required to engage in acts which violate their consciences. And in the case of businesses that's pretty narrowly drawn, per the Hobby Lobby decision. As for the baker, I suspect he'd have to bake the cake but I doubt he could be compelled to put two grooms on top.
Click to expand...

It depends. You're I assume deliberately missing the point.

You mention the baker. You have no idea what his conscience says about baking a cake versus baking a cake AND putting two grooms on top, but conclude that the law cannot require him to act contrary to his conscience AND that "he'd have to bake the cake." Both can't be true. Again, pick a side, any side.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Not quite true:

The options are make the sale, pay the fine, quit the business, or not offer the goods and services for which they have a specific problem. This is demonstrated by Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado. They have opted not to offer wedding cakes as part of their business model. Same with "The Hitching Post" in Idaho, the used to offer both religious and civil (non-religious) weddings. Because of the city ordinance they changed their business model and eliminated the option of a civil only ceremony. Since both owners are members of the clergy (an important distinction) and only perform religious weddings, even though they operate a for profit business, they are not required to perform non-religious weddings outside their faith.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Which is no different than what I said. The bakery was forced out of one segment of business. Bigotry is alive and well in America and is becoming institutionalized in the law
 
Blemonds said:
The anti-discrimination law affects mostly Christians when we're talking about homosexuals and in particular same sex marriage. And forcing commerce is not a legitimate function of government unless one favors a government of tyranny. The real bigots in this circumstance is the homosexual couples who just can't learn to live and let live.
Click to expand...

No one is forced into commerce by civil rights laws. The real bigots are the right wing christians who insist on being granted special rights.
 
JasperL said:
Anti-discrimination laws would require businesses open to the public to effectively declare, "We serve everyone."

Jim Crow laws required or allowed businesses to declare, "Whites Only."
It takes a curious detachment from reality to equate those two laws.
Click to expand...
One was tyranny aimed at the consumer, the new one is tyranny aimed at the merchant. Tyranny is tyranny
 
Ahlevah said:
This may come as a shock to people on the East Coast, but there are a lot of religious conservatives in Flyoverland.
Click to expand...

As a side note, i think one of the major Pentecostal denominations is headquartered in Indiana, instead of Mississippi.
 
sangha said:
No one is forced into commerce by civil rights laws. The real bigots are the right wing christians who insist on being granted special rights.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They are forced out of the marketplace by the new bigotry sanctioned by the government
 
Blemonds said:
Exactly. They are forced out of the marketplace by the new bigotry sanctioned by the government
Click to expand...

No one is forced out of the marketplace. The special flowers choose to leave the marketplace in order to protect their bigoted egos.
 
Jack Hays said:
Neither the federal RFRA nor any SCOTUS decision extends to considering anyone of any belief to be "the devil." That's already out of bounds.
Click to expand...

The law prohibits discrimination against Jews. A skinhead's conscience (presumably) tells him to discriminate against Jews. If he's in business open to the public, the law requires him to act contrary to his conscience.

I don't know why you're insisting I embrace cognitive dissonance to have this discussion with you.
 
chromium said:
The fed can take away state "autonomy" just as easily - see: civil war

States have no rights and deserve even less. Indiana is a prime example of why
Click to expand...

It took the Civil War, which cost the lives of at least three hundred thousand Union men, plus three post-Civil War constitutional amendments, and particularly the Fourteenth--each of which had to be ratified by three-fourths of the states--to change the balance of power between the states and the United States. You may describe that as taking away the autonomy of the states "easily," but I would not.

The Supreme Court disagrees with your assertion that "states have no rights." Of course they have sole jurisdiction over all sorts of matters, as the Court has made clear in a number of decisions. New York v. United States and Pritz v. United States are two decisions from the 1990's in which the Court has discussed the Tenth Amendment and the federalist structure of our government.
 
sangha said:
Wrong. They can run a business, make sales and sell to whomever they want without paying any fines if they choose to do so. But if they run their business as a public accommodation, then they have to serve the public. All of the public.
Click to expand...
Please define public accomodation. Is a grocery store a public accomodation? How about a clothing store? A hardware store? A hair dresser?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom