• 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

Simpleχity;1064472605 said:
It differs from the federal law and the RFRA laws passed in most states. Governor Mike Pence says the Indiana legislature will convene this week to "clarify" the law (bring it into compliance with federal law).
Well, no. The aim would be to strengthen the language to make it more difficult for people to mischaracterize it, as you are doing here with the "bring it into compliance with federal law" nonsense.
 
The state law at issue in a third Supreme Court decision on this subject defined the Jaycees, an organization with several hundred thousand members, as a public accommodation.

You are talking about those essential places, but many state public accommodations laws are talking about much more.
If I remember correctly(?) the "state interest" justification given for trampling on the rights of this organization was that women would benefit from leadership and networking opportunties, and that would in turn benefit the state. This pretty much indicates that no private organizations are safe from government intrusion.
 
I don't hear him backtracking on George SteXXXXXopolis, this morning.
Pence did not answer directly when asked six times on This Week with George Stephanopoulos whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers.
 
Whether you think those things were public accommodations doesn't matter. What matters--and what mattered to the people who were forced to defend themselves at great expense--is that the state laws involved considered them that. The state law at issue in a third Supreme Court decision on this subject defined the Jaycees, an organization with several hundred thousand members, as a public accommodation.

You are talking about those essential places, but many state public accommodations laws are talking about much more. Almost any difficult question can be made to seem simple if you ignore enough of the troublesome details.

Sorry, but cost of defense is irrelevant IMHO. That is an issue of that particular state and as said, I disagree with some things being called a public accommodation.
 
Please see #1090.

Which says "it depends."

In the "hard" cases, the law appears to care very little (appropriately) about the person's conscience. The Indiana law itself is clear enough. The court looks to see if the action required:

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest

And, if republicans want to tell their supporters the law will allow businesses and individuals opposed to SSM to discriminate against homosexuals, then I'm not going to cry a single tear if they're called out for their bigotry. The business community told them the message they were sending to the rest of the country, the legislature rejected efforts to write in protections against LGBT, they raised funds on the premise that the bill allowed discrimination and now they're in the bed they made, even if as you're claiming the bill in fact provides no protection from "those who support homosexual marriage." Pander to anti-gay bigots, that comes with a cost. Sorry.
 
When the corporate types protest legislative action - the Repubs may, I repeat MAY, start to think a bit deeper before passing certain bills.

Angie's List canceling Eastside expansion over RFRA

The continuing blowback over Indiana's new "religious freedom" law hit home Saturday, with Indianapolis-based Angie's List announcing it is canceling a $40 million headquarters expansion.

The decision is a direct result of passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, co-founder and chief executive officer Bill Oesterle said Saturday.

The proposed expansion of the online consumer ratings service was touted to add 1,000 good-paying jobs over five years and help revitalize a struggling Eastside neighborhood.

"Angie's List is open to all and discriminates against none," Oesterle said, "and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents."

Then there are the 'nice' people defending their 'religious liberty''
One Restaurant Already Celebrated ‘Religious Liberty’ By Turning Away Gays
'The business owner, who would not give his name or the name of his business, said he had told some LGBT “people” that equipment was broken in his restaurant and he couldn’t serve them even though it wasn’t and other people were already eating at the tables. “So, yes, I have discriminated,” he told RadioNOW 100.9 hosts. The hosts were surprised the owner said he was okay with discriminating.
“Well, I feel okay with it because it’s my place of business, I pay the rent, I’ve built it with all my money and my doing. It’s my place; I can do whatever I want with it,” he said. “They can have their lifestyle and do their own thing in their own place or with people that want to be with them.”
 
Which says "it depends."

In the "hard" cases, the law appears to care very little (appropriately) about the person's conscience. The Indiana law itself is clear enough. The court looks to see if the action required:

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest

And, if republicans want to tell their supporters the law will allow businesses and individuals opposed to SSM to discriminate against homosexuals, then I'm not going to cry a single tear if they're called out for their bigotry. The business community told them the message they were sending to the rest of the country, the legislature rejected efforts to write in protections against LGBT, they raised funds on the premise that the bill allowed discrimination and now they're in the bed they made, even if as you're claiming the bill in fact provides no protection from "those who support homosexual marriage." Pander to anti-gay bigots, that comes with a cost. Sorry.

The claims you cite have not been made.
 
None of your diatribe changes the facts. If a business opens itself to the public they have to comply with the laws. Sure....excluding one person would be hard to show a violation...but if there is a pattern it becomes pretty easy.
And the law acts as I said it does - since you're wanting to quote facts.

The law does not yet identify bigotry and racism as a criminal offense.
 
It looks like there are some business owners who see the various Religious Freedom bills as expanding business opportunities

'We Serve Everyone' campaign takes off in wake of Ind. 'religious freedom' law
A website originally meant as a way to help Indianapolis businesses market their openness to all customers has spread like wildfire to 23 states and several major cities, including New York and Los Angeles.

But the site's creator, Josh Driver, said it wasn't until he saw businesses from Valparaiso, his hometown, get involved that the impact of his new creation, OpenForService.org, really hit him.

"When there were some (Valparaiso) businesses that kind of stepped up that way - that's just kind of awesome," Driver said.

Business.jpg

Driver created stickers and online badges saying "We Serve Everyone" that businesses, churches and other groups can buy and use from the website to promote the fact that they're willing serve anyone, no matter their sexual orientation.

Driver originally dreamed up the idea just for Indianapolis businesses. His friends helped spread the word, however, and businesses across Indiana and in other states started buying them.
 
If I remember correctly(?) the "state interest" justification given for trampling on the rights of this organization was that women would benefit from leadership and networking opportunties, and that would in turn benefit the state. This pretty much indicates that no private organizations are safe from government intrusion.

I wouldn't go that far. If a poker group or book club with a couple dozen members doesn't want women, blacks, homosexuals, or whatever as members, I don't read Roberts or the Court's other decisions on state public accommodations laws to require them to let these people in. Nor do fraternities have to admit women, for example. Despite the best efforts of leftists--many of whom, ironically, call themselves "liberals"--the First Amendment freedom of association still exists. So does the implied right of privacy (which is the basis for the right to abortion) that the Court also discussed in the Jaycees case. If it were up to these junior gauleiters, you couldn't have a damned dinner party in your own home without including at least one member of every grievance group on your guest list.
 
What? :) I mean.. what? How is what I wrote a dodge? If you mean by dodge I pointed out where you were going wrong, then I'm not sure if you have a grasp?

Tim-


easy a question was asked and a dodge was given since no answer was provided to the question that was actually asked and the reply was just made up fantasy, falsehoods and deflections.
Maybe in the next post you will answer directly and not try to talk around it.

A claim was made (not by me) that there are laws that force people to serve gays. I pointed out the fact that was wrong. Then i was told I was wrong so I simply asked "what law forces me to serve you cause you are gay"

so again I will ask "what law forces me to serve you cause you are gay"?
 
The law does not yet identify bigotry and racism as a criminal offense.

Well, it should! Anything that makes another human being feel icky and invalidated--even if it's just slurring them in a joke--should be a felony!! And I don't care about some old outdated constatution. We shouldn't hesitate to ignore that stupid thing whenever bad people are hiding behind it!!! After all, our president ignores the constatution all the time, and all us good people know how wonderful he is.
 
Dude, you said this and I quote in your widget scenario:


Now I know you have trouble with language and all, but let me try and explain this to you. You are asking me to show you a law that says you must do something, in this case, force you to sell widgets to a gay man. With me so far? Now, I showed you that laws don't do that, and as such, I could not possibly show you a law that says you must sell me widgets because laws don't do this. Still with me? So, what you're doing is setting the opposing viewpoint (mine in this case and all others that have followed along with you) up for a challenge they cannot win, but not because you have some superior insight into the law or even this issue, but because you're asking me and others to solve a problem that DOES NOT EXIST. See how that works? I pointed out to you and with this post you acknowledge that laws don't force people to do things, they inform you of what you're not allowed to do, so by setting up your scenario the way you did, you asked me to support your strawman, and of course when I could not, you claim victory. This is what you ALWAYS do.

So, now that we've established the error in your premise (Again that laws inform of what not to do, rather than what you can do) shall we (Really meaning you and you alone) debate the topic with a little more integrity and honesty?


Tim-


my question was based off of what somebody else claimed, it wasnt my premise . . . .
like i said, context and read the thread, so the error was the assumption in the post above . . nothing i did was in error lol

here ill give you an example of the error the post above makes and what its factually wrong.

somebody says " 5 + 5 = 36"

i tell them it factually does not, they argue it does

so then i make a post asking if anybody can tell me how 5 + 5 = 36

then the post above comes in and tells me that I am wrong because 5 + 5 does not equal 36

yes, i know, this is what happens when context is ignored lol
but thank you for proving me right and supporting the fact i posted earlier, there is NO law that forces me to sell to gays
facts win again
 
Then what do you cal it if Christians are assessed fines and find themselves locked in legal battles over being allowed to decline certain clients?

same thing i call it when ANYBODY is assessed fines and find themselves locked in legal battles over breaking the law and or infringing on people rights

i call it stupid people choosing to break the law :shrug:

why would i call it anythign else unless i want to be dishonest
 
I do not lie, so you can be sure that everything that I post is the truth or something that I believe. In this case, I am being factual by telling you that you didn't tell me what rights anti-discrimination laws protect.

so its slimpy a mistake instead of dishonest, that works to either way the fact remains the claim made was false whether there is a "belief" in it or not
 
Anyway, at the same time, two gay application developers (a couple) also fanned Eich outrage in their blog: "Today we were shocked to read that Brendan Eich has been appointed Mozilla CEO. As a gay couple who were unable to get married in California until recently, we morally cannot support a Foundation that would not only leave someone with hateful views in power, but will give them a promotion and put them in charge of the entire organization.

I skipped some because how the controversy arose is irrelevant. And what you're pointing out is people have a choice with whom they do business. Corporations spend $10s of billions annually cultivating their public image, they release statements, shoot commercials, make strategic donations, to indicate that they're nice people over there and their values align with ours and we should do business with them. This is just obvious stuff - if you watch a Sunday news show, there's about a 100% chance you'll see one of these ads. BP is 'green' - they PROMISE!! Etc.

Now you're whining that public opinion works the other way. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not, it's how it works. Here's a discussion of boycotts of companies that donate to Planned Parenthood:

https://www.catholicvote.org/boycott-the-planned-parenthood-supporters/comment-page-3/

As they (and OkCupid) made clear: he had to be persecuted and driven from employment because he held "hateful views" contrary to their views.

But OKCupid isn't the market, they have no power over Mozilla.

Poppycock. I have worked the majority of my life for people who support the denial of my liberties. I (I'm white) have worked for bigoted and sexist black city managers, feminist bosses, and affirmative action (hire by your race) mongers. It has been one of the 'privileges' of working for 17 years in a deep blue California City near Berkeley, controlled by and run by a black majority city civil service and City Council, that has bathed me in the views of every anti-liberty (and anti-white) nostrum imaginable.

OK, I live in the racist and homophobic South. I'm not sure what your point is.

None the less, we don't persecute bosses for their private views nor for their private life - regardless of what 'executive' position they hold (at least, not since McCarthy). We don't make them sign gay-marriage loyalty oaths, try to humiliate them publicly, or politic to get them fired for a donation to a state ballot initiative.

It's just a fact of life that the CEO IS the face of the company and his or her personal views are rightly or wrongly associated with those of the company they head. It comes with the job and it doesn't matter whether you think it should or not. It just does. No one would argue that it shouldn't matter if the CEO of Mozilla donated to a cause to reinstate mixed race marriage bans, even if his company by all accounts treated blacks just fine in the workplace before he was appointed CEO. It would be nearly unthinkable for such a person to have an executive position and no board anywhere would elevate him to CEO. So this issue isn't about whether we should hold the person or company accountable for personal views, you just think holding anyone accountable for their opposition to gay marriage bans is unfair.

I'd just say that to some gay couples, this is a big deal. You're saying to them - it's NOT a big deal - get over it. That's not how it works.

Be reminded, everyone at Mozilla agrees that Eich was completely supportive of employees of every race, sex, and sexual orientation. Nothing in his work conduct evenly remotely suggested the vicious demonization of him as a human being...unless, of course, more than 1/2 of California voters are also "demons". (Continued)

That's just not true - there was intense internal pressure against him in Mozilla. And what he apparently did do was support their employment rights, but on his off time he worked against them obtaining rights to marriage, and wanted that denial of rights enshrined in the Constitution of California. The latter was and is important to gays. It's not to you. Well, when your constituents include a great number of gays, don't be surprised that when you oppose them being able to obtain fundamental (in their view) rights, they'll object and if there is an option in the market, they will often choose companies more aligned with their values. It's life in the market.

And you're failing to distinguish between "demonization of him as a human being" versus "opposed him as the public face of Mozilla." There is a difference. His opposition to SSM was known no later than 2012. He remained CTO....
 
Sorry, but cost of defense is irrelevant IMHO. That is an issue of that particular state and as said, I disagree with some things being called a public accommodation.

What you disagree with does not matter. The people of each state--not you--get to decide what things they want to make public accommodations in their laws. Many states go far beyond the easy, obvious applications you mentioned. Even federal public accommodations law prohibits, for example, refusing to serve blacks in a restaurant--and has for half a century now.
 
Where in the bible does it say whites can lynch blacks or that being black is somehow a sin?

where in the bible does it say I have to open a store and then violate the rights of other Americans? :shrug:
 
Neither is denying a citizen the basic religious rights afforded them in the Constitution.

good thing thats not happening
 
Forcing someone to act against their conscience is indeed tyranny

Well, OK, but there are billions of people living in actual tyrannical regimes and they'd laugh if someone tried to claim that our experience is similar because businesses in the U.S. are forced to treat all customers equally, and with respect. You're trivializing the word IMO.
 
The claims you cite have not been made.

Yeah, they were. E.g. Advance America » Blog Archive » VICTORY AT THE STATE HOUSE!

Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!

AFA of Indiana was also at the bill signing. You can google them if you want their views on SSM, and their support of this bill.

And as someone else pointed out above, when Utah passed their version of this bill, they engaged with the LGBT community and wrote into the law protections for them in employment and housing, and there was little controversy when that bill passed. Obviously, Utah refused to include measures that would address some of the other "hard" issues, like when does a restaurant have to host a reception for a SSM or when does a florist have to provide services etc. But there was a compromise.

Indiana did none of that. The business community warned them of the message they were sending, they gave opponents the finger, and are unsurprisingly paying a price. Boo hooo.....
 
Simpleχity;1064472851 said:
Pence did not answer directly when asked six times on This Week with George Stephanopoulos whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers.

That's hilarious and shows what a bind he's in. If he says, sure, it will be legal, then the bill IS about legalized discrimination against gays. If he says it will remain illegal, he's contradicting what the bill supporters were saying to their anti-SSM base. He wants it both ways like some posters on this thread.
 
It looks like there are some business owners who see the various Religious Freedom bills as expanding business opportunities

I get that businesses want to point out that they serve everyone, but why would businesses actually oppose a law that provides them greater freedom? It's one thing to not practice a right, but it's highly illogical to oppose that right being protected.
 
Back
Top Bottom