• 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

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



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.....

I see you could not find a link to such a statement by any responsible official. Your claim remains unsupported. And no, businesses in Indiana will pay no price. That's because there's no more discrimination possible now than there was a week ago.
 
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

No, you never said what right or rights anti-discrimination laws protect.
 
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.

Greater freedom to do what - act in a bigoted manner, just as our ancestors did up to the time civil rights bills were passed?

There will be some smaller businesses, particularly in small towns that may benefit economically by acting as bigots. Large corporations with diverse employee roles and located in mostly urban areas see the various minority communities as customers they don't wish to offend.
 
Greater freedom to do what - act in a bigoted manner, just as our ancestors did up to the time civil rights bills were passed?

Decide who they will conduct business with. If someone does not consent to commence in trade with someone they have the right to say no and that right should be protected like all other rights.

There will be some smaller businesses, particularly in small towns that may benefit economically by acting as bigots. Large corporations with diverse employee roles and located in mostly urban areas see the various minority communities as customers they don't wish to offend.

That would seem to be saying that the threat of such behavior is extremely small.
 
Last edited:
Decide who they will conduct business with. If someone does not consent to commence in trade with someone they have the right to say no and that right should be protected like all other rights.

waaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

then that person can take and exercise their right to commence in trade with NOBODY.

if you are a public-serving business, you can't discriminate against protected classes. time to get over it.
 
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.

Many states may go to far, but that does not mean that it makes the legal protection given in actual public accommodations (like the ones I mentioned) should be scrapped.

I may be worse than the most evil liberal, as an atheist social democrat, but I think legal protection from unlawful discrimination is totally acceptable but there have to be limitations.

For example, in the Netherlands there are very strict catholic and very strict protestant schools. I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to not hire a flaming homosexual atheist married to another man who is a heavily tattooed butch man in women's clothes. A school should be allowed to hire someone that fits with the rules and regulations/code of conduct of that school.

But when a halal Muslim butcher/green grocer refuses to serve an ultra orthodox Jew then that should be prohibited. Or a supermarket refusing someone because they are gay (and for no other reason whatsoever). That kind of discrimination should be forbidden. But people should not try to be extremist about their views. Reason should be the norm and if there is a conflict one should let a judge decide or bring it to the appropriate authorities and they will sort it out.

It is a sad thing when the boy scouts have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to not have openly gay troop leaders in their organisation. Where I would applaud them if they would choose to do that, they should not be forced to do so if that goes against the rules of that organisation.

But that does not mean that companies should have that same right (except under very specific exceptions). For example, one of those exceptions should be that if you are a bible shop you should have the right to not hire an atheist but if that atheist wants to buy a bible in that shop, that shop should not be allowed to deny selling him a bible based on him being an atheist.

I might be liberal, but the non-discrimination laws should not be absolute. Sometimes companies should have the right to not hire specific people if that totally clashes with their core values or practices.
 
waaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

then that person can take and exercise their right to commence in trade with NOBODY.

if you are a public-serving business, you can't discriminate against protected classes. time to get over it.

I have this thing where I don't get over human right violations. Call me what you will for that, but yeah, it kind of just bugs me forever.
 
I have this thing where I don't get over human right violations. Call me what you will for that, but yeah, it kind of just bugs me forever.

you also have the freedom and right to go to another country that affords you the right to discriminate in public accommodation commerce, if it means so much to you.
 
where in the bible does it say I have to open a store and then violate the rights of other Americans? :shrug:

What rights? You have yet to say what rights are violated by not commencing in commerce with someone.
 
you also have the freedom and right to go to another country that affords you the right to discriminate in public accommodation commerce, if it means so much to you.

The only way to respond to that is to tell you where to shove it.
 
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.
Agree, I was talking/thinking of larger organizations. Neighborhood book clubs? No. Completely private male-only clubs at universities? Yes. Part of the justification in one such ruling claimed that a decades old social club fell under public accommodations simply because they served food to their members from time to time.

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.
US Civil Rights law (Title IX) specifically exempts fraternities and sororities (and boy scouts, girl scouts, YMCA, and others). Were this not the case, I have no doubt that the boy scouts would now simply be "scouts" - maybe fraternities and sororities not far behind?
 
that "someone's" rights.

Can you tell me what right or rights anti-discrimination laws protect? I have been asking that question for a few years now and so far no one has been able to answer it.
 
Woo hoo, another baseless divination of a "truthie" by a member pro-gay rights crowd. By the way, did you actually read the law (that's actually a rhetorical question)? Do you have any reason to ASSUME, other than your baseless speculation, that Pence's desire for clarification means it is not in compliance with federal law? Nope.

FACT: As stated previously, the law is nearly identical to the federal law. There are no significant differences.



Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained | The Weekly Standard

Might it be that Pence is trying to sooth the hysterical pro-gay rights loons and their fellow-traveling nitwits (and spineless institutional groups?). Naaaawwww.

The Federal RFRA is less than a page long. Indiana's is several pages long.

Obviously, they're not the same.
 
man....this country sometimes. if I was gay person and some old religious lady's cake shop wasn't comfortable with making me a cake, I'd just go somewhere else. But in this "sue them all", shrill, "everything offends me" America we now have RUN THE OLD LADY OUT OF BUSINESS of she refuses to bake a gay person a cake.

just step back and look at the lunacy on display here. all in the name of political correctness. even if we have to cannibalize the spirit of the country itself to do it.
 
Can you tell me what right or rights anti-discrimination laws protect? I have been asking that question for a few years now and so far no one has been able to answer it.

To save us all some time, I'd simply suggest you find SCOTUS decisions affirming these laws due to the equal protection clause.
 
man....this country sometimes. if I was gay person and some old religious lady's cake shop wasn't comfortable with making me a cake, I'd just go somewhere else. But in this "sue them all", shrill, "everything offends me" America we now have RUN THE OLD LADY OUT OF BUSINESS of she refuses to bake a gay person a cake.

just step back and look at the lunacy on display here. all in the name of political correctness. even if we have to cannibalize the spirit of the country itself to do it.


and what would you do if that was the only 1 cake shop within 500 miles of you? or if all cake shops were owned and run by religious opponents of your life?
etc
 
To save us all some time, I'd simply suggest you find SCOTUS decisions affirming these laws due to the equal protection clause.

The equal protection clause only applies to government. Perhaps you should read the clause you're referencing before using it as your argument.
 
The way I see it, why would a gay person force a fundamentalist Christian bakery to make a cake for them anyway? Who knows what they will put in that cake if one forces them to serve them. Im sure there's plenty of other willing bakeshops that can accommodate their requests- and that way they wont have to worry about whats in those cakes. If a person does discriminate, let them be known throughout the whole community and let the market decide as to whether their business gets ruined because of their bigotry, dont let the government do that.
 
I see you could not find a link to such a statement by any responsible official. Your claim remains unsupported. And no, businesses in Indiana will pay no price. That's because there's no more discrimination possible now than there was a week ago.

Funny isn't it that Pence won't say out loud what you're asserting.

Indiana Governor: New Law 'Not About Discrimination' - ABC News

Pence did not answer directly when asked at least six times whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers. "This is not about discrimination, this is about empowering people to confront government overreach," he said. Asked again, he said, "Look, the issue here is still is tolerance a two-way street or not."

I think the problem is the dog whistle is getting heard by the rest of us... Got to love watching him squirm on this issue.
 
Agree, I was talking/thinking of larger organizations. Neighborhood book clubs? No. Completely private male-only clubs at universities? Yes. Part of the justification in one such ruling claimed that a decades old social club fell under public accommodations simply because they served food to their members from time to time.

The fact an organization constitutes a public accommodation under a state's law does not, by itself, mean it cannot exclude certain groups of people. Both the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade in Hurley and the Monmouth, New Jersey chapter of the Boy Scouts in Dale were public accommodations under those state's laws. And yet in both cases the Court upheld, on First Amendment grounds, the organization's right to exclude persons whose homosexual views or actions they did not want associated with them.


US Civil Rights law (Title IX) specifically exempts fraternities and sororities (and boy scouts, girl scouts, YMCA, and others). Were this not the case, I have no doubt that the boy scouts would now simply be "scouts" - maybe fraternities and sororities not far behind?

I suspect that's because the lawyers who were advising the sponsors of that bill told them that if it if did not make those exceptions it might not pass constitutional muster.
 
and what would you do if that was the only 1 cake shop within 500 miles of you? or if all cake shops were owned and run by religious opponents of your life?
etc

Oh look, the well in the middle of the desert argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom