Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Blemonds said:

Best guess is that was a homosexual pretending to be a restaurant owner, a false flag if you will. Like that black professor who trashed her own car with racial epithets painted on it and claimed it was done by racists

Click to expand...

LOL. Right, there are no bigots who own restaurants so this one had to be made up.... :roll:

Deuce said:

A business is going to file a suit under this law for their right to refuse service to homosexuals. They will argue that it substantially burdens their religious freedom to be made to serve homosexuals. It will be a long, expensive lawsuit with multiple appeals costing the Illinois taxpayers millions.

It could have been avoided by adding language to clarify that aspect of the law. Such amendments were rejected. Why?

Click to expand...

It was already answered in the same link.



UPDATE: Via HRC: Illinois has a public accommodation law that prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation from private businesses and government entities "that provide services to the general public." Yet, only 21 states have such accommodations. Again, why is this bill controversial? If this law permits somehow permitted a "blank check" on discrimination, which it does not, it would've happened in Indiana and elsewhere long ago, as Ace of Spades' Gabriel Malor points out.


The position that wedding-related businesses having the right to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers based on religious grounds is popular. While a plurality of Americans support gay marriage, they also support religious protections for those who disagree as the Associated Press-Gfk poll showed in February. Though, if you head over to Gallup, you’ll find that a solid majority support gay marriage.




Nevertheless, this silliness has forced Gov. Pence to discuss a “clarification” bill with legislators over the weekend.....snip~

JasperL said:

OK, so how far does this go? Employment and housing? So if your son has a job, doing well, 12 years there, and the employer finds out he's gay and fires him. OK?

Click to expand...

So you support the idea of skinhead forcing a black woman to cater their party, even though she doesn't want to.

After 12 years my son could get fired because his company downsizes, or he has a new boss who hates him, or because he smells bad, or because his services are no longer needed. People lose their jobs all the time for no particular reason.

Deuce said:

It's difficult to argue that it's not about discriminating against gays when the people who wrote it are some of th most vocal anti-gay bigots the state.

also when amendments to clarify that by issue were struck down by the lawmakers. If it's not about discriminating, why did they block anti-discrimination language from the bill?

Click to expand...

That does seem to be a relevant point. Utah (!!) came to a legislative compromise with the LGBT community and wrote in protections in employment and housing. Indiana legislators gave the finger to them and the business community.

tres borrachos said:

Interesting. So when those same skinheads are throwing a party, and they demand that a black woman cater it, you'd oppose her declining the offer. If a slaughterhouse wants a Muslim owned commercial cleaning company to clean up the pig blood, you'd oppose them declining the offer.

Click to expand...

That's not how public accommodation laws work. How many times has this been explained to you?

tres borrachos said:

so you support the idea of skinhead forcing a black woman to cater their party, even though she doesn't want to.

After 12 years my son could get fired because his company downsizes, or he has a new boss who hates him, or because he smells bad, or because his services are no longer needed. People lose their jobs all the time for no particular reason.

Click to expand...

not. Protected. Under. Public. Accommodation.

Deuce said:

That's not how public accommodation laws work. How many times has this been explained to you?

Click to expand...

We all know what the laws are. Now why don't you let me ask the poster a question about his opinion and you just butt out? This is a discussion, not Deuce's forum.

tres borrachos said:

We all know what the laws are. Now why don't you let me ask the poster a question about his opinion and you just butt out? This is a discussion, not Deuce's forum.

Click to expand...

Yea. It's a discussion so I'm allowed to call you out on your straw man. Sorry this bothers you so much.

Deuce said:

Yea. It's a discussion so I'm allowed to call you out on your straw man. Sorry this bothers you so much.

Click to expand...

You can call strawmen all you want. You can scream "but but but THE LAW says" (which I mentioned dozens of pages back is typical of the arguments made), and I'll go on having a discussion with Jasper, if he's willing to, about his opinion. Now, keep on posting your troll posts for someone else who enjoys them. You bore me.

AGENT J said:

1.) nope didnt at all, you tried to twist what was actually said and failed
2.) the record is straight what i said and what was claimed was said were totally different
3.) you're welcome let me know if i can help out with any other mistakes in your posts

fact remains
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota

Click to expand...

You're still self contradicting, but playing a semantics game to try to get out of it

said it before and ill say it again. I love the fear that equal rights for gays is generating. These bigoted laws are just desperate backlash, last minute attempts to stop equal rights and in the end they will fail too and help further cement equal rights. I hope people try as many of this mentally retarded things as possible. My religious rights are already protected and in no danger, claiming otherwise is just a fear tactic that honest, educated and objective people dont by. Like i said the fact remains equal rights and anti-discrimination laws dont hurt me in the least or any other christian, in fact they protect me just like everybody else..

JasperL said:

LOL. Right, there are no bigots who own restaurants so this one had to be made up.... :roll:

Click to expand...

Note that the restaurant owner is anonymous, the restaurant is anonymous and the new law hasn't even gone into effect yet. Yes, the likelihood of a false flag is high

Blemonds said:

You're still self contradicting, but playing a semantics game to try to get out of it

Click to expand...

100% false
nobody honest, educated and objective will buy that claim, this is why you cant prove your claims at all in any fashion. keep trying though, maybe in the next post you can provide ONE fact that supports you . . . one
if you disagree simply do so now, point out the FACTUAL contradiction

fact remains
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota

tres borrachos said:

If the owner of a restaurant was black, and in came a bunch of skinheads, would you oppose his right to decline service to them?

Click to expand...

i don't know. are you born a skinhead?

AGENT J said:

100% false
nobody honest, educated and objective will buy that claim, this is why you cant prove your claims at all in any fashion. keep trying though, maybe in the next post you can provide ONE fact that supports you . . . one
if you disagree simply do so now, point out the FACTUAL contradiction

fact remains
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota

Click to expand...

Then how do you explain the photographer and bakers who have been assessed fines and forced into costly legal battles over declining to provide services to homosexuals for their weddings? Still waiting for that answer

Helix said:

i don't know. are you born a skinhead?

Click to expand...

good question
yeah i dont see how that example is analogous, skinhead is not a gender, religion, sex etc
also just on a side note i wonder how the owner know they are skinheads?

Risky Thicket said:

A

It hurt business here when Brewer signed the bill. A year later it was felt. Big new convention center and no one using it or hotels or golf courses.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

And the tourism revenue in Arizona is up.

If you're talking about the Phoenix Convention Center, the bookings have gone up every year from the year they went down, and they also attribute that to the competition from the other new convention centers, including the ones in San Diego and a few other western cities, which have remained flat in bookings.

It had an impact because people want to make a "statement". I guess Brewer and Pence are politicians who don't respond to threats or bribes of revenue in order to pass laws that they believe in.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Brewer veto the bill the legislature passed there?



>>>>

AGENT J said:

good question
yeah i dont see how that example is analogous, skinhead is not a gender, religion, sex etc
also just on a side note i wonder how the owner know they are skinheads?

Click to expand...

maybe the nazi neck tattoo. and the shaved head.

either way, the example is not analogous.

Helix said:

i don't know. are you born a skinhead?

Click to expand...

No idea. But what does that have to do with anything? The laws says you can't discriminate based on religious beliefs, either. Are you born a Muslim?

Blemonds said:

1.)Then how do you explain the photographer and bakers who have been assessed fines and forced into costly legal battles over declining to provide services to homosexuals for their weddings?
2.) Still waiting for that answer

Click to expand...

translation: you still cant show any contradiction because it was made up

1.) already explained it, they chose to be criminals and chose to break the law
2.) reposting this lie wont work i have answered it this post and post 1430. 1424, 1405, 1290 and 741
not liking the answer and the facts doesnt change the reality it was answered

in the next post please point out the false contraindication that was claimed, thanks
act remains
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota

tres borrachos said:

No idea. But what does that have to do with anything? The laws says you can't discriminate based on religious beliefs, either. Are you born a Muslim?

Click to expand...

not quite, but people get indoctrinated into religion from birth so it's not much of a choice.

AGENT J said:

good question
yeah i dont see how that example is analogous, skinhead is not a gender, religion, sex etc
also just on a side note i wonder how the owner know they are skinheads?

Click to expand...

It's analogous because he said that skinheads have to be served by a black man in a restaurant. And let's say for the sake of argument that they said they were skinheads. It doesn't have anything to do with the debate.

I'll ask you the question. The argument keeps coming up that public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who wants to be served. Do you believe everyone who walks into your business or asks you to engage in commerce with them must be served by you? General question.

Helix said:

1.)maybe the nazi neck tattoo. and the shaved head.

either way, the example is not analogous.

Click to expand...

agreed

tres borrachos said:

It's analogous because he said that skinheads have to be served by a black man in a restaurant. And let's say for the sake of argument that they said they were skinheads. It doesn't have anything to do with the debate.

I'll ask you the question. The argument keeps coming up that public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who wants to be served. Do you believe everyone who walks into your business or asks you to engage in commerce with them must be served by you? General question.

Click to expand...

Hang on I've missed something. Where did it come up that a business can't refuse service for any reason?

This is exactly the straw man I'm talking about. Literally everyone is arguing that yes, actually, businesses can refuse service to customers. Just not for a few very specific reasons.

tres borrachos said:

So you support the idea of skinhead forcing a black woman to cater their party, even though she doesn't want to.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the reason is simple enough. If there is a presumption that a person can pick and choose who to serve, hire, fire, rent to, etc. they we've agreed that there simply is no right to be treated equally in the marketplace and this principle applies to matters small and large. It would apply to a gay/Jewish/black/Muslim business getting frozen out by local suppliers to run it out of business and to keep the local business community pure. It should apply to medical services, pharmacies, selling houses (why shouldn't a neighborhood be able to exclude anyone not a WASP?). If you're OK exempting caterers, on what principle will you force ANYONE

If we want to define things like catering or photography as creative exercises and exempt them from public accommodation non-discrimination laws, I wouldn't support it but it's possibly a decent compromise. Much more important would be examples where the harm from discrimination isn't trivial or can be dismissed as trivial, such as catering and wedding cakes.

After 12 years my son could get fired because his company downsizes, or he has a new boss who hates him, or because he smells bad, or because his services are no longer needed. People lose their jobs all the time for no particular reason.

Click to expand...

But you didn't address the actual issue. If the boss doesn't like fags and fires him for no reason other than he's gay, you're OK with that? You'd be OK with him having to find a girlfriend to invite to the Christmas party because he can't let anyone know he's gay with a partner he's been with for a decade. Can't be seen in places where coworkers are likely to appear with his partner, a public life that is a front, a lie, and a private life, etc. I somehow doubt it.

And if you are, I'm very happy the country is quickly moving to where that kind of opinion is literally dying out and will all but disappear when the current generation of young people come of age.