• 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

Inadequate compensation is a valid reason for refusing service and has nothing to do with religion.



The laws decision.
No, the law doesn't get to make that decision :doh
 
Lets break this down to the basics. When you approach someone and they say no to trade the answer is no. The answer is not, ok, so I will go get the government to force you to trade with me. This isn't really all that hard to understand.

you know, when someone argues for the repeal of the civil rights act in a thread, that makes me care a lot less about any other views that they hold. save your rage for someone who gives a ****. if you open a restaurant, you shouldn't be able to kick out people for being black or gay.
 
But Helix services pertaining to weddings often requires a person to use their skill to create something in a business that many believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. That the very thought of such a reunion under their God is inspirational and Holy. Then you expect them to create something with their own hands that violates what they believe for another because they want it? That isn't fair. If a cake decorator in good conscience refuses a wedding cake which is the one cake that creates the greatest revenue for them because it violates their moral conscience what does that tell you? You know this new law that Pence just signed would not have been necessary if gay activists would have respected the religious rights of others Now that's something to ponder.

i'm fine with not forcing churches to perform gay marriages, but a business is not a church.
 
Forcing someone to provide goods and services to people they don't want to is not liberty either.

No one is forcing you to provide goods and services, you can embark in other endeavors. Should you choose to provide goods and services, then you are obligated to do so to all who can lawfully use those goods and services.

I am talking about the U.S. of course. There are many countries that have sharia law, laws based on religious beliefs, which allow you to limit who you do business with.
 
Actually the definition of "Public Accommodation" varies by jurisdiction so there can be differences between the Federal definition and among the various states.
Yes indeed, there are are almost certainly differences. Public accommodations discrimination is largely the purview of state legislation.
 
you know, when someone argues for the repeal of the civil rights act in a thread, that makes me care a lot less about any other views that they hold. save your rage for someone who gives a ****. if you open a restaurant, you shouldn't be able to kick out people for being black or gay.

And your reason for this is? Why do you desire to force people to trade with others?
 
According to Cardinal they spent $180,000. That's nothing in a state like California. You guys need to get your stories straight.

I don't know who cardinal is....but the Mormons spent millions on prop 8
 
I'm not sure the "most folks" statement is true. And I don't know what limits there would be on "any service pertaining to marriage." Are you talking about some large or small participation in the marriage ceremony, or in providing benefits to SS couples (such as benefits) same as straight couples.

Furthermore, it's not at all clear that the law would allow for a photographer to deny her services to a same sex marriage. Those saying the law isn't a license to discriminate deny this, and in some cases specifically. But if they're wrong and the law would allow for that photographer/baker/florist/hotel/restaurant/public wedding chapel (i.e. not a church) to deny services then why stop there, or what would limit the law to just wedding ceremonies and not an apartment manager who doesn't believe in homosexual cohabitation since sodomy is a sin?

I guess I'm not really following the thread of this conversation.

Let me put it this way....

Did it ever occur to you a cake decorator's biggest source of income is a wedding cake. They are very expensive. For a cake decorator to turn down making a cake for a SS couple out of religious convictions, it is equivalent to deny at least 2 dozen or so all occasion cakes depending on the size of the wedding cake. Maybe that will help put into perspective how much revenue a cake decorator is willing to give up in order to not violate his moral conscience.

Same with a florist. Weddings besides funerals are their number one source of revenue. You have the bride's bouquet, the maid of honor and all the bridesmaids, you have the corsages for the mothers and grandmothers, the boutonnieres for the groom and his party. There are flower arrangements for wherever the ceremony is being performed and then there are the table arrangements for all the tables for wherever the reception is being held. You are talking mega bucks. I know I've been there. So a florist because of his/her faith can not in good conscience provide her masterpieces for a SS couple due to religious convictions is willing to lose a huge amount of revenue over such a decision.

Same with the photographer. Photographers can do a whole days work taking family portraits but that can't match the revenue they make on a wedding. Yet the photographer is willing to give up that revenue because it violates his/her moral conscience if they were to accept.

The one who offers the place for the reception including catering makes mega bucks on a wedding, yet if it is a SS marriage and it violates their moral conscience they are more than willing to pass up on the opportunity to make money.

Something for you to think about.
 
Try sacrificing a few virgins in the town square and tell the cops your religion requires you to do it.
I'm sorry but you can't compare killing virgins to declining a photography gig
 
It's the same definition used

here's from Title II of CRA

Civil Rights Act 1964
No, it's not. You'll notice that the majority of the list you originally posted doesn't apply:

(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

Leaving, of course, restaurants, theatres, hotels and gas stations - just like I said.
 
No, it's not. You'll notice that the majority of the list you originally posted doesn't apply:



Leaving, of course, restaurants, theatres, hotels and gas stations - just like I said.

And every other place of entertainment, which you left out
 
And every other place of entertainment, which you left out
If you don't like theatre, switch it to "entertainment venue" or simply post the full text. I'm not trying to hide anything or mislead anyone.

Just don't post the full text of a completely innappropriate section of the law and highlight a bunch of things that are irrelevant and claim that it's the same thing.
 
You mean he was persecuted for his beliefs. Thank you for confirming my point; mere criticism or discrimination is not sufficient to claim persecution. "Persecution only occurs when someone repeatedly harasses or punishes another in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; to make someone suffer because of their belief. You know, like a founder of Mozilla "getting whacked (hounded into resigning) by the gay mafia" (Bill Mahr) .".

No, he was persecuted for his ACTS, donating money to a Constitutional Amendment to codify forever his personal beliefs and apply them to the entire state.

A "world of difference" for whom, compared to what? We all have personal and privately held views (that is as true of the people of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union as it is here) but no one would suggest that their dissidents should have been persecuted merely because they wanted to "impose" their view of a free society on others.

I don't understand that analogy. I'm making a distinction between having a belief and imposing it on others.

So perhaps what you actually mean is that 'it is different' because anyone who is not willing to extend the "right" of marriage to same sex couples is supporting the continued denial of a liberty right to a group; and anyone who says or does anything to politically support and deny a liberty should be persecuted and driven from their jobs? Really?

No, not at all, but what I know is if your CEO supported denying YOU a cherished liberty - say gun ownership if you're a 1st Amendment supporter - you WOULD object and so would customers and suppliers of your company who also cherished that liberty, and a CEO takes a huge risk by taking a position that would strip that liberty from important constituencies. It's nothing more than stating the obvious. The CEO is the public face of the company. When he takes on that role, his personal views on such issues ARE relevant.

If so, then in your "moral" and "tolerant" world more than half the voters who supported and actually voted for Proposition 8 should also be targets of persecution, and hounded from employment...correct? Just as anyone who supports anything less than pro-choice should be persecuted and hounded from their employment, yes? And for some let us not forget the Communists and the Jews, they too need to be persecuted and driven from employment, (Oh wait, we have been here before, have we not?).

Covered above.... The CEO is unique.

You offer us a too obvious nonsensical analogy because...? The actual question is "would a software maker in California employ a founder and CEO who privately donated money to a Constitutional amendment that has NOTHING to do with their software products (banned or otherwise)? Unless you think that Mozilla's real business purpose is to politically advance gay marriage rights, your analogy is more than daft - its bizarre. (And, by the way, 'that hounded person' in Mozilla did not 'publicly advertise' his personal view. It was private until the self-appointed 'gay brownshirts' researched, targeted, publicized, and then persecuted a private person.

What more can I say - he expressed his views on gay marriage, which would deny the benefits of marriage to lots of his employees/suppliers/customers/users and they objected. I think your problem is you don't care about those rights and can't imagine anyone has a legitimate basis to object, but to those affected it is simply a big deal - marriage is a big deal.

A reminder - we have been here before. Salem, the Hollywood 10, Red Channels, and black lists (employment persecution) are very familiar theme to those of us who have learned from history. And to those who remain historically benighted, and would enjoy a rebirth of such persecution, I can think of nothing more appropriate than to suggest they (you) read about another who held similar views: Senator Joseph McCarthy.

A bit dramatic aren't we?

And when they are hunting for todays "communists" (traditional marriage supporters) before these folk find a private citizen who has "sinned", expose and publicly denounce their prior affiliation, and then destroy them I hope someone whispers in their the words of Joseph Welch:

Oh please, give me a break. First of all nobody condemns people who support traditional marriage. I support traditional marriage - I've been married 23 years, my parents for 55, my inlaws 58. I also support SSM. I also don't think anyone who disagrees with me should be "destroyed" but, again, like it or not, a CEO's views on RIGHTS important to constituents MATTER to those constituents.
 
And your reason for this is? Why do you desire to force people to trade with others?

if someone is being a complete asshole in your restaurant, i have no problem with you asking them to leave. but you shouldn't be allowed to kick out racial minorities or gay people just for being racial minorities or gay people. we tried it that way for a while, and it was a ****ing disaster.
 
The behavior you describe would be unlawful under both Indiana and federal statutes.

Right, that was the point of me saying "it depends" etc. in response to your blanket and unqualified statement. The law sometimes specifically forces some individuals to act contrary to their "consciences."
 
if someone is being a complete asshole in your restaurant, i have no problem with you asking them to leave. but you shouldn't be allowed to kick out racial minorities or gay people just for being racial minorities or gay people. we tried it that way for a while, and it was a ****ing disaster.

So was anyone harmed by being denied service? If not, what is the grounds for government action?

The point of my earlier post was that when someone says no the answer is no and you're supposed to walk away. People don't like to just deal with such realities though so they ignore consent and they use force to get their way. All I hear is screw relying on consent to trade with others because we have force and we aren't scared to use it. You're NOT harmed because of the reason someone refuses to trade with you, so why should the reason matter? It shouldn't logically speaking, but no we can't have people not agreeing with us, so **** them they will obey our opinions. It emotional idiotic nonsense.
 
Last edited:
A law that forces a person to act against his religious faith is a bigoted law. Pence corrected that error with the stroke of his pen. Chalk one up for liberty

I just have to point out that there is a big disconnect somewhere about the effect of this law. If you're right, then Pence is actually wrong, because he's claiming the law does NOT allow for discrimination, what you're calling "forcing a person to act against his religious faith" such as bake wedding cakes for a SSM.
 
Hmm
Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a Ven diagram (remember those from high school) each of the above groups is a subset of the total population. The one group that doesn't seem to be represented would be White Males from birth to age 40.

Race and sex are protected groups, so no you are wrong about that. Besides that, white males under 40 are the least likely to ever face discrimination, especially compared to homosexuals. I fall into all 4 groups, and let me tell you the "white male under 40" part is *never* a concern in terms of being refused service, certainly not compared to being a sexual minority.

White hetero male under 40 persecution complex, that must be so difficult
 
Back
Top Bottom