• 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

JasperL said:
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."
Click to expand...

No, it does not.
 
sangha said:
Have You Reserved Your Right to Refuse Service? - Free Enterprise
Click to expand...

OK, it looks like thre reality is more complex than I thought. Abitrary discrimination based on potlical beliefs is illegal. But, if the owner can demonstrate a legitimate business reason to ban the open expression of certain poltical beleifs, than his discrmination is no longer arbitary.

Going back to dress codes, and waffen / skin head regalia (socio polticla belief), any business can ban such attire if they can show a legitmitamte business reason for doing so. The most common business reason would be that the get up alienates other customers, can be disruptive and/or implies that the owner is sympathetic to the waffeneers. This results in a business loss.

Thus:

Unlike what I said, refusals for non protected grounds cant be totally arbitrary
Unlike what you said, any business can potentially have a dress code, and any business can potentially ban socio poltical expression. No business is obligated to allow waffen wear (providing they can show a business reason for doing so).
 
Jack Hays said:
I can certainly blame "those on the other side" for trying to make something out of nothing. RFRA is not a license to discriminate.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cryptic said:
OK, it looks like thre reality is more complex than I thought. Abitrary discrimination based on potlical beliefs is illegal. But, if the owner can demonstrate a legitimate business reason to ban the open expression of certain poltical beleifs, than his discrmination is no longer arbitary.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is pretty complex. While the general rules are fairly clear (ie you can't refuse service because of gender, age, etc) the various exceptions can complicate things. For example, if my business involves providing services to political campaigns (ex polling, advertising, etc) there's a good chance I can refuse work based on the politics of the prospective client.

Going back to dress codes, and waffen / skin head regalia (socio polticla belief), any business can ban such attire if they can show a legitmitamte business reason for doing so. The most common business reason would be that the get up alienates other customers, can be disruptive and/or implies that the owner is sympathetic to the waffeneers. This results in a business loss.

Thus:

Unlike what I said, refusals for non protected grounds cant be totally arbitrary
Unlike what you said, any business can potentially have a dress code, and any business can potentially ban socio poltical expression. No business is obligated to allow waffen wear (providing they can show a business reason for doing so).
Click to expand...

Except for that last sentence, you seem to be pretty close. I'm not sure, but I think simply having some nazi regalia may not be enough to justify a refusal. You'd have to show that their appearance was so offensive that it would be clearly disruptive and my understanding is that the courts are not sympathetic to claims of "My customers won't like it". IOW, wearing a necklace with a swastika is one thing while coming in wearing a full uniform, complete with jackboots is another. Also, the nature of the business may also play a role in whether the refusal is legal.

Generally speaking, all-encompassing generalizations are generally wrong when it comes to these things.
 
Jack Hays said:
No, it does not.
Click to expand...

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?
 
sangha said:
Except for that last sentence, you seem to be pretty close. I'm not sure, but I think simply having some nazi regalia may not be enough to justify a refusal. You'd have to show that their appearance was so offensive that it would be clearly disruptive and my understanding is that the courts are not sympathetic to claims of "My customers won't like it". IOW, wearing a necklace with a swastika is one thing while coming in wearing a full uniform, complete with jackboots is another. Also, the nature of the business may also play a role in whether the refusal is legal.
Click to expand...

Subjectively, I think the size of the business could be an impact as well.

Small, owner occupied businesses have been seen as more of a personal extension of the owner than larger busineses. Small boarding houeses and small scale rental owners are expempt portions of the equal hoiusing act. Likewise, in some juridictions small scale, owner occupied businesses can demand that employees adhere to religous rules while at work (New York case involving ultra orthodox jewish owner) or refuse to hire women for certain jobs (Mennonite construction firm case(?) ).

As such, a small business maybe able to get away with a "necklace level" type ban out of deference ("I just dont like "X", but I can arguably show somewhat of a business impact"), while a larger business with an absent owner maybe limited to a "full costume" ban only.

As a side note, though I am well aware that large cooperate business exist, I shop independent when ever possible. As a result, when I envision a "business", I automatically picture a small, owner occupied place, and presume that Mr Geppeto owns it.
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
It's not odd at all. If you've been to the midwest, you know it's littered with shanty towns of westboro caliber fanaticism

Christian fanatics are no better than the mormon variety
Click to expand...

I am disappointed reading the Christian media on this topic. They accuse other media sources of being dishonest about this law and then claim this one is no different than the other 20 RFRAs in the country when this one is by far the broadest ever passed in the country.
 
Cryptic said:
Subjectively, I think the size of the business could be an impact as well.

Small, owner occupied businesses have been seen as more of a personal extension of the owner than larger busineses. Small boarding houeses and small scale rental owners are expempt portions of the equal hoiusing act. Likewise, in some juridictions small scale, owner occupied businesses can demand that employees adhere to religous rules while at work (New York case involving ultra orthodox jewish owner) or refuse to hire women for certain jobs (Mennonite construction firm case(?) ).

As such, a small business maybe able to get away with a "necklace level" type ban ("I just dont like "X", but I can arguably show somewhat of a business impact"), while a larger business with an absent owner maybe limited to a "full costume" ban only.
Click to expand...

That's probably true. A larger business is more likely to have a more diverse clientele. However, aside from explicit exemptions based on size, I think there are situations where smallness isn't a factor. Take a business that basically sells something and the customer walks off, like a hardware store. People come in, buy what they need, and leave. I doubt they'd be able to institute a dress code that is any more restrictive than what the law allows. It may be possible, but I don't see it (absent any "special case" sort of exemption)
 
sangha said:
Public accommodations prevent acts of discrimination
Click to expand...
That's the same as saying that public accommodations prevent freedom. Good point. And said laws prevent freedom by forcing people to act against their consciences
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...
You really think that there's no harm done in forcing a black person out of a restaurant because he is black?
 
Henrin said:
Why won't you just tell me what harm was inflicted on them?
Click to expand...
Frankly speaking if someone experiences emotional harm because a baker rejected their business for a wedding cake, they aren't emotionally prepared to be in a marriage in the first place
 
chromium said:
I will refer to bigots in any way i please, usually in the way that will piss them off the most.

So case in point, if you don't like it, good!
Click to expand...
The real bigots turn out to be same sex couples. How weird is that?
 
sangha said:
No one is forced to sell anything to anyone
Click to expand...
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
 
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...

This logic is so stupid I would consider buying it a helmet.
 
chromium said:
I will refer to bigots in any way i please, usually in the way that will piss them off the most.

So case in point, if you don't like it, good!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Christian businesses refusing to serve lgbt people is the first thing to come to mind... But this affects everyone. There are so many religions with their own sects and you could very easily be denied service for your own beliefs, your race, the way you dress, who you associate yourself with... This is rediculous! At least if this bill is signed everyone will get to see which businesses don't deserve any business at all!
 
Thorgasm said:
This logic is so stupid I would consider buying it a helmet.
Click to expand...
It only seems stupid because it touches a nerve for some people. The truth tends to be painful at times
 
TiffanyL said:
Christian businesses refusing to serve lgbt people is the first thing to come to mind... But this affects everyone. There are so many religions with their own sects and you could very easily be denied service for your own beliefs, your race, the way you dress, who you associate yourself with... This is rediculous! At least if this bill is signed everyone will get to see which businesses don't deserve any business at all!
Click to expand...
And that will be freedom at work
 
sangha said:
That's probably true. A larger business is more likely to have a more diverse clientele. However, aside from explicit exemptions based on size, I think there are situations where smallness isn't a factor. Take a business that basically sells something and the customer walks off, like a hardware store. People come in, buy what they need, and leave. I doubt they'd be able to institute a dress code that is any more restrictive than what the law allows. It may be possible, but I don't see it (absent any "special case" sort of exemption)
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I am disappointed reading the Christian media on this topic. They accuse other media sources of being dishonest about this law and then claim this one is no different than the other 20 RFRAs in the country when this one is by far the broadest ever passed in the country.
Click to expand...

None of those are acceptable either and some go back to 1990, is the point they miss. And let's look at those states, all forward-thinking bastions of civil rights for minorities, like *mississippi* and texas and the biggest lobby group is the notoriously anti gay FRC. Gee, i wonder what their motives are. They won't even accept that gay is an actual identity, so no wonder they try to act like this harms no one! How do you reconcile a humanist faith with hatred of entire minority groups? By creating a dissonance that the target is subhuman. That's what they think of us, all the while bitching that we should not fight back

The indiana governor responded to the threats of disinvestment by saying he would have vetoed it the law allows any discrimination. I know politicians like to think of themselves as professional liars, but here is another repub prez candidate who could not come up with a remotely plausible lie even with his back against the wall and the fate of his state's economy and reputation in the balance. Not that there is any to be had. The title of the bill itself is a complete mockery unto itself - "religious freedom" is already guaranteed by the constitution and civil rights act

As much as i love allies who prevent this from happening in other states, i cannot help but detest the midwestern simpletons responsible for this vileness
 
sangha said:
The state can, if it chooses, protect itself from the harm with laws prohibiting discrimination.
Click to expand...
Right but that's not what's happening. Rarely if ever is the state the plaintiff claiming grievances over lost commerce.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom