• 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

tres borrachos said:
The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization’s annual birthday party.

Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a cake for the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.


You can't discriminate against them using your religious beliefs as the reason why. This situation is no different than what we're discussing - people using their religious beliefs as a reason to refuse service.

You can, however, refuse to serve them or engage in commerce with them because they repulse you.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is illegal to refuse service to someone because they repulse you
 
WorldWatcher said:
Read your links again, they say "fined up to...".


No fines have been levied yet, the hearing on fines and damages was just last week and no ruling yet on amounts has been issued.


Sweet Cakes discrimination closing remarks: Should the baker pay for a pattern of discrimination? | OregonLive.com



>>>>
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Pending final determination by a court.

I'd observe that the mere threat of fines from a government entity, especially such large ones, casts doubt on whether it is feasible to actually have a choice in this situation. That, and a case of government bullying might yet be made.

A counter suit from the Christian Bakers against the government entity that levied the fines perhaps?

Even Agent J seems to be of the position that there's a choice here as to whom to serve or whom not to serve.
 
sangha said:
Actually, it is illegal to refuse service to someone because they repulse you
Click to expand...

No, it is illegal to refuse service if the repulsion is based on a protected class alone.

I am a white male. It is illegal to refuse me service because one finds white males repulsive (gender, race are protected classes). If I put on a big 'ole "Rebel Pride" T-shirt, it is legal to refuse me service if they find me repulsive. "white guy wearing a T-shirt advocating a certian socio political view" is simply not a protected class.

I could make an argument that refuse to serve me in my Rebel Pride T-shirt constitutes discrimination against my ethnicity (white southerener), but I dont think the argument would work. I could still be a white southerener and not wear the T-shirt, or hold certain social views about the CSA. The owner stating: "No service to you, I am sick of red neck accents in here", would probably support an case of ethnic discrimination because accents are innate.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Big ole giant "meh" for me.

Would I push for such a law being needed? No. But I'm also not one to think that we're at such a place in society where one will routinely enter into a location where only one option for a particluar place of business or where this kind of thing would be so rampant that it will have any kind of truly impactful factor on an individuals life.

I think our society is in such a place that if you established that outside of essential services (like medical care) a business owner has the ability to dictate who he wishes to provide his services to that it would have little actual effect on peoples lives and the reality is that most business would cater to all as it's far more financially viable of a decision.

Strangely enough, my issue with this law isn't so much the notion of discrimination in a private matter being allowed, but rather the seemingly discriminatory way in which it's authorizing the discrimination via claims of a "religious" belief.
Click to expand...

I think you should consider two things

1) While it's common to believe that "we've come a long way, baby" and such discrimination would be rare, there is obviously a portion of the population in that state that does want to discriminate and that portion was large enough to get a majority of the state's legislature to pass the law. This suggests that, while it may not be a majority position, it's common enough to be problematic particularly if those people are concentrated in specific areas.

2) This kind of discrimination can be very disruptive to business. An individual who lives in the area will probably be able to find providers that will not discriminate against them, providing the practice isn't widespread in the area. But what about businesses whose HQ's are located elsewhere but have customers in the area?

for example, take a distributor who sells a product to businesses. They buy in bulk, store it in their warehouse, and then truck the product to customers over a wide geographic area when ordered. Should they have to wonder if their drivers will be able to get their trucks repaired if they break down? What about buying gas for the trucks while they're on the road? How about if their customer refuses to let the trucker unload because they object to who/what the trucker is?

IOW, allowing this sort of discrimination is not as benign as it appears at first glance.
 
eohrnberger said:
1.)I'd observe that the mere threat of fines from a government entity, especially such large ones, casts doubt on whether it is feasible to actually have a choice in this situation. That, and a case of government bullying might yet be made.
2.)A counter suit from the Christian Bakers against the government entity that levied the fines perhaps?
3.) Even Agent J seems to be of the position that there's a choice here as to whom to serve or whom not to serve.
Click to expand...

1.) and that observation would be wrong . . there is a choice . . a choice not to go into business and think you are allowed to break the law. Just like you have a choice not to rape women or rob people.
If you think laws against rape, and robbery and infringing on peoples rights are bullying then you must really not like the constitution and rights and the majority of laws lol
2.) any counter suit would fail
3.) correct I do because the facts make it that way, i cant go against fact, my honesty doesn't allow me.
They in fact do have a choice on who to or who to not serve.

lets see if i can further help educate you on this topic.

simply question. a person walks in thier story, they want 15, 6 tier cakes by the evening, do they have choice to serve them?
 
eohrnberger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Everyone has a race, a gender and an age. Even White males under 40.

None of those Civil Rights laws apply to any subset of the population. They protect everyone.
 
Samhain said:
But can you refuse service if you think they are ugly or smell funny?
Click to expand...

Depends.

If their odor suggest a lack of hygiene, service can be refused for health reasons.

Ugliness is not a legal basis to refuse service
 
sangha said:
Everyone has a race, a gender and an age. Even White males under 40.

None of those Civil Rights laws apply to any subset of the population. They protect everyone.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding ding
100% correct, i thought this was common knowledge a person learned in like 6th grade social studies but i guess not. There's a lot of misinformation and propaganda out there.
 
sangha said:
Depends.

If their odor suggest a lack of hygiene, service can be refused for health reasons.

Ugliness is not a legal basis to refuse service
Click to expand...

Since ugly is a subjective(so is fat and smelly), I would think you could legally refuse service since those are not protected classes.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) and that observation would be wrong . . there is a choice . . a choice not to go into business and think you are allowed to break the law. Just like you have a choice not to rape women or rob people.
If you think laws against rape, and robbery and infringing on peoples rights are bullying then you must really not like the constitution and rights and the majority of laws lol
2.) any counter suit would fail
3.) correct I do because the facts make it that way, i cant go against fact, my honesty doesn't allow me.
They in fact do have a choice on who to or who to not serve.

lets see if i can further help educate you on this topic.

simply question. a person walks in thier story, they want 15, 6 tier cakes by the evening, do they have choice to serve them?
Click to expand...
That of course is the goal, to force Christians (mostly) out of the marketplace unless they conform to the homosexual agenda. This is what passes for tolerance these days. Conform or be harmed
 
Cryptic said:
No, it is illegal to refuse service if the repulsion is based on a protected class alone.

I am a white male. It is illegal to refuse me service because one finds white males repulsive (gender, race are protected classes). If I put on a big 'ole "Rebel Pride" T-shirt, it is legal to refuse me service if they find me repulsive. "white guy wearing a T-shirt advocating a certian socio political view" is simply not a protected class.

I could make an argument that refuse to serve me in my Rebel Pride T-shirt constitutes discrimination against my ethnicity (white southerener), but I dont think the argument would work. I could still be a white southerener and not wear the T-shirt, or hold certain social views about the CSA. The owner stating: "No service to you, I am sick of red neck accents in here", would probably support an case of ethnic discrimination because accents are innate.
Click to expand...

No, public accommodations are required to serve everyone. The only exception is that service can refused for reasons that have "legitimate business reason" - (actually, there's a legal term for it, but I forget what it is)

Also, there are exceptions for expressive organizations for which refusing service for political reasons is allowed in order to protect the free speech rights of the business owners (ie the right to not speak) if their performing the service would lead reasonable people to believe that they support or agree with the speech.

The law is complicated, so there may be other exceptions but the general rule is that public accommodations must serve everybody and they may not refuse service on the basis of "I didn't want to". There must be a clear and articulable reason that is related to the business.
 
fmw said:
No they have no term of service requirement that requires on line merchants to drop products when Paypal demands that they do. It is pure discrimination or, as I put it, it is their desire not to have me as a customer.
Click to expand...

If they've targeted your products unfairly that's a contract issue not a discrimination issue. Apples and oranges.

If the credit card companies wanted to bar muslims from doing business with them, I would view it as stupid business but it should not be illegal business. Stupid businesses, by the way, don't seem to last very long.
Click to expand...

But "stupid business" persisted in the U.S. in the South for several HUNDRED years, over 100 years after slavery was ended.

Let me explain my position another way. The country was founded on the concept of equality and I certainly support that.
Click to expand...

But it really wasn't, obviously. It was based on the concept of equality for white men, for the most part. I understand what the founding documents said, but the reality was entirely different. What I think anti-discrimination laws do is get us closer to the ideals of the founding document where all men (and women) are created equally and treated equally - which is what matters after all. Perhaps blacks were created equally by God, but it meant little to them as persons until my lifetime when we through legislation ensured they were TREATED equally under the law.

You can't have a country that treats all men and women equally, and make it legal to arbitrarily discriminate some class or classes of them solely because of a personal characteristic such as race, color, religion, or sexual orientation.

It was not founded on the concept of fairness which is the opposite of equality. Equality is an objective measure. For the government to treat everyone the same is equality and that equality is easy for anyone to understand. Fairness is a subjective thing. What is fair or not fair varies from person to person. It treats people differently to benefit one group of people over another. I don't support that. As an example the Civil Rights Act was a positive action because it addressed equality. Affirmative action, on the other hand, was a negative action because it addressed fairness....
Click to expand...

The CRA explicitly requires businesses to serve customers without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. So do you mean the CRA except for Title II? It does what should be extended to sexual orientation in my view.

And this isn't really about "fairness." What we're discussing is the prospect that if a white man can walk into a business and buy X, or obtain X in services, so can a black, Jewish, gay man, on identical terms as any other customer. The business isn't required to be "fair" in its dealings with either customer, it just cannot arbitrarily and unpredictably decide "No Ni**ers or F*gs Allowed" at its whim.

I believe in freedom on both sides of the transaction. Consumers can choose their suppliers. Suppliers should be able to choose their consumers. It addresses equality. That doesn't mean that there won't be friction or that some people won't be dissatisfied. Life is like that and I prefer to let people live their lives as they fit rather than having the government determine how it should be lived. It just means that freedom goes both ways.
Click to expand...

Again, it's nice the proponents of discrimination can brush aside the consequences as "dissatisfied." Of course the consequences can be much more significant than mere inconvenience. But if those are the consequences on 2015 for most people (undoubtedly true) it's because the CRA made discrimination already illegal for most disfavored minorities, and so there are few groups left from whom it's legal to arbitrarily deny goods or services - so equal treatment in the market has been shoved down the throats of the business community for nearly 50 by Big Government, and that has become, thankfully, the norm, what is expected.

Like everyone else, I don't like personal discrimination. If a business discriminates, it is appropriate for people to say so, just as they would with a business that cheats people. But I draw the line at government intruding in the subject and attempting to achieve "fairness."
Click to expand...

I guess we disagree. I don't like it, and believe it's serious enough to prevent, by law. And I don't see that public accommodation laws seek fairness but rather equality in the marketplace, so that a black/Muslim/gay/woman and/or business owned by those groups has EQUAL access to all the same goods and services as a white Christian business.

FWIW, we prosecute businesses that cheat people - it's a crime.
 
chromium said:
Because the rural ****holes in the state want to force the 12 more enlightened counties to allow such discrimination. Where is the "states' rights" crowd now in calling for the rights of counties and cities to determine their own values?
Click to expand...

Beats hell out of me. Anyone who respects the rule of law and the Constitution of the U.S. is part of the "states' rights" crowd. The Tenth Amendment is not just decoration, but an important part of the Constitution. And anyone who does not know what the term "federalism" means might want to learn about it. It is one of several bulwarks against abuse of power designed into the structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court commented on this in New York v. United States, a Tenth Amendment decision from 1990.

Your remark about the rights of counties and cities is at least good for a laugh. States are sovereigns (there's that Tenth Amendment again, which collectivists hate so much) and as such have inherent power to make laws and policies. The Court has referred to this as the "police (as in "policy," not the cops) power." Counties and cities are creatures of their states, and as such they have no inherent powers at all. They have only those powers the states saw fit to give them through enabling laws. States in some cases have given them quite a lot of autonomy, but the state can also take it away.
 
Samhain said:
Since ugly is a subjective(so is fat and smelly), I would think you could legally refuse service since those are not protected classes.
Click to expand...

Public accomodations must serve everybody. There are exceptions but they do not include "because I didn't want to"
 
sangha said:
Public accomodations must serve everybody. There are exceptions but they do not include "because I didn't want to"
Click to expand...

Title 2 is pretty narrow, unless you are referring to a different law.
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Click to expand...
 
Samhain said:
Title 2 is pretty narrow, unless you are referring to a different law.
Click to expand...

Yes, Title II is narrow but it's not the only law that regulates public accommodations. They have been regulated by common law for centuries. IIRC, these common law rules date back to the 17th century
 
sangha said:
Yes, Title II is narrow but it's not the only law that regulates public accommodations. They have been regulated by common law for centuries. IIRC, these common law rules date back to the 17th century
Click to expand...

Common law always boggles me, since its not a direct codification and requires case research/interpretation. It is what it is.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) and that observation would be wrong . . there is a choice . . a choice not to go into business and think you are allowed to break the law. Just like you have a choice not to rape women or rob people.
If you think laws against rape, and robbery and infringing on peoples rights are bullying then you must really not like the constitution and rights and the majority of laws lol
2.) any counter suit would fail
3.) correct I do because the facts make it that way, i cant go against fact, my honesty doesn't allow me.
They in fact do have a choice on who to or who to not serve.

lets see if i can further help educate you on this topic.

simply question. a person walks in thier story, they want 15, 6 tier cakes by the evening, do they have choice to serve them?
Click to expand...

Assuming that the contract for services has to be voluntarily entered by both parties, it would seem reasonable that either party could refuse.
Could be the seller's price is too high for the buyer, or the quality of the cakes not meeting expectations, or the seller doesn't have the capacity to fulfill the obligations of the contract, time, flour, staffing, etc.
 
Shame on the State of Indiana, especially their bigoted Governor and legislature. You would think that in 2015 we would be beyond this type of hatred and bigotry. This simply shows that for all the progress that America has made, we are still a long ways away from being a country that treats everyone fairly and equally. The bigots will lose.....but the battle remains.
 
Jack Hays said:
LDS provided significant funding as I recall.
Click to expand...

Over twenty million in manpower and funding, yes. What a lot of people who cite the "black people passed prop 8!" trope don't understand is that when you take the age and religion factors away then, well, there just really isn't much motivation left for opposing same sex marriage.

Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8 | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

Top officials with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filed reports today indicating that they donated more than $180,000 in in-kind contributions to Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California.

The contributions included tens of thousands of dollars for expenses such as airline tickets, hotel and restaurant bills and car-rental bills for top church officials such as L. Whitney Clayton, along with $96,849.31 worth of “compensated staff time” for church employees.

The church said the expenditures took place between July 1 and the end of the year. The church’s involvement has been a major issue in the campaign and its aftermath. Individual Mormon families donated millions -- by some estimates more than $20 million -- of their own money to the campaign.
Click to expand...

Religion

At its core, the institution of marriage formalizes certain associations between members of a society. Looking at the historical record, the associations themselves have varied over time as well as the number of members and combinations of their sexes. The data supports common wisdom, contains a few curious details and provides a basis for predicting the results of future votes concerning same-sex marriage. The exit poll question which most decisively indicates that an individual believes marriage is between one male and one female centers around religion:

Religion % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
Protestant (43%) 65% 35%
Catholic (30%) 64% 36%
Jewish (5%) N/A N/A
Other (6%) N/A N/A
None (16%) 10% 90%
Click to expand...

And then just to further drive the point home...
Church Attendance % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
Weekly (32%) 84% 16%
Occasionally (44%) 46% 54%
Never (21%) 17% 83%
Click to expand...


Age

The exit poll data contains one more data point worth exploring.

Vote by Age % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
18-24 (11%) 36% 64%
25-29 (9%) 41% 59%
30-39 (17%) 52% 48%
40-49 (22%) 59% 41%
50-64 (26%) 51% 49%
65 or Over (15%) 61% 39%
Click to expand...

So if you're old and religious, you're probably voting for prop 8, not bad money is on you voting for prop 8. Add "conservative" into it and forget about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/CAExitPollGayMarriage.pdf

http://www.madpickles.org/California_Proposition_8.html
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Over twenty million in manpower and funding, yes. What a lot of people who cite the "black people passed prop 8!" trope don't understand is that when you take the age and religion factors away then, well, there just really isn't much motivation left for opposing same sex marriage.

Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8 | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times





And then just to further drive the point home...





So if you're old and religious and, you're probably voting for prop 8, not bad money is on you voting for prop 8. Add "conservative" into it and forget about it.
Click to expand...

I'm conservative, and I wouldn't have voted for it.

Old people - of course, no surprise. Guess what? When we're old, we probably won't be thinking in sync with what our grandkids think, either.

Religious people - the opposition from non-elderly to gay marriage seems to be coming from religious groups.

58% of the blacks in California voted to oppose SSM. That is statistical history.

Religion is usually the motivator to opposing SSM and gay lifestyles. That's even what this thread is all about. Mike Pence was explicit that this has to do with religion.
 
sangha said:
No, public accommodations are required to serve everyone. The only exception is that service can refused for reasons that have "legitimate business reason" - (actually, there's a legal term for it, but I forget what it is)

Also, there are exceptions for expressive organizations for which refusing service for political reasons is allowed in order to protect the free speech rights of the business owners (ie the right to not speak) if their performing the service would lead reasonable people to believe that they support or agree with the speech.

The law is complicated, so there may be other exceptions but the general rule is that public accommodations must serve everybody and they may not refuse service on the basis of "I didn't want to". There must be a clear and articulable reason that is related to the business.
Click to expand...

No, this is not accurate at all.

Have you ever noticed those signs stating: "We reserve the right to refuse service"? Those signs are affirming that the owner retains the right to refuse service for reasons not centered on a protected ground. For example:

- Owner: You cant wear baggy pants here and other clothes that I deem to be street gang wear.
- Potential customer (black male): But I have legitimate business here.
- Owner: Then change clothes and come back.

In short, "Black male wearing baggy pants" is no more a protected class than "white male wearing a rebel pride T-shirt". Both of us can be refused, and I have seen it happen for the baggy pants guys. likewise, a group of CSA afficionados decked out in CSA uniforms was told to leave a shopping mall in Lousiana.

There are potential grey areas where the restriction are so numerous that they constitue de facto refusal on a protected ground:

Owner 1: No baggy pants, no "jive talking", no discussions of subjects of black interest. Heck, no blacks unless they dress, act and talk like Doctor Benjamin Carter
Owner 2: No rebel t shirts, no "red neck" talk, no discussions of subjects common to rural southeren white. Heck, no whites- unless they dress, act and talk like Nancy Pelosi
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom