• 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

There's no cognitive dissonance involved. Your skinhead is free to hate Jews and he's free to avoid participation in their activities but he's not free to decline normal commercial interaction just because of who they are, and the RFRA would not protect him in that case.

So, people are able to act consistent with their conscience....so long as it's legal. In other words, it depends, which is what I said to begin with.

And your theory tells us exactly nothing about what a religious person would or would not be compelled to do under the law and with the protections of the RFRA and state equivalents.
 
That's fine. I just won't patronize that store. People discriminate all the time when they decide what stores to patronize. So, it's okay for me not to patronize a store because the owner is gay but it's not okay for the owner to refuse to serve me because I'm gay? That's rank hypocrisy. I think there should be a law that requires mandatory patronage of businesses. It's not fair that people discriminate between businesses.

How would most businesses know if someone is gay anyway? If I go to dinner with another man, how do you know he's not a friend or co-worker?

You like it because you think it's only about gays. It could apply to anyone. You could use this law to refuse service to women, blacks, straight people, non-Muslims....You'll change your tune when someone used it to enforce Sharia law in their own place of business.
 
It's a nuanced question that may be too fine-grained for you. The RFRA does not protect those who decline normal commercial interaction. It does protect those whose specific services would require them to participate in or appear to endorse an activity that offends their conscience. The hard cases are those determining where normal commercial interaction stops and infringements of conscience begin.

It's not too "fined-grained" for me. You make a sweeping statement, I say, no, "it depends" to recognize the nuance, and several posts later you're finally recognizing that of course it DOES depend, and of course the difficulty and UNCERTAINTY is where that line is drawn. The law is intended to move the line towards "conscience" and legal discrimination in some cases - or at least that's what supporters tell us - and in communications with their supporters repeatedly mention protecting religious persons from homosexuals and LGBT. So at least some people believe it will give businesses the right, in some cases, refuse service to gays.

We don't actually know yet where this will end up, and that's part of the problem and why some groups oppose the law.
 
I understand what you're saying...

But who changed the definition?

http://www.marketfaith.org/are-christians-really-bigots-and-homophobes/

We don't need to do this again. Here's how your article starts:

When Chick-fil-a president Dan Cathy said in public that he stands for Christian values and that his company is built on those values, the LGBT community and their supporters went nuts.

Not quite true. If he personally "stood for Christian values' no one cares. They do care when his foundation spends millions supporting groups dedicated to banning or preventing SSM. The former is a belief on how best to live his life (like him I'm also still married to my first wife), the latter is an effort to enforce his beliefs on the rest of the country. Apples and dump trucks.
 
But individual church members are.

Yes....individual church members are free to donate what they want....but here the Mormon church stepped over the lines....financing in large part the propaganda campaign behind prop 8. They also were caught on video campaigning for the proposition which is illegal. On top of that...most of the donations from individual members were given in a way that was illegal as well. The Mormon church actually had members come into meeting in which they were told that the "church" felt that they could donate a certain amount to the campaign. Intense pressure was put on Mormon members to contribute. It wasn't typical "individual" donations.
 
Lol, there are those kids breaking the law again. Guess who owned the property they refused to leave? Hint: It wasn't them. You guys really bought hook line and sinker for the rhetoric sold to you in grade school, didn't you?

Breaking a law later found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States and subsequently protected against with additional legislation?
 
Penny-ante nitpicking. Inconsequential.

Of course....I suspected as much from you. You cry and whine about "links" and then when presented with the facts you simply disregard and spin. I would have been surprised if you had reacted otherwise. I know your ilk all too well. Carry on.
 
Breaking a law later found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States and subsequently protected against with additional legislation?

That has nothing to do with the law at the time or the property rights of the businesses they refused to leave. Lets also remember they borrowed the tactic from labor unions that violated the property rights of their employers by sitting down on the job and refusing to leave or allow any further production from being done. Their whole plan here was to violate the rights of others to fight for something they had no right to in the first place. I'm sorry but I have zero respect for those people in the picture.
 
Last edited:
Lol, there are those kids breaking the law again. Guess who owned the property they refused to leave? Hint: It wasn't them. You guys really bought hook line and sinker for the rhetoric sold to you in grade school, didn't you?

Sorry....what you fail to recognize is that the bigoted business ownder had no right to ask them to leave. Sorry Charlie.
 
Sorry....what you fail to recognize is that the bigoted business ownder had no right to ask them to leave. Sorry Charlie.

Are you saying private property owners have no right to ask someone to leave?
 
Sorry....what you fail to recognize is that the bigoted business ownder had no right to ask them to leave. Sorry Charlie.

I'm sorry, but the owner of any property has the right to tell anyone to leave.
 
I'm sorry, but the owner of any property has the right to tell anyone to leave.

You know how lefties feel about private property rights...
 
You know how lefties feel about private property rights...

There is little doubt that modern liberalism is heavily influenced by socialism and its anti-private property views.
 
There is little doubt that modern libertarians are heavily influenced by oligarchic propaganda and often attempt to conceal their racist bigotry behind the claim that an individual can happily refuse to follow societal norms all the while they benefit from a society which expands as more citizens are allowed to fully participate.
 
Of course....I suspected as much from you. You cry and whine about "links" and then when presented with the facts you simply disregard and spin. I would have been surprised if you had reacted otherwise. I know your ilk all too well. Carry on.

Had your links demonstrated anything important I would have said so. As it is, they merely confirmed my suspicion that you were making a mountain out of a molehill. You actually made my point.
 
So, people are able to act consistent with their conscience....so long as it's legal. In other words, it depends, which is what I said to begin with.

And your theory tells us exactly nothing about what a religious person would or would not be compelled to do under the law and with the protections of the RFRA and state equivalents.

It's not too "fined-grained" for me. You make a sweeping statement, I say, no, "it depends" to recognize the nuance, and several posts later you're finally recognizing that of course it DOES depend, and of course the difficulty and UNCERTAINTY is where that line is drawn. The law is intended to move the line towards "conscience" and legal discrimination in some cases - or at least that's what supporters tell us - and in communications with their supporters repeatedly mention protecting religious persons from homosexuals and LGBT. So at least some people believe it will give businesses the right, in some cases, refuse service to gays.

We don't actually know yet where this will end up, and that's part of the problem and why some groups oppose the law.

Please see #1090.
 
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. ...

I agree "he was persecuted". And he was persecuted for BOTH of his publically revealed convictions and his donation to the like minded cause to shape a government policy reflecting those views. Brendon Eich's opinion and donation only became public because, sometime in the four years after the 2008 election, the LA Times several reporters decided to "follow the money" and produced a list of donors from Mozilla (supplied by the State of California database). In 2012, gay activists rediscovered the in information and started hounding Mozilla, asking for his beheading two years BEFORE he was appointed as CEO (that is Mozilla already knew of his donation and appointed him anyway).

The controversy died, but in 2014, a day after he was appointed by the board to be CEO, OKCupid notified its Firefox users they should switch browsers until Eich was dealt with, and was blunt in their antipathy to Eich: “Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.”

By the way, in response to Eichs forced resignation, Sam Yagin (OKCupid co-founder and its CEO) gushed: "It’s a great feeling to see a company take a stand that blends its business interests and its principles and have that stand result in a series of actions that makes the world a better place." (Hilariously, a week later MJones revealed that Sam Yagin had also donated to an anti-gay Utah Republican Congressman that not only wished to ban gay marriage, but also ban adoption by gays, and ban anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation - the OKCupid hypocrisy having escaped notice in the press until several days AFTER Eich's forced resignation. Yagin then confessed and pleaded for mercy from the mob he had led).

Anyway, at the same time, two gay application developers (a couple) also fanned Eich outrage in their blog: "Today we were shocked to read that Brendan Eich has been appointed Mozilla CEO. As a gay couple who were unable to get married in California until recently, we morally cannot support a Foundation that would not only leave someone with hateful views in power, but will give them a promotion and put them in charge of the entire organization.

As they (and OkCupid) made clear: he had to be persecuted and driven from employment because he held "hateful views" contrary to their views.

...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.

Covered above.... The CEO is unique.

Poppycock. I have worked the majority of my life for people who support the denial of my liberties. I (I'm white) have worked for bigoted and sexist black city managers, feminist bosses, and affirmative action (hire by your race) mongers. It has been one of the 'privileges' of working for 17 years in a deep blue California City near Berkeley, controlled by and run by a black majority city civil service and City Council, that has bathed me in the views of every anti-liberty (and anti-white) nostrum imaginable.

None the less, we don't persecute bosses for their private views nor for their private life - regardless of what 'executive' position they hold (at least, not since McCarthy). We don't make them sign gay-marriage loyalty oaths, try to humiliate them publicly, or politic to get them fired for a donation to a state ballot initiative.

Be reminded, everyone at Mozilla agrees that Eich was completely supportive of employees of every race, sex, and sexual orientation. Nothing in his work conduct evenly remotely suggested the vicious demonization of him as a human being...unless, of course, more than 1/2 of California voters are also "demons". (Continued)
 
(Continued from Above)

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.

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.

What can you say? You can start by offering a principled view as to whether or not, on a moral basis, the campaign to destroy Brendan Eich was the right thing to do? You can take a stand; either you support campaigns to terminate people's employment because of their privately held political views and donation(s), or you don't. And you can say whether or not the hypocrisy of his critic, Sam Yagin, should be treated with equal punishment - he gave money to a Congressman who worked against 'those constituents' as well, should he not be forced to resign?

I'll leave you with this. Andrew Sullivan is widely recognized as one of the 'fathers' of the gay marriage movement. A life long gay man, he wrote of and advanced gay marriage in an era (the late 1980s and early 90s) in which his views were not only bashed by anti-gays AND (for different reasons) most male gay opinion leaders. And although Sullivan is solidly liberal on most policy issues, his view on decency is rooted in an older tradition of liberalism (the one shaped by the experience of McCarthyism). He washed his hands of the Eich hate fest:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

He did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell.

The Hounding Of A Heretic, Ctd « The Dish

And mind you, this termination came from a company that claims it is a company that deeply supports diversity, equality, and the free speech of its employees...
 
Last edited:
Business owners ought not to have to bend to every protected class. Especially ones that go against their personal faith.

This is a backlash against the actions of unelected Federal judges who over-ride the wishes of the majority of a states voters.

They are not asked to bend, they are asked to not discriminate and break the law.

They are a business, period.

And this has nothing to with unelected federal judges but with constitutional rights and federal laws.
 
Lol, there are those kids breaking the law again. Guess who owned the property they refused to leave? Hint: It wasn't them. You guys really bought hook line and sinker for the rhetoric sold to you in grade school, didn't you?

They were arrested in most cases for trespassing. The Supreme Court did not over-turn trespassing.

The violation of rights was the refusal of service. Once the service was denied that act was completed. There was no further need to remain. The student's remained to make a point.

The two acts are separate.
 
This shouldn't require a bill.

No business should ever be compelled to serve anyone.

You are right, it should not require a bill. Sadly there are anti-social company owners who think they are above the law.

No business should ever be allowed to discriminate when they are a public accommodation.
 
Back
Top Bottom