• 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

Peter King said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please see #1090.
 
WCH said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yet religion is a protected class. How Ironic.
 
nkcv9bc
 
JayDubya said:
Okay, I will.

That should be legal.

I certainly don't approve of it, but there is no rational basis whatsover to compel them to give custom.

It is worth noting that during the time of Jim Crow laws commonly made such discrimination mandatory - that is equally unacceptable intrusion into the property rights of a business owner.


The free market is a voluntary exchange of goods, services, and property. The government has no business interfering with such voluntary exchanges.
Click to expand...

That should be legal? Ever heard of the law?

The free market is not an excuse for discrimination. The government has every business banning practices that should not exist in democratic constitutional based society.
 
Jack Hays said:

Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained

2:10 PM, Mar 27, 2015 • By JOHN MCCORMACKOn Thursday, Indiana governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law, and some celebrities, politicians, and journalists--including Miley Cyrus, Ashton Kutcher, and Hillary Clinton, just to name a few--are absolutely outraged. They say the law is a license to discriminate against gay people:

Read more...

". . . . Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: "In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else." So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven't. . . . . "
Click to expand...

Just to be clear the federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA are to separate laws that will be used differently.
 
1750Texan said:
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.
Click to expand...

How can someone violate someones else's rights by refusing to trade with them?
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not a Christian and I support SSM, so you'll need a better reference. This is a discussion of law and public policy, and you seem uninformed.
Click to expand...

Welp. There just went another irony meter.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see #1090.
Click to expand...

So what? It still does not allow public accommodations to discriminate.

When a church/altar/religious ceremonies candle making company refuses to sell gay wedding candles I can understand and agree that this would not be a public accommodation (as meant by the law) and they should be allowed to refuse to make those candles that they do not have in their normal production line/process.

A flower shop makes flower arrangements and if they are asked to make a wedding bouquet, nothing special nothing strange or out of the ordinary (other than it being used in a gay wedding ceremony).

The same goes for a bakery, they are a public accommodation and are not allowed to discriminate like some think they are entitled to. Now if a gay couple wants something totally outrageous like kissing gay/BJ giving gays on top of the wedding cake then the bakery can refuse that because they do not carry those items and they should not be forced to order them. They can even say that they want some artistic freedom.

But if a gay or lesbian couple asks for a cake like this:

a100333_fal03_rosecu_xl.jpg

Simple and elegant and out of the regular book of possible wedding cakes. No names, nothing other than any other straight couples buy everyday from that bakery. Why would he be allowed to sell his regular product to someone based on their sexual preference. I do not think they should be allowed too. They should be forced to follow the law that regulates public accommodations.
 
Somerville said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can support my case that modern liberals are influenced by socialist ideology which includes anti-private property view points. You can not however support your case that libertarians are influenced by oligarchic propaganda.
 
Peter King said:
So what? It still does not allow public accommodations to discriminate.

When a church/altar/religious ceremonies candle making company refuses to sell gay wedding candles I can understand and agree that this would not be a public accommodation (as meant by the law) and they should be allowed to refuse to make those candles that they do not have in their normal production line/process.

A flower shop makes flower arrangements and if they are asked to make a wedding bouquet, nothing special nothing strange or out of the ordinary (other than it being used in a gay wedding ceremony).

The same goes for a bakery, they are a public accommodation and are not allowed to discriminate like some think they are entitled to. Now if a gay couple wants something totally outrageous like kissing gay/BJ giving gays on top of the wedding cake then the bakery can refuse that because they do not carry those items and they should not be forced to order them. They can even say that they want some artistic freedom.

But if a gay or lesbian couple asks for a cake like this:

View attachment 67182422

Simple and elegant and out of the regular book of possible wedding cakes. No names, nothing other than any other straight couples buy everyday from that bakery. Why would he be allowed to sell his regular product to someone based on their sexual preference. I do not think they should be allowed too. They should be forced to follow the law that regulates public accommodations.
Click to expand...

And there is nothing in the RFRA, state or federal, to prevent that.
 
Peter King said:
So what? It still does not allow public accommodations to discriminate.

When a church/altar/religious ceremonies candle making company refuses to sell gay wedding candles I can understand and agree that this would not be a public accommodation (as meant by the law) and they should be allowed to refuse to make those candles that they do not have in their normal production line/process.

A flower shop makes flower arrangements and if they are asked to make a wedding bouquet, nothing special nothing strange or out of the ordinary (other than it being used in a gay wedding ceremony).

The same goes for a bakery, they are a public accommodation and are not allowed to discriminate like some think they are entitled to. Now if a gay couple wants something totally outrageous like kissing gay/BJ giving gays on top of the wedding cake then the bakery can refuse that because they do not carry those items and they should not be forced to order them. They can even say that they want some artistic freedom.

But if a gay or lesbian couple asks for a cake like this:

View attachment 67182422

Simple and elegant and out of the regular book of possible wedding cakes. No names, nothing other than any other straight couples buy everyday from that bakery. Why would he be allowed to sell his regular product to someone based on their sexual preference. I do not think they should be allowed too. They should be forced to follow the law that regulates public accommodations.
Click to expand...

Public accommodation laws should be repealed. :shrug:

They should be allowed to because it is their property, their labor, their time, and their association that is required for the gay couple to have anything from them.
 
Peter King said:
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.
Click to expand...

You might want to study the law on this a little more. The Supreme Court made clear in the Hurley case that a state public accommodations law which compels a person in charge of a public accommodation to express or endorse views he does not agree with violates the freedom of speech and is therefore unconstitutional. That case involved a Massachusetts law that made the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade a public accommodation. The parade's organizers had declined to let an Irish-American homosexual group take part in it, and the group had sued under the state public accommodations law.

A chapter of the Boy Scouts met the definition of a public accommodation under a New Jersey law, and the chapter had revoked the membership of a scoutmaster upon discovering he was a homosexual. He sued under the law claiming the Scouts had discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation, and here too, the Supreme Court held the law violated a First Amendment right--in this case the right of expressive association.

I already posted a link here to a law review article on the serious First Amendment issues that far-reaching state public accommodations laws raise. I realize statists don't like the First Amendment. But they should realize it's not going anywhere.
 
maxparrish said:
nd
I'll leave you with this. Andrew Sullivan is widely recognized as one of the 'fathers' of the gay marriage movement.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Andrew Sullivan is a self-described conservative who wasn't even born when the gay rights movement began
 
matchlight said:
You might want to study the law on this a little more. The Supreme Court made clear in the Hurley case that a state public accommodations law which compels a person in charge of a public accommodation to express or endorse views he does not agree with violates the freedom of speech and is therefore unconstitutional. That case involved a Massachusetts law that made the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade a public accommodation. The parade's organizers had declined to let an Irish-American homosexual group take part in it, and the group had sued under the state public accommodations law.

A chapter of the Boy Scouts met the definition of a public accommodation under a New Jersey law, and the chapter had revoked the membership of a scoutmaster upon discovering he was a homosexual. He sued under the law claiming the Scouts had discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation, and here too, the Supreme Court held the law violated a First Amendment right--in this case the right of expressive association.

I already posted a link here to a law review article on the serious First Amendment issues that far-reaching state public accommodations laws raise. I realize statists don't like the First Amendment. But they should realize it's not going anywhere.
Click to expand...

And again you bring up cases which are irrelevant because they deal with expressive organizations when the law being discussed is not limited to expressive organization (which have no need for such a law because their expressions are already protected)

SO maybe you should study the law a little more. Maybe then you'll stop chanting about cases that are irrelevant
 
Ockham said:
Are you saying private property owners have no right to ask someone to leave?
Click to expand...

It depends. Is it a private residence or a business open to the public? If it is the latter, then the business owner cannot ask someone to leave for reasons the violate anti-discrimination laws. Ever heard of the lunch-counters in the 50-60's? White Bigot business owners would love to be able to make black people to leave...but the law doesn't allow it. Same with these news attempts at similar actions.
 
Henrin said:
I'm sorry, but the owner of any property has the right to tell anyone to leave.
Click to expand...

Sorry...but you couldn't be more wrong. A bigot cannot refuse to serve someone just because they are black, brown, or gay. The laws of this great country do not allow it. Sorry.
 
disneydude said:
It depends. Is it a private residence or a business open to the public? If it is the latter, then the business owner cannot ask someone to leave for reasons the violate anti-discrimination laws. Ever heard of the lunch-counters in the 50-60's? White Bigot business owners would love to be able to make black people to leave...but the law doesn't allow it. Same with these news attempts at similar actions.
Click to expand...

And that is why anti-discrimination laws violate property rights. ALL property owners have the right to ask anyone to leave.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry...but you couldn't be more wrong. A bigot cannot refuse to serve someone just because they are black, brown, or gay. The laws of this great country do not allow it. Sorry.
Click to expand...

And that is why anti-discrimination laws violate the thirteen amendment as they amount to involuntary servitude.
 
Henrin said:
How can someone violate someones else's rights by refusing to trade with them?
Click to expand...

You have right to trade with anyone as you wish. If on the other hand, you wish to operate a business, then government requires you to adhere to a rules, regulations, and standards to do business. There are rules, regulations, and standards that protect the customer in your business that have nothing to do with customer 'rights'.

You have no right to sell putrid, spoiled food to your customers potentially harming the public health and safety.

YOU may not want regulations...but we as the public demand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom