• 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

So being told off for bigotry is the same as being denied basic services and the state government going out of its way to target you for discrimination, got it!

You are not owed anything from other human beings. That might shock you and even disgust you, but it's a fact.
 
As opposed to some who know that it takes all of five minutes for a critic of libertarians and the market to pull out an old chestnut - failing to understand that the right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Need I explain it to you, or were you just doing a drive-by snarl?

libertarian is a joke because it can never grasp that "liberty" for one group actually only creates oppression of another, all while proving no expansion of liberty whatsoever on the part of the first group, because they were never made to sacrifice anything to begin with. Oh boo hoo, you're a landlord who can't evict someone over something they are born with and that makes no difference, oh god no!

This issue perfectly exposes the hypocrisy and uselessness of that entire mindset. I see clearly now that libertarians are just republicans in denial
 
That was a long ass post to just say I have a right to force you to trade with me.

See, as Phys says, it's not about you. It's not about "forcing" you. It's about protecting minorities from being ostracized from society. If you really can't view any political questions in terms of anything but your own gain, then you have nothing useful to contribute and no one should listen to you.
 
libertarian is a joke because it can never grasp that "liberty" for one group actually only creates oppression of another, all while proving no expansion of liberty whatsoever on the part of the first group, because they were never made to sacrifice anything to begin with. Oh boo hoo, you're a landlord who can't evict someone over something they are born with and that makes no difference, oh god no!

This issue perfectly exposes the hypocrisy and uselessness of that entire mindset. I see clearly now that libertarians are just republicans in denial

What are you talking about? The landlord owns the property and the renter is there at his behest. There is nothing wrong with standing for the landlords right to remove anyone renting his property.
 
See, as Phys says, it's not about you. It's not about "forcing" you. It's about protecting minorities from being ostracized from society. If you really can't view any political questions in terms of anything but your own gain, then you have nothing useful to contribute and no one should listen to you.

No one can ostracize someone from society.
 
No one can ostracize someone from society.

Not in a 1 on 1 interaction, but that's not what we're talking about. When you reduce discrimination to a single interpersonal interaction, you miss why it matters.
 
Please define public accomodation. Is a grocery store a public accomodation? How about a clothing store? A hardware store? A hair dresser?

Since this thread is about Indiana, here is their definition:

IC 22-9-1-3
Definitions
(m) "Public accommodation" means any establishment that caters or offers its services or facilities or goods to the general public. Indiana Code 22-9-1



So to answer you questions. Grocery store = Yes. Clothing Store = Yes. Hardware Store = Yes. Hair Dresser = Yes.


>>>>
 
Not in a 1 on 1 interaction, but that's not what we're talking about. When you reduce discrimination to a single interpersonal interaction, you miss why it matters.

I realize the statement is not supposed to be taken literally, but even in how you are using it even their family and friends would have to be party to it.
 
That has nothing to do with your choices. Nothing. This is what you (plural) choose not to understand. And furthermore, something else you (plural) choose not to understand is this:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU.

It's not about me? LOL, THAT is what I have been telling you for the last two posts, ever since you demanded I give "proof" of a personal experience that I NEVER claimed that I had. Are you normally like this?

Nor is it really even about the businesses that are already starting to discriminate.

This is about LGBTs who face discrimination, bullying, hatred, and disenfranchisement from hateful people who are given the power to hate.
This is about people who suffer a much higher rate of suicide because of this.
This is about people who are legally forbidden from expressing their love the same way that straight couples are allowed to.
Nice soapboxing, but you forgot to mention that its about apple pie, coca-cola, and the ten commandments.

It's not about any of those things. It's about the few percent of the American people who were (most likely) born with abnormal longings and attractions, and their incessant demands that others pretend and then repeatedly affirm they are totally "normal". And like any minority who is, in fact, not a part of the normal or typical (and can never be), their insecurity drives them to blame and demonize fictional oppressors. It is a psychological void that can never be filled.

Now real discrimination is the era of Jim Crow, segregation, and thousands of lynchings. It is when a black man was not permitted to enroll in a public college, who couldn't get a job that amounted to more than that of a bell hop or janitor, or when his church was burned and his housing relegated to unheated and kerosene lit shacks. Real discrimination was when a black dancer or singer at a white club was not permitted to sit at a table, and who had to eat in the Kitchen during his/her breaks. Real discrimination was when no hotel in a City accepted black lodgers, which required them to sleep on tour buses or lodge with black families. THAT my friend, is REAL discrimination.

Today LGBT face next to nothing, other than State acknowledgement of "marriage" (soon to be ended in the remaining states). They make more money than hetrosexuals, they work in every industry at every level (including CEOs), they are not (and never have been) excluded in any housing, hotels, restaurants, state schools, or relegated to the work of bell hops and janitors. Even the worst era, the raiding of gay bath-houses and being arrested for solicitation in public parks is NOTHING compared to what blacks went through.

And today, even that is history. Seriously, who ever heard of even a smattering of rental discrimination or 'over-pricing' to gays? Who has ever heard of restaurants routinely (or even occasionally) refusing to serve a gay?

You think this is about you? And what rights YOU have? That is the living definition of narcissism. You choose to believe that the imaginary oppression you might face at not having power over people whose behavior you don't like is more important than the real oppression that LGBTs face every day of their lives from ***holes who choose not to follow basic, common-sense standards of decent human behavior.

Actually I think its about the insecurity and imaginary oppression that LGBTs gin themselves into believing. Its about the narcissism of gays who are so insecure about their own identity that they crave recognition and need to declare their "pride". It's about the lack of a gay equivalent to whites only Woolworth counters, and the drive to find someone, somewhere, in a nation of 310,000,000 who can prove their "oppression"... a small baker in Oregon or a lone Photographer in New Mexico to pillory.

But guess what. This is 2015. And the same Constitution that you think gives businesses the right to discriminate, gives LGBTs and their allies the right to LOUDLY tell the ***holes to go to hell. And that is exactly what we intend to do.
Of course you do...you just have to find the assholes.
 
So being told off for bigotry is the same as being denied basic services and the state government going out of its way to target you for discrimination, got it!

You suffer from an impoverished imagination, as well as offering us an unusually lame straw man. To wit, I answered an inquiry by stating: "I have never allowed myself to be in a position to be persecuted. Like any potential PC victim, I never state my actual views on certain issues around gays (most of whom are intolerant)."

Why? Because to do so (especially when I was employed) would have resulted in a variety of unpleasant experiences, including, but not limited to, destroyed friendships and destroyed working relationships (which might have resulted in unemployment). And, as I stated, I don't even do so with the few gays I know well.

But like Phys251 penchant for loaded questions, you ask (infer) about a comparison (claim) that I never made - the only one comparing my life to your belief in a (imaginary) denial of basic services to gays and "out of your way targeting" of gays by state governments is YOU. Nice try, but a tad too transparent.
 
Last edited:
I asked if you were just making a drive-by snarl, you replied:

libertarian is a joke because it can never grasp that "liberty" for one group actually only creates oppression of another, all while proving no expansion of liberty whatsoever on the part of the first group, because they were never made to sacrifice anything to begin with. Oh boo hoo, you're a landlord who can't evict someone over something they are born with and that makes no difference, oh god no!

I believe that rates as a snarl, although well padded with nonsense. Best I can tell, you think "oppression" is anything that you don't like due to someone's rightful exercise of their liberty. The rest of your comments are incomprehensible.

This issue perfectly exposes the hypocrisy and uselessness of that entire mindset. I see clearly now that libertarians are just republicans in denial
Actually it perfectly proves that there are some mindsets that are so underdeveloped that they are little more than "me hate" jeremiads against libertarians and republicans.
 
You suffer from an impoverished imagination, as well as offering us an unusually lame straw man. To wit, I answered an inquiry by stating: "I have never allowed myself to be in a position to be persecuted. Like any potential PC victim, I never state my actual views on certain issues around gays (most of whom are intolerant)."

Why? Because to do so (especially when I was employed) would have resulted in a variety of unpleasant experiences, including, but not limited to, destroyed friendships and destroyed working relationships (which might have resulted in unemployment). And, as I stated, I don't even do so with the few gays I know well.

But like Phys251 penchant for loaded questions, you ask (infer) about a comparison (claim) that I never made - the only one comparing my life to your belief in a (imaginary) denial of basic services to gays and "out of your way targeting" of gays by state governments is YOU. Nice try, but a tad too transparent.

It's not imaginary at all. There have been cases of gays and their kids denied medical service even in non "RFRA" states, where no local ordinance forbids it. Now 12 indiana counties had forbid this abhorrent behavior, while this law attempts to undo 40+ years of progress by cities like indianapolis to put an end to such discrimination. That is the entire intent. Religious fanatics will do whatever they can get away with. These are the same tyrants who were behind the SSM ban and sodomy laws and police brutality and so on, down the years.

Even the freaking NFL is talking of relocating its combine. When your public policy is too regressive for the NFL, it's time to shelve the entire state government, clean slate
 
Now real discrimination is the era of Jim Crow, segregation, and thousands of lynchings. It is when a black man was not permitted to enroll in a public college, who couldn't get a job that amounted to more than that of a bell hop or janitor, or when his church was burned and his housing relegated to unheated and kerosene lit shacks. Real discrimination was when a black dancer or singer at a white club was not permitted to sit at a table, and who had to eat in the Kitchen during his/her breaks. Real discrimination was when no hotel in a City accepted black lodgers, which required them to sleep on tour buses or lodge with black families. THAT my friend, is REAL discrimination.

Today LGBT face next to nothing, other than State acknowledgement of "marriage" (soon to be ended in the remaining states). They make more money than hetrosexuals, they work in every industry at every level (including CEOs), they are not (and never have been) excluded in any housing, hotels, restaurants, state schools, or relegated to the work of bell hops and janitors. Even the worst era, the raiding of gay bath-houses and being arrested for solicitation in public parks is NOTHING compared to what blacks went through.

And today, even that is history. Seriously, who ever heard of even a smattering of rental discrimination or 'over-pricing' to gays? Who has ever heard of restaurants routinely (or even occasionally) refusing to serve a gay?



Actually I think its about the insecurity and imaginary oppression that LGBTs gin themselves into believing. Its about the narcissism of gays who are so insecure about their own identity that they crave recognition and need to declare their "pride". It's about the lack of a gay equivalent to whites only Woolworth counters, and the drive to find someone, somewhere, in a nation of 310,000,000 who can prove their "oppression"... a small baker in Oregon or a lone Photographer in New Mexico to pillory.

Of course you do...you just have to find the assholes.

These "RFRA" attempt to create a replication of jim crow, where there is no legal protection period against segregation, no employment or housing protection and so on. It is the rural ****holes dictating to cities like indy that they cannot offer such protection.

But most of all it's about a heterosexual with a persecution complex, who has no room to talk period, as he will never face a law that encourages businesses to fire or deny service, or a landlord to deny housing to him for being heterosexual. Therefore this conversation is over, as i've had enough of your ****ing version of "liberty"
 
Now real discrimination is the era of Jim Crow, segregation, and thousands of lynchings. It is when a black man was not permitted to enroll in a public college, who couldn't get a job that amounted to more than that of a bell hop or janitor, or when his church was burned and his housing relegated to unheated and kerosene lit shacks. Real discrimination was when a black dancer or singer at a white club was not permitted to sit at a table, and who had to eat in the Kitchen during his/her breaks. Real discrimination was when no hotel in a City accepted black lodgers, which required them to sleep on tour buses or lodge with black families. THAT my friend, is REAL discrimination.

Today LGBT face next to nothing, other than State acknowledgement of "marriage" (soon to be ended in the remaining states). They make more money than hetrosexuals, they work in every industry at every level (including CEOs), they are not (and never have been) excluded in any housing, hotels, restaurants, state schools, or relegated to the work of bell hops and janitors. Even the worst era, the raiding of gay bath-houses and being arrested for solicitation in public parks is NOTHING compared to what blacks went through.

You don't know what you're talking about and you obviously have no idea what we went through. You're right, it was nothing compared to what blacks went through; it was worse in a lot of ways. Being relegated to the work of bell hops and janitors is nothing in comparison to the State regarding being gay as tantamount to treason and forcibly institutionalizing you. If you think LGBT people never experienced those things then you have a lot of learning to do.
 
Last edited:
Didn't read the whole thread, but I have a solution. Allow the law, but include a corollary that states that the business in question should publicly announce what group that are choosing to not serve... that way those who do not want to associate with them will know that this is a "safe zone" and members of that group will avoid that place of business altogether... and anyone else who has issue with the situation.
 
. Allow the law, but include a corollary that states that the business in question should publicly announce what group that are choosing to not serve .

This idea is pretty good.
However, I doubt too many businesses would be in favor of this plan.
The threat of organized boycotts would be too great.
The bad publicity might hurt business.
I think that some people's "deeply held" beliefs are trumped by the almighty dollar.
 
This idea is pretty good.
However, I doubt too many businesses would be in favor of this plan.
The threat of organized boycotts would be too great.
The bad publicity might hurt business.
I think that some people's "deeply held" beliefs are trumped by the almighty dollar.

Though I agree with you, I would see that as cowardly. if the business owner is choosing to not take payment from one group of people, why not publicize it so that it is known... or are their beliefs not strong enough to stand up to that scrutiny? They are already putting their beliefs ahead of the almighty dollar.
 
Though I agree with you, I would see that as cowardly.

It is cowardly.

if the business owner is choosing to not take payment from one group of people, why not publicize it so that it is known... or are their beliefs not strong enough to stand up to that scrutiny?

The owners' beliefs may be strong, but I'll bet if your plan had been part of this bill, the bill would never have passed.

They are already putting their beliefs ahead of the almighty dollar.

They are willing to sacrifice SOME money.
Rejecting an occasional paying customer is tolerable.
Facing a possible organized boycott isn't tolerable.
If their business practices are publicized, they would potentially lose a LOT of money.
Even in a conservative state such as Indiana, a significant percentage of the populace would reject such bigoted business practices.
I hope.
 
Didn't read the whole thread, but I have a solution. Allow the law, but include a corollary that states that the business in question should publicly announce what group that are choosing to not serve... that way those who do not want to associate with them will know that this is a "safe zone" and members of that group will avoid that place of business altogether... and anyone else who has issue with the situation.

That isn't a solution because the religious are immune from similar treatment (as is race, gender, pregnancy status etc etc), and too many especially in rural areas would be deprived of necessities. What about a town where there's one small grocery store within 30 miles? There's even a case where a lesbian couple's infant was denied medical treatment. Do we really need another jim crow? The 3 standing behind the governor while he signed the law funded the SSM ban in that state, btw

Although your suggestion is the least they could agree to - admit to being petty hateful douchebags. A database was set up in mississippi of all places when their "RFRA" passed, so people can see which businesses were friendly and STILL the bigots whined endlessly that it's not fair. I mean they are discriminating of their own choosing and we can't at least avoid the humiliation of being thrown out of a restaurant or evicted by knowing which places would do this?

But what they really crave is to keep the contagious gays away and also prevent their supporters from finding out, so it doesn't hurt business TOO much
 
You don't know what you're talking about and you obviously have no idea what we went through. You're right, it was nothing compared to what blacks went through; it was worse in a lot of ways. Being relegated to the work of bell hops and janitors is nothing in comparison to the State regarding being gay as tantamount to treason and forcibly institutionalizing you. If you think LGBT people never experienced those things then you have a lot of learning to do.

Yes, the history of oppression faced by LGBT, both in this country and abroad, is abhorrent indeed. The only reason slavery or mass executions weren't commonplace (although europe from 300 up thru the holocaust and islam up thru today sure gave it a go) is because we're too small, spread out, and often invisible a minority to make that easy.

But there is still a line of atrocities in the not too distant past, from castration (alan turing), to long prison sentences, to institutionalization, "conversion"/torture camps, mccarthyism, police brutality, dishonorable discharge, expulsion, excommunication, disownment, total ostracism including death threats from revered sports figures (reggie white) - STILL no openly gay athletes in the 4 pro sports, to being one of the very few minority groups which it's total legal to fire and deny housing and marriage rights to up to this day

And then heterosexuals come in and pretend THEY are persecuted
 
The national backlash has been fierce and Indiana Governor Mike Pence now seems to realize that the RFRA he signed into law was a huge political miscalculation that has the potential to do irreparable harm to the State of Indiana. He now says that the Indiana legislature will convene this week to "clarify" the Indiana RFRA legislation.

Indiana governor supports 'clarifying the intent' of religious objection law

750x422

Protesters gather Saturday outside the Indiana statehouse

Pence and other supporters of the law contend discrimination claims are overblown and insist it will keep the government from compelling people to provide services they find objectionable on religious grounds. They also maintain that courts haven't allowed discrimination under similar laws covering the federal government and 19 other states.

But state Rep. Ed DeLaney, an Indianapolis Democrat, said Indiana's law goes further than those laws and opens the door to discrimination. "This law does not openly allow discrimination, no, but what it does is create a road map, a path to discrimination," he told the crowd, which stretched across the south steps and lawn of the Statehouse. "Indiana's version of this law is not the same as that in other states. It adds all kinds of new stuff and it moves us further down the road to discrimination."

Zach Adamson, a Democrat on Indianapolis' City-County Council, said to cheers that the law has nothing to do with religious freedom but everything to do with discrimination. "This isn't 1950 Alabama; it's 2015 Indiana," he told the crowd, adding that the law has brought embarrassment on the state.

On Saturday, the founder of Angie's List said the consumer review service is suspending its plans for a $40 million expansion in Indianapolis because of Indiana's new religious objections law.
 
Back
Top Bottom