• 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

1.)It's analogous because he said that skinheads have to be served by a black man in a restaurant.
2.)And let's say for the sake of argument that they said they were skinheads. It doesn't have anything to do with the debate.
3.)I'll ask you the question. The argument keeps coming up that public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who wants to be served.
4.) Do you believe everyone who walks into your business or asks you to engage in commerce with them must be served by you? General question.

1.) they dont HAVE to be served by law but they could be, in that case its VERY circumstantial but its still not analogous to gender, race etc
2.) I agree your example doesnt have anythign to do with the debate
3.) I havent seen that argument one time the way you word, could you link all these cases it was stated that way? also that is not what public accommodation means so if anybody said that they were simply mistaken
4.) of course not and neither does the law or rights
 
They should have the option under scenario #2 to decline the offer of doing business with the couple. If you know someone hates you and/or your lifestyle, and it makes you uncomfortable dealing with them, you should have the right to walk away from the offer. That's why I think the law need to be updated or made right. In both cases I support the right of the business owner to not be forced into commerce.


Public Accommodation laws as a matter of course should be repealed, not special exemptions given for just religious claims. PA laws should only apply (IMHO) to government entities and possibly life-saving medical treatment (not elective procedures).


I'd be open to a compromise though. Make it a function of getting a business license for the business to predominately display in site, in advertisements, and on their web page a "Willingness to Serve" statement that must be in-place from the time the business opens. Businesses would be able to reserve the right to refuse customers based on any criteria they choose but must information the public in advance. Such notifications would remain on file with the governments copy of the business license and would be available (just as license information is) to members of the public. A business could amend or replace their "Willingness to Serve" notification at any time, based on a minimum of 30 days having elapsed between the old certificate and the new one filed and it's being effective. Businesses then under Public Accommodation laws would only be accountable for refusing service if they didn't comply with their own Willingness to Serve certificate.



>>>>
 
No idea. But what does that have to do with anything? The laws says you can't discriminate based on religious beliefs, either. Are you born a Muslim?

it matters because being gay is analogous to being a racial minority, not being a nazi ****.

please tell me that you don't actually support letting a restaurant owner kick out gay people for being gay. what if your kid was gay?
 
It's analogous because he said that skinheads have to be served by a black man in a restaurant. And let's say for the sake of argument that they said they were skinheads. It doesn't have anything to do with the debate.

I'll ask you the question. The argument keeps coming up that public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who wants to be served. Do you believe everyone who walks into your business or asks you to engage in commerce with them must be served by you? General question.

Can't tell if you're trying to play with words. No business is forced to serve everyone, but they have to apply whatever standards they use on a consistent basis. So a bar can refuse the drunk and disorderly, but can't refuse service to a black person who is neither. Etc.
 
Yes, and the reason is simple enough. If there is a presumption that a person can pick and choose who to serve, hire, fire, rent to, etc. they we've agreed that there simply is no right to be treated equally in the marketplace and this principle applies to matters small and large. It would apply to a gay/Jewish/black/Muslim business getting frozen out by local suppliers to run it out of business and to keep the local business community pure. It should apply to medical services, pharmacies, selling houses (why shouldn't a neighborhood be able to exclude anyone not a WASP?). If you're OK exempting caterers, on what principle will you force ANYONE

If we want to define things like catering or photography as creative exercises and exempt them from public accommodation non-discrimination laws, I wouldn't support it but it's possibly a decent compromise. Much more important would be examples where the harm from discrimination isn't trivial or can be dismissed as trivial, such as catering and wedding cakes.



But you didn't address the actual issue. If the boss doesn't like fags and fires him for no reason other than he's gay, you're OK with that? You'd be OK with him having to find a girlfriend to invite to the Christmas party because he can't let anyone know he's gay with a partner he's been with for a decade. Can't be seen in places where coworkers are likely to appear with his partner, a public life that is a front, a lie, and a private life, etc. I somehow doubt it.

And if you are, I'm very happy the country is quickly moving to where that kind of opinion is literally dying out and will all but disappear when the current generation of young people come of age.

Jasper - I don't use the "f" word to describe gay people.

And if my son got fired from his job after 12 years for any reason, I would be upset. He can get fired because his boss doesn't like his girlfriend. Or his boyfriend. Or his beard, or his blue eyes, or his large rear end.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Brewer veto the bill the legislature passed there?

This confused me as well. They have a broad RFRA that passed in 2012 apparently. In 2014 they tried to expand it along the lines of what passed in Indiana and that's what she vetoed. See the "Note" at the very bottom of this article.
 
it matters because being gay is analogous to being a racial minority, not being a nazi ****.

please tell me that you don't actually support letting a restaurant owner kick out gay people for being gay. what if your kid was gay?

If my kid was gay, I'd love him to death. I have 3 sons and any one of them can be gay for all I know. If my sons were kicked out of a restaurant because the owner didn't want to serve them for any reason, that would bother me. People can kick anyone out of a restaurant. They just can't kick them out and say "I did this because you're (insert protected class here)".

I don't care who is gay and who is straight. I don't care if you want one wife, one same sex partner, or 15 wives. As long as people are of age, they should be able to marry or love who they chose, just as I did, and just as you have. People's preferences of love partners are, IMO, none of my business and none of anyone else's business.

I'm a slippery slope girl. The law is on a slippery slope here. I've already used some examples. Because people don't want to debate without name calling, people assume I'm being anti-gay.
 
Jasper - I don't use the "f" word to describe gay people.

And if my son got fired from his job after 12 years for any reason, I would be upset. He can get fired because his boss doesn't like his girlfriend. Or his boyfriend. Or his beard, or his blue eyes, or his large rear end.

And not because he is christian, Latino, or male.

Public accommodations are tailored very narrowly, and for good reason. We don't want the government picking and choosing which reasons are ok and which aren't, and we don't want them overly analyzing such decisions. But we do want some basic protections for groups who have historically suffered great harm from such discriminations.

There's no slippery slope here. Nobody is trying to force muslims to clean up pigs blood. (Although I don't see why anyone thinks muslims would refuse to do that)
 
it matters because being gay is analogous to being a racial minority, not being a nazi ****.

You can tell if someone is gay just by looking at them?
 
it matters because being gay is analogous to being a racial minority, not being a nazi ****.

please tell me that you don't actually support letting a restaurant owner kick out gay people for being gay. what if your kid was gay?


Heya Helix. :2wave: You did read the Law correct.....where again does it discriminate?
 
This confused me as well. They have a broad RFRA that passed in 2012 apparently. In 2014 they tried to expand it along the lines of what passed in Indiana and that's what she vetoed. See the "Note" at the very bottom of this article.


Thank you, yes I was thinking about the 2014 veto.


WW


>>>>
 
If my kid was gay, I'd love him to death. I have 3 sons and any one of them can be gay for all I know. If my sons were kicked out of a restaurant because the owner didn't want to serve them for any reason, that would bother me. People can kick anyone out of a restaurant. They just can't kick them out and say "I did this because you're (insert protected class here)".

I don't care who is gay and who is straight. I don't care if you want one wife, one same sex partner, or 15 wives. As long as people are of age, they should be able to marry or love who they chose, just as I did, and just as you have. People's preferences of love partners are, IMO, none of my business and none of anyone else's business.

I'm a slippery slope girl. The law is on a slippery slope here. I've already used some examples. Because people don't want to debate without name calling, people assume I'm being anti-gay.

no slippery slope. it's wrong to kick gay people out of restaurants for being gay, and it shouldn't be state sanctioned. the law is revenge for gay marriage being legal in Indiana. pure and simple.
 
Public Accommodation laws as a matter of course should be repealed, not special exemptions given for just religious claims. PA laws should only apply (IMHO) to government entities and possibly life-saving medical treatment (not elective procedures).


I'd be open to a compromise though. Make it a function of getting a business license for the business to predominately display in site, in advertisements, and on their web page a "Willingness to Serve" statement that must be in-place from the time the business opens. Businesses would be able to reserve the right to refuse customers based on any criteria they choose but must information the public in advance. Such notifications would remain on file with the governments copy of the business license and would be available (just as license information is) to members of the public. A business could amend or replace their "Willingness to Serve" notification at any time, based on a minimum of 30 days having elapsed between the old certificate and the new one filed and it's being effective. Businesses then under Public Accommodation laws would only be accountable for refusing service if they didn't comply with their own Willingness to Serve certificate.



>>>>

I don't agree with special exemptions for religious claims either. That's my entire argument. Nobody should be getting special treatment or the right to comply or deny service - on either side.

Either serve everyone, or do what you suggested here (which is a good suggestion, BTW).
 
You can tell if someone is gay just by looking at them?

****, i don't know. you tell me. my point is that sexual orientation is analogous to race, not analogous to being a ****ing nazi.
 
no slippery slope. it's wrong to kick gay people out of restaurants for being gay, and it shouldn't be state sanctioned. the law is revenge for gay marriage being legal in Indiana. pure and simple.

Then take it up with Pence. I'm talking about a much larger issue. You don't see a slippery slope and I do. It has nothing to do with being gay. It has to do with being able to walk away from an offer of commerce with anyone who you don't want to do business with, without the government compelling you to accept an offer of commerce with who the laws deem deserving of your work.
 
****, i don't know. you tell me. my point is that sexual orientation is analogous to race, not analogous to being a ****ing nazi.

And I was born blonde, but because I'm not in the "protected class", I can be denied service strictly because of the fact that the business owner doesn't want to serve blondes.

This issue has nothing to do with birth.
 
****, i don't know. you tell me. my point is that sexual orientation is analogous to race, not analogous to being a ****ing nazi.

I am guessing a gay person woudln't need to put on make up to walk in the front door of a business that says "No homos allowed" and make a purchase.
 
Then take it up with Pence. I'm talking about a much larger issue. You don't see a slippery slope and I do. It has nothing to do with being gay. It has to do with being able to walk away from an offer of commerce with anyone who you don't want to do business with, without the government compelling you to accept an offer of commerce with who the laws deem deserving of your work.

Public accommodation laws protect everybody. It's not that particular groups are "deserving of my work." It's that certain characteristics are not acceptable for denying my work.

I can still kick out a gay person for being a jerk. Where's the slippery slope here? What future actions do you foresee and disagree with?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Brewer veto the bill the legislature passed there?



>>>>

No idea about the law. I haven't followed it enough. I just know about the tourism because it's one of my favorite places to visit. Going there again in April.
 
And I was born blonde, but because I'm not in the "protected class", I can be denied service strictly because of the fact that the business owner doesn't want to serve blondes.

This issue has nothing to do with birth.


You are in the protected class because you have a race and a gender and a religious belief. (Or lack of)

Maybe that's the part you aren't getting. Gays and blacks arent special protected groups while straight white people aren't. Everyone is protected.
 
Jasper - I don't use the "f" word to describe gay people.

So what - I don't either but it's a word I hear fairly frequently in my part of the world and is how a bigot commonly refers to homosexuals, which is why I used that term.

And if my son got fired from his job after 12 years for any reason, I would be upset. He can get fired because his boss doesn't like his girlfriend. Or his boyfriend. Or his beard, or his blue eyes, or his large rear end.

OK, so you're not going to address the point. Obviously the work environment I described isn't mythical. It's reality in many areas and an obvious reason why tolerant places like California attract gays from the intolerant 'heartland.' Being gay and out is still committing career suicide in many places. Much of that won't change until attitudes change, but I see no reason for the law to allow for terminations based on race, religion, national origin OR sexual orientation. Maybe you do. If so I disagree.

But let's put it this way. DADT was an institutionalized version of that. If a person was found to be gay, it was grounds for immediate discharge from the armed forces, even for a person with a spotless record, 19 years towards a 20 year retirement.

1) Do you support DADT?
2) Do you support private businesses having a DADT policy?
 
Actually....no. The Mormon illegal activity is prop 8 is widely documented. They should have lost their tax exempt status over their activities....

Why? The Mormons were free to oppose SSM (religous teaching) and retain their tax exemption. I think you are confusing your personal opposition to the Mormon's activities with the conclusion that they must have violated the law.
 
If my kid was gay, I'd love him to death. I have 3 sons and any one of them can be gay for all I know. If my sons were kicked out of a restaurant because the owner didn't want to serve them for any reason, that would bother me. People can kick anyone out of a restaurant. They just can't kick them out and say "I did this because you're (insert protected class here)".

I don't care who is gay and who is straight. I don't care if you want one wife, one same sex partner, or 15 wives. As long as people are of age, they should be able to marry or love who they chose, just as I did, and just as you have. People's preferences of love partners are, IMO, none of my business and none of anyone else's business.

I'm a slippery slope girl. The law is on a slippery slope here. I've already used some examples. Because people don't want to debate without name calling, people assume I'm being anti-gay.

the only slippery slope here is trying to make exemptions based on beliefs and fellings
 
Why? The Mormons were free to oppose SSM (religous teaching) and retain their tax exemption. I think you are confusing your personal opposition to the Mormon's activities with the conclusion that they must have violated the law.

They (and by they I mean groups like NOM) violated some of the campaign finance laws regarding reporting of political donations, IIRC.
 
Back
Top Bottom