• 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

MMC said:
Mornin WCH. :2wave: Yeah but in all their little touchy emotional rescue and their push to help the LGBT Crowd Be more special than all others.

The left did manage to now say and show, that Businesses and Corporations are people.....they have been cheering on Angie and Apple who are speaking out. Imagine that Corporations and business speaking out. After all that hoopla about Corporations and Businesses aren't people. :lamo

Did you notice Apple jumped Right in.....taking the bait hook line and sinker.

Now their lame type asses can explain what they are doing in China and the ME conducting business. Especially with those who have no trouble showing Gays they are special. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Indeed.

TX has a similar bill pending and there's already talk of the NFL 'butting in" and moving the Super Bowl from Houston should the law take effect. Yet just last week the Left was howling about how the NCAA [training ground for the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc], while making billions in profit, was abusing student athletes and taking monies away from Liberal arts programs.
 
US Conservative said:
So now your premise is that despite them being longtime customers, (and gay), only now when a wedding cake was requested did the bakery suddenly decide to discriminate against the couple?

Thats makes sense. :roll:
Click to expand...
The truth finally comes out
 
Paperview said:
You could just cut to the chase and say: I support bigots and people who discriminate against people the basis of their race, sex, national origin, religion, etc...
Click to expand...
Or you could just see through your bias and recognize that I support liberty
 
roguenuke said:
No person or particular group is a "protected class". Every person is protected by pretty much every protected classification in laws. You can't discriminate by race, any race. Doesn't matter if someone is trying to deny you service based on you being white, black, Asian, Indian, Native American, or any other race, which means every person is covered. Can't discriminate based on sex. This means that whether you are legally a man or woman, you cannot be denied service. You can't discriminate based on religion (or lack of), which means that no matter your beliefs, you are a "protected class" if someone denies you service based solely on your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my view of the whole thing. Federally, we are assured that religious considerations, among other things, can be a mitigating factor when considering departures from law. Other such discriminating provisions exist, and I don't believe anything more is required with the exception that the various states should enact similar laws to ensure that such considerations are available within each state, as well. I don't presume to know the motivations of those who might intentionally or inadvertently violate my rights unless it is clearly stated, and I don't go around looking for them as some seem to do for reasons that go far beyond any perceived wrong.
 
roguenuke said:
Show that they were forced out of business. The bakers are still running businesses.

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

Home - Sweet Cakes

This one above lost their storefront shop due to loss of business. That is a market force, nothing to do with the government. They could have not faced fines at all, a court case at all, and they would have still been in the same position. You cannot force people to buy from other people.

I can't actually find any information about what happened to the photographer. She had to pay about $7000 in attorney's fees. That was pretty much it, and agree not to discriminate. The SCOTUS refused to hear her case. I can't find any information about her being "forced" out of business. It is possible that people refused to purchase her services, but once again, are you going to force people to use her rather than another photographer?
Click to expand...
And that is the goal, to force Christians, in particular, out of the marketplace. And the question remains. What is the ultimate consequence if Christians stand on their religious beliefs and refuse to offer services for homosexual weddings?
 
US Conservative said:
So now your premise is that despite them being longtime customers, (and gay), only now when a wedding cake was requested did the bakery suddenly decide to discriminate against the couple?

Thats makes sense. :roll:
Click to expand...

You could make that point for some Christian religions. Most congregations would only draw the line, where participation is involved. You probably think that is a fine line and would be right. It is often a close call, but the difference here is quite obvious.
 
humbolt said:
Help? It does push a particular opinion largely based on assumptions of intent - again. The are other opinions to which I would give at least equal weight that don't rely on impugned intentions.
Click to expand...

I figured the time I took to provide that would be wasted.

What was the intention of pushing this bill through, as it was worded, and when they did it?
 
disneydude said:
Then you need to read more. Its not hard to find. Let me see if I can find you a link. Its pretty simple to see the differences.
Click to expand...

Why don't you show me all the civil rights violations committed in Indiana instead of complaining about something that hasn't happened.
 
Paperview said:
I figured the time I took to provide that would be wasted.

What was the intention of pushing this bill through, as it was worded, and when they did it?
Click to expand...

You, like others here, are stuck on intention - something you don't know - something you assume.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, there is little information suggesting that these couples, either of them, had actually frequently purchased products from either shop before. The only confirmed purchase we know of was actually the one lesbian woman (no mention of her identifying herself either directly or indirectly as a lesbian) picked up a cake from the bakery for her mother at least a year prior.

And no, it was not the "event". The bakery made wedding cakes. It was the sexes/sexual orientations of the people involved in the event that was the problem, that was the reason for the discrimination. That is what makes it illegal, just as much as if the people were refused because they were an interracial couple getting married ("we don't make interracial wedding cakes") or an interfaith couple getting married ("we don't agree with interfaith weddings").
Click to expand...

Looks like the narrative has to change in order to fit the agenda. The truth is winning out here as we're seeing that it was indeed the event that was objectionable, not the persons
 
roguenuke said:
Not true. The intended use of a cake is to eat it. So what makes a same sex couple eating a cake "dangerous"?

The person was the problem, or rather the people. The people made wedding cakes. They made cakes to be used to celebrate a commitment between two people, to celebrate marriages. They disapproved of the people involved in this particular marriage. That means it was the people.
Click to expand...
The intended use of a wedding cake is to eat it in celebration of a marriage, an objectionable marriage in this case in the eyes of the baker
 
Paperview said:
Well, if you can't answer the question, that tells us something.
Click to expand...

I don't feel compelled to answer loaded questions. I haven't had a substantial response to any of mine from those objecting other than references to assumed intentions. Show me the rights violations committed in Indiana and at least offer some substance to your objection to the law passed. Please note that I'm not saying there aren't any. There may well be some significant violation, and I'll change my opinion, but to date I'm not aware of any significant violations that this law would condone.
 
Blemonds said:
The intended use of a wedding cake is to eat it in celebration of a marriage, an objectionable marriage in this case in the eyes of the baker
Click to expand...

As if it were a baker's job to approve of marriages. Do Catholic bakers object to making wedding cakes for people who are getting married for the second, third, fourth, etc. time? Of course not. This selective objection is bigotry.
 
WCH said:
Indeed.

TX has a similar bill pending and there's already talk of the NFL 'butting in" and moving the Super Bowl from Houston should the law take effect. Yet just last week the Left was howling about how the NCAA [training ground for the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc], while making billions in profit, was abusing student athletes and taking monies away from Liberal arts programs.
Click to expand...


The NFL.....you don't say. Now there is a corporation of people, huh? :lol:
 
Thorgasm said:
As if it were a baker's job to approve of marriages. Do Catholic bakers object to making wedding cakes for people who are getting married for the second, third, fourth, etc. time? Of course not. This selective objection is bigotry.
Click to expand...
A baker has the right to decide if he wants to provide a cake or not. That right should be protected by the state, not denied by the state. Same applies to Catholic bakers
 
WCH said:
Indeed.

TX has a similar bill pending and there's already talk of the NFL 'butting in" and moving the Super Bowl from Houston should the law take effect. Yet just last week the Left was howling about how the NCAA [training ground for the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc], while making billions in profit, was abusing student athletes and taking monies away from Liberal arts programs.
Click to expand...
If the NFL butts in, shouldn't they lose their nonprofit status?
 
humbolt said:
I don't feel compelled to answer loaded questions. I haven't had a substantial response to any of mine from those objecting other than references to assumed intentions. Show me the rights violations committed in Indiana and at least offer some substance to your objection to the law passed. Please note that I'm not saying there aren't any. There may well be some significant violation, and I'll change my opinion, but to date I'm not aware of any significant violations that this law would condone.
Click to expand...
Asking about the intention of the bill (which most here know damn well what is was about -- WHO were the people who wrote it) -- What they said about -- Why they did it now -- and what was said during legislative session -- is not an invalid question --

You consider it loaded, fine. Everyone knows what the intention was - even though you (like Pence did on Sunday) get all afiggedy when asked about it.
 
I love the swirl around this its awesome. Like i keep saying, any bill like this that rejects the exemptions, goes beyond employee protections, doesnt protect equal rights and has to many grey areas will eventually lose and simply HELP equal rights. It will be nothing more that a brick in the road to equality and sweet sweet irony. I hope these idiots keep up the good work just ilke banning. In the end all it does is expose them for what they are and thier own actions help cement equal rights even further. SOME people can keep up thier fight all they want and cry and moan but equal rights is winning and will continue to do so.
 
joG said:
We discussed it a while back. You thought the discrimination against the conscientious objector fins and I thought the gay movement position bigotry and a vile shift in the meaning of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Conscientious objector has an actual definition, and it has to do with refusal to bear arms in a military conflict due to their beliefs (doesn't have to be religious based, at least not here in the US). It is not simply someone who objects on the basis of religious beliefs.

Conscientious objector | Define Conscientious objector at Dictionary.com

And I've never had any issue with conscientious objectors, but that is a whole different topic.

If you are referring the photographer, the "state" did not put her out of business, as you claim. She chose to do something else, I'm assuming, since I can't find anything about her or her business besides the case. It may be that other forces put her out of business or her fight against the ruling cost her too much (although most of those lawyers defending rights will work either pro bono or are paid by a fund of donations). She was only required to pay about $7000 to the other woman/couple for their lawyer, and to agree not to discriminate. If she couldn't agree to that, which is a basic agreement when it comes to actually operating a business, a basic law, then she chose to be out of business. The state did not force her.

If you are referring to either baker, then it has been discussed. Neither is actually out of business (both had donations made to a fund by others to cover their fines/lawyer). One lost their store front shop due to loss of sales (they haven't even been given an actual amount for their fine yet). The other claims to have stopped selling wedding cakes (but still advertises for them on his website).
 
Blemonds said:
A baker has the right to decide if he wants to provide a cake or not. That right should be protected by the state, not denied by the state. Same applies to Catholic bakers
Click to expand...

Yet they are bigoted in who they deny their services to.

You do realize that this "religious freedom" was tried before against black folks because they had the "mark of Cain"? That's why we have public accomodation laws.
 
Blemonds said:
And that is the goal, to force Christians, in particular, out of the marketplace. And the question remains. What is the ultimate consequence if Christians stand on their religious beliefs and refuse to offer services for homosexual weddings?
Click to expand...

The same consequence if anyone else, Muslim, Jew, KKK, skinhead, just simply a racist/sexist/homophobic person faces, lawsuits and/or a loss of business due to people not wishing to do business with you. And it could easily work both ways. Not only could customers refuse to do business with you, but so too could suppliers. Their refusal would not be based on your religion, but rather your actions in relation to your beliefs.

And it works the same for whatever people are discriminating against others on. If a place is refusing to serve white people or Asians, then that should be brought to the public's attention so the rest of the public can, hopefully, avoid giving their money to that place. If a particular business refuses to serve women or men, that too should be brought to the public's attention so the rest of the public can, again hopefully, not spend money at that place. It is really little different than what happened to the Dixie Chicks. They ticked off their main base of listeners, leading to a boycott of their music. People (including myself) no longer wanted to give our money to them.

Again, this is the very concept that most conservatives/libertarians use to justify why we don't really need anti-discrimination/public accommodation laws (or at least have such an expanded view on what is a public accommodation).
 
Blemonds said:
Looks like the narrative has to change in order to fit the agenda. The truth is winning out here as we're seeing that it was indeed the event that was objectionable, not the persons
Click to expand...

Someone else made that claim. You jumped in on something I felt needed to be addressed before I corrected it with the information I have found in researching this issue.

If a Jew refuses to sell a bar mitzvah cake to a Christian for his son's coming of age party, claiming that he only sells traditional bar mitzvah cakes and he believes only Jews should have bar mitzvahs, is it based on the event or the religion of the person requesting the cake?

How about a Christian baker refusing to sell a cake to a non-Christian with the words "Merry Christmas" on it, claiming that those are only for people who believe in the true meaning of Christmas? After all, how does the baker know that the non-Christian isn't going to use the cake for some sort of other celebration rather than for Christmas?
 
Blemonds said:
The intended use of a wedding cake is to eat it in celebration of a marriage, an objectionable marriage in this case in the eyes of the baker
Click to expand...

Objectionable due to the people involved, their sexuality, their relative sexes. That is illegal discrimination based on the people involved in the event, their classification, protected, at least in those states where this issue has seen lawsuits/court cases/claims. The law is clear on this and the courts agree.
 
roguenuke said:
Conscientious objector has an actual definition, and it has to do with refusal to bear arms in a military conflict due to their beliefs (doesn't have to be religious based, at least not here in the US). It is not simply someone who objects on the basis of religious beliefs.

Conscientious objector | Define Conscientious objector at Dictionary.com

And I've never had any issue with conscientious objectors, but that is a whole different topic.

If you are referring the photographer, the "state" did not put her out of business, as you claim. She chose to do something else, I'm assuming, since I can't find anything about her or her business besides the case. It may be that other forces put her out of business or her fight against the ruling cost her too much (although most of those lawyers defending rights will work either pro bono or are paid by a fund of donations). She was only required to pay about $7000 to the other woman/couple for their lawyer, and to agree not to discriminate. If she couldn't agree to that, which is a basic agreement when it comes to actually operating a business, a basic law, then she chose to be out of business. The state did not force her.

If you are referring to either baker, then it has been discussed. Neither is actually out of business (both had donations made to a fund by others to cover their fines/lawyer). One lost their store front shop due to loss of sales (they haven't even been given an actual amount for their fine yet). The other claims to have stopped selling wedding cakes (but still advertises for them on his website).
Click to expand...

I know people like yourself hate the spin that conscientious objection lends the argument. That does not make it wrong. Just unconventional and an aggravation to gay activists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom