• 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!

Lesbian couple turned away by Indiana tax preparer ...

sangha said:
ICRC: Public Accommodation

Indiana public accommodations law protects against discrimination based on sex. The tax preparer didn't refuse service due to sexual orientation. She didn't refuse service based on marital status

She refused service because the customers were both female
Click to expand...

The tax preparer couldn't have refused service based on their marital status, unless she refuses to prepare taxes for all married couples.
 
sangha said:
Are you now denying that it is illegal in Indiana to discriminate based on sex ?
Click to expand...

Nope, I am denying that the discrimination was based on sex.
 
tres borrachos said:
The tax preparer couldn't have refused service based on their marital status, unless she refuses to prepare taxes for all married couples.
Click to expand...

In a state that has such laws, YES.

Indiana does not have such a law.
 
sjmay said:
In a state that has such laws, YES.

Indiana does not have such a law.
Click to expand...

Once again, she didn't discriminate against them because of their marital status, unless she refuses to prepare taxes for all married couples. She did it because of their sex. In Indiana, you can not discriminate against someone based on his or her sex.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What is with all the homophobes out there?
Click to expand...

Not sure. For some folks it's important to judge others on how they prefer to have sex as if it has any relevance outside of a bedroom. Maybe we should start discriminating agains foot fetishists, furries, S&M folks et. al.
 
tres borrachos said:
Once again, she didn't discriminate against them because of their marital status, unless she refuses to prepare taxes for all married couples. She did it because of their sex. In Indiana, you can not discriminate against someone based on his or her sex.
Click to expand...

How on earth are you going to prove that, when the client who saw her the previous four years......was female.
 
calamity said:
It was based on her being a bigoted POS.
Click to expand...

Not gonna argue on that one, never said it was right, all i've said is she has the right to do that, under Indiana law.
 
sjmay said:
Seriously, you focused on the sex change comment, and not the fact that she was servicing females, for years before this? Seriously?
Click to expand...
When you make an intellectually dishonest argument, that is what I focus on and ignore the rest

Certainly, it cannot be too difficult for you to not make such arguments
 
sangha said:
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Thank you, that case says that all 50 states and territories must recognize same sex marriages, it says nothing about private business's having to do the same.

As it stands the only protected discriminatory categories are race, color, religion and origin. This case did not change that.
 
sjmay said:
How on earth are you going to prove that, when the client who saw her the previous four years......was female.
Click to expand...

Because she prepares taxes for married couples, yes or no? If the answer is yes, then she refused to prepare them for this couple because they are both female. That is by every definition of the Indiana laws illegal.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Not sure. For some folks it's important to judge others on how they prefer to have sex as if it has any relevance outside of a bedroom. Maybe we should start discriminating agains foot fetishists, furries, S&M folks et. al.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand why people care... it doesn't affect them in any way. But you are right... it is judging others. Still don't get why though.
 
sangha said:
Correct. This shows that the discrimination was not based on marital status
Click to expand...

Unless someone can prove to me that she refuses to prepare any tax returns for any married couples, there is no other way to define this. She refused this particular married couple because of their sexes. This isn't complicated. Or so you would think.
 
tres borrachos said:
Because she prepares taxes for married couples, yes or no? If the answer is yes, then she refused to prepare them for this couple because they are both female. That is by every definition of the Indiana laws illegal.
Click to expand...

This would be interesting to see decided in court, I can see your argument, and again, on the flip, she has provided services for females in the past, it would be equally hard to prove she discriminates against females, by showing she has serviced females.

So the question would be, WHY these TWO females.....the only logical answer is, because they tried to file jointly as a married couple....
 
sjmay said:
How on earth are you going to prove that, when the client who saw her the previous four years......was female.
Click to expand...
Again, the proof is right in front of us...

She refused to prepare their taxes because they were both female
 
sjmay said:
Thank you, that case says that all 50 states and territories must recognize same sex marriages, it says nothing about private business's having to do the same.

As it stands the only protected discriminatory categories are race, color, religion and origin. This case did not change that.
Click to expand...
It says a lot more than that.

Let me know when you catch up
 
tres borrachos said:
Because she prepares taxes for married couples, yes or no? If the answer is yes, then she refused to prepare them for this couple because they are both female. That is by every definition of the Indiana laws illegal.
Click to expand...

God, I really hope I don't run into any idiots like this in the future.
 
sjmay said:
This would be interesting to see decided in court, I can see your argument, and again, on the flip, she has provided services for females in the past, it would be equally hard to prove she discriminates against females, by showing she has serviced females.

So the question would be, WHY these TWO females.....the only logical answer is, because they tried to file jointly as a married couple....
Click to expand...
The only difference between same sex marriages and opposite sex couples is the sex of the couples.

If she serves one but not the other then it is sex based discrimination because THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE
 
sangha said:
The only difference between same sex marriages and opposite sex couples is the sex of the couples.

If she serves one but not the other then it is sex based discrimination because THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE
Click to expand...

Like I said, it would be interesting to argue in court, it's not as cut and dry as you wish it to be, one can EASILY make the argument that it's not sex based discrimination because she has serviced females in the past, just as one can make your argument that it is, because she refused two females.

It would really get at the matter of what was in the heart etc, it would be hard to argue that she discriminated against sexual orientation because she serviced the one before, but as a tax preparer, would she have known she was homosexual? Does that make a difference?

It would be much easier to create legislation to protect the rights nationally, but that would require Congress to actually do work.
 
TheGoverness said:
God, I really hope I don't run into any idiots like this in the future.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. I seriously recommend staying away from towns and villages with a church on every corner. Big cities like Houston, or college towns like Austin might be alright though.
 
sjmay said:
Like I said, it would be interesting to argue in court, it's not as cut and dry as you wish it to be, one can EASILY make the argument that it's not sex based discrimination because she has serviced females in the past, just as one can make your argument that it is, because she refused two females.

It would really get at the matter of what was in the heart etc, it would be hard to argue that she discriminated against sexual orientation because she serviced the one before, but as a tax preparer, would she have known she was homosexual? Does that make a difference?

It would be much easier to create legislation to protect the rights nationally, but that would require Congress to actually do work.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter that she does taxes for females because they were single.

The fact that she didn't discriminate based on sex in some cases doesn't mean it's legal for her to discriminate based on sex in other cases
 
TheGoverness said:
God, I really hope I don't run into any idiots like this in the future.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't either, Governess. Hopefully your generation will help end the senseless hatred that has creeped into American government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom