Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, I mean society, of which the government is but a reflection.Exactly how many posts will I be required to make before you understand that businesses don't get to make up the rules they follow, society does?I agree, however doctors do have the right to choose who they treat except in a life threatening emergency as long as their reason relates to the practice of medicine. With this new law, I guess a doctor could reject a patient because they are gay.That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.
What I find strange about this law, is that it makes the assumption that a business owner will be able to determine that a person is gay by their appearance or action. The fact is there are millions of men who are effeminate but aren't gay just as there are women that have masculine features but aren't lesbians. Heterosexual men and women will often show affection to members of their own sex. If will be interesting to see the reaction of heterosexuals when they have been denied service because they have been labeled as being gay; should make interesting lawsuits.
This law will certainly joint the long list of America' stupidest laws.
I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the government has the right to tell a baker that he has to cater to a gay person if he doesn't wish too. If it is your own business, it should be your decision. It would be a stupid decision, and they will lose customers. Also, it's important to know who exactly you are doing business with.
That's what's wrong with this "society" (government is what you really mean).
You make it here, you do so by following our rules. When you don't, we spank you black and blue.
It's human history, regardless of where, and when, you look.Humans are a disease. And it has nothing at all to do with feelings.They are not so ignorant today because our laws, written in the past, showed them that they were wrong.The reason why you believe as you do, is because we passed laws, decades ago, based upon that morality. Had we not, the bigotry of the old would be the norm, even today. We made the laws that helped along the morality, and you, you followed along by accepting them...
So basically what you are saying is that, without government intervention, people can't make their OWN mind?You are obviously out of touch. People are not so ignorant anymore, for the most part. Bigotry like that, from everything I've seen, is much more rare. Just HOW MANY business owners do you think are going to ban gays? Most businesses are in business for the money. You just seem to want to force your views on everyone, and you can't do that anymore than the religious people can force theirs on you!
You have faith in humans acting on their own. Don't, history clearly shows that doesn't work and that is why we legislate morality. We always have, and we always will. Humans are tiny demons when left to their own devices, which is why no society on earth does such a thing.
Look, I'm not surprised you feel that way. YOU are one of the extremists I was referring too.I don't think people are angels, but I think they are better than you give them credit for. Basically you think that the majority of people are bigots, and that's understandable from a person who thinks people are parasites.
When you start dealing with reality, you will start to understand why we regulate businesses, and morality. Left to their own, humans would leave us knee-deep in the blood of the throats they slit.
You see? Extremist.
True in all cases my little infant.Humans are a disease, obviously.Again, it could very well happen. Doctors are supposed to put healing before their own personal opinions. That is their job. Besides, I only said that such people have no business being doctors, and they don't because they wouldn't be very good doctors. Thankfully, most doctors are intelligent enough and dedicated enough that they wouldn't do that, but you never know.
Again ... It isn't happening ... It doesn't matter what imaginary crap you think might happen.
There are no doctors you think wouldn't be good doctors for not doing what they aren't doing to start with.
Instead of thinking the worst of people for no reason other than the desire to think of imaginary crap ... Why don't you spend your time building a corral for unicorns?
I mean there aren't any unicorns ... But there could be.
.
The worst of people is being demonstrated on this forum every single day.
True in your case.
Past your bedtime my little infant, obviously.No, I mean society, of which the government is but a reflection.Exactly how many posts will I be required to make before you understand that businesses don't get to make up the rules they follow, society does?I agree, however doctors do have the right to choose who they treat except in a life threatening emergency as long as their reason relates to the practice of medicine. With this new law, I guess a doctor could reject a patient because they are gay.
What I find strange about this law, is that it makes the assumption that a business owner will be able to determine that a person is gay by their appearance or action. The fact is there are millions of men who are effeminate but aren't gay just as there are women that have masculine features but aren't lesbians. Heterosexual men and women will often show affection to members of their own sex. If will be interesting to see the reaction of heterosexuals when they have been denied service because they have been labeled as being gay; should make interesting lawsuits.
This law will certainly joint the long list of America' stupidest laws.
I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the government has the right to tell a baker that he has to cater to a gay person if he doesn't wish too. If it is your own business, it should be your decision. It would be a stupid decision, and they will lose customers. Also, it's important to know who exactly you are doing business with.
That's what's wrong with this "society" (government is what you really mean).
No, you mean government. Libturds like you always say society when you mean government. Society isn't capable of acting. You can't even define it concretely. Government is the only entity capable of taking action.
You make it here, you do so by following our rules. When you don't, we spank you black and blue.
That's the essence of fascism: the belief that there is no limit to what government can impose on you. Your ethics are no better than the ethics of a Nazi. Gee . . I forgot, you are a frickin Nazi.
I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it is entirely untrue. A Free Country is not Anarchy, it has rules, meaning laws, about freedom no less.So you are posting Sunday School Americanism, and ignoring reality entirely then? Carry on.Exactly how many posts will I be required to make before you understand that businesses don't get to make up the rules, meani they follow, society does?I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the government has the right to tell a baker that he has to cater to a gay person if he doesn't wish too. If it is your own business, it should be your decision. It would be a stupid decision, and they will lose customers. Also, it's important to know who exactly you are doing business with.
Lol. Well obviously not. This is supposed to be a FREE country.
Not at all. Government cannot legislate morality, especially in a FREE country.
These thumpers are really starting to piss me off!!!
Total freedom is Anarchy, I taught you that. Very few would ever want such a thing, and only those alone on an island of one have ever had it.I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it is entirely untrue. A Free Country is not Anarchy, it has rules, meaning laws, about freedom no less.So you are posting Sunday School Americanism, and ignoring reality entirely then? Carry on.Exactly how many posts will I be required to make before you understand that businesses don't get to make up the rules, meani they follow, society does?
Lol. Well obviously not. This is supposed to be a FREE country.
Not at all. Government cannot legislate morality, especially in a FREE country.
Actually, freedom is anarchy. Any trace of government is a limit on your freedom. It's certainly a huge threat to your freedom.
I think there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. Judge Spense in his ruling in Colorado state wrote, "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are." One has to question what religious beliefs are being violated? Jesus lived among and embraced sinners. His message was of love and forgiveness, not hate.I agree, however doctors do have the right to choose who they treat except in a life threatening emergency as long as their reason relates to the practice of medicine. With this new law, I guess a doctor could reject a patient because they are gay.Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.
The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.
Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.
.
That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.
What I find strange about this law, is that it makes the assumption that a business owner will be able to determine that a person is gay by their appearance or action. The fact is there are millions of men who are effeminate but aren't gay just as there are women that have masculine features but aren't lesbians. Heterosexual men and women will often show affection to members of their own sex. If will be interesting to see the reaction of heterosexuals when they have been denied service because they have been labeled as being gay; should make interesting lawsuits.
This law will certainly joint the long list of America' stupidest laws.
I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the government has the right to tell a baker that he has to cater to a gay person if he doesn't wish too. If it is your own business, it should be your decision. It would be a stupid decision, and they will lose customers. Also, it's important to know who exactly you are doing business with.
It's human history, regardless of where, and when, you look.Humans are a disease. And it has nothing at all to do with feelings.They are not so ignorant today because our laws, written in the past, showed them that they were wrong.So basically what you are saying is that, without government intervention, people can't make their OWN mind?
You have faith in humans acting on their own. Don't, history clearly shows that doesn't work and that is why we legislate morality. We always have, and we always will. Humans are tiny demons when left to their own devices, which is why no society on earth does such a thing.
Look, I'm not surprised you feel that way. YOU are one of the extremists I was referring too.
When you start dealing with reality, you will start to understand why we regulate businesses, and morality. Left to their own, humans would leave us knee-deep in the blood of the throats they slit.
You see? Extremist.
When you start dealing with reality, you will start to understand why we regulate businesses, and morality. Left to their own, humans would leave us knee-deep in the blood of the throats they slit.
If a baker can say no to doing a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs, then why shouldn't the town plumber, grocery, pharmacist, or dentist be able to do so.
The legal definition of Due Process:
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also,a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.
If a baker can say no to doing a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs, then why shouldn't the town plumber, grocery, pharmacist, or dentist be able to do so.
ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
If a gay pair, triad or whatever else would be legal by the precedent in 20 years hence asks a Christian to promote the spread of their culture (they aren't a race) by assiting what a Christan is commanded to consider heresy (the defiling of the structural meaning of the word "marriage") by announcing the service they want is for their "marriage", then a Christian has every right to refuse. If the Christian knows the person is gay, the Bible does not command them not to sell them groceries or whatever.
That's true. What this law does is make any legal recourse for denial of service based on religious grounds by the baker, plumber, grocery, or any business nearly impossible. The broadening of the definition or "exercise of religion" and other definitions allow a business to deny service for religious reasons without having to worry about legal repercussions. Someone who never put their foot in a church will be able to use religious beliefs as reason for denial of service.If a baker can say no to doing a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs, then why shouldn't the town plumber, grocery, pharmacist, or dentist be able to do so.
The Indiana law doesn't treat the baker any different than the plumber, grocer, pharmacist or dentist.
In fact it doesn't say anything about sexual orientation for that matter.
.
That's true. What this law does is make any legal recourse for denial of service based on religious grounds by the baker, plumber, grocery, or any business nearly impossible. The broadening of the definition or "exercise of religion" and other definitions allow a business to deny service for religious reasons without having to worry about legal repercussions. Someone who never put their foot in a church will be able to use religious beliefs as reason for denial of service.
Since this legislation is an addtional chapter consisting of mostly definitions added to Indiana Code I34-13, you have to read it in that context to understand the impact.
Religious liberty or discrimination Read the text of Indiana s religious freedom law - The Washington Post
That's true. What this law does is make any legal recourse for denial of service based on religious grounds by the baker, plumber, grocery, or any business nearly impossible. The broadening of the definition or "exercise of religion" and other definitions allow a business to deny service for religious reasons without having to worry about legal repercussions. Someone who never put their foot in a church will be able to use religious beliefs as reason for denial of service.If a baker can say no to doing a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs, then why shouldn't the town plumber, grocery, pharmacist, or dentist be able to do so.
The Indiana law doesn't treat the baker any different than the plumber, grocer, pharmacist or dentist.
In fact it doesn't say anything about sexual orientation for that matter.
.
Since this legislation is an addtional chapter consisting of mostly definitions added to Indiana Code I34-13, you have to read it in that context to understand the impact.
Religious liberty or discrimination Read the text of Indiana s religious freedom law - The Washington Post
When did you make the decision to be straight?
This is a civil rights battle and all the usual suspects are lined up on the losing side.Faggots should stop suing people who refuse to cater to their "lifestyle" and laws like this wouldn't be needed but of course the people in the right are blamed as usual. Indiana will survive and faggots will get over it.
Lifestyle choice is not a civil right.
Lifestyle choice and sexual orientation are two different things.
Now you know.
This legislation will do little to hurt or stop the gay movement. I think a governor with national political ambitions and a legislature anxious to please Christian conservative supporters is what this legislation is about. Mike Pence, who's been casting his eyes on 2016, was loosing favor with the Tea Party. This legislation regardless of what it may or may not accomplish is sure to get points from the Tea Party and the Christian Coalition.That's true. What this law does is make any legal recourse for denial of service based on religious grounds by the baker, plumber, grocery, or any business nearly impossible. The broadening of the definition or "exercise of religion" and other definitions allow a business to deny service for religious reasons without having to worry about legal repercussions. Someone who never put their foot in a church will be able to use religious beliefs as reason for denial of service.
Since this legislation is an addtional chapter consisting of mostly definitions added to Indiana Code I34-13, you have to read it in that context to understand the impact.
Religious liberty or discrimination Read the text of Indiana s religious freedom law - The Washington Post
Yeah ... I have read the text of the law.
But the objections based on ambiguous projections are just as useless as suggesting religion only exists within the boundaries of a church when it comes to the prosecution of the law. I am not arguing over what could be ... I am expressing there are better ways to provide better protections for "sexual orientation" than arguing over ambiguous hypothetical scenarios. The first would result in accomplishing something worthwhile ... While the latter does nothing more than progress division politics.
.
For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The problem with saying no to doctors who might want to deny service but yes to a funeral home is you get into a raft of extenuating circumstances. That doctor might be one of thousands that can render the service. A funeral home may be the only one in town. One hospital might feel they should have the right to say no because there are a number of other hospitals in the town but maybe the patient insurance is not accepted elsewhere. My point is there is an infinite number extenuation circumstances and that creates a real problem with providing equal treatment under the law.That's true. What this law does is make any legal recourse for denial of service based on religious grounds by the baker, plumber, grocery, or any business nearly impossible. The broadening of the definition or "exercise of religion" and other definitions allow a business to deny service for religious reasons without having to worry about legal repercussions. Someone who never put their foot in a church will be able to use religious beliefs as reason for denial of service.If a baker can say no to doing a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs, then why shouldn't the town plumber, grocery, pharmacist, or dentist be able to do so.
The Indiana law doesn't treat the baker any different than the plumber, grocer, pharmacist or dentist.
In fact it doesn't say anything about sexual orientation for that matter.
.
Since this legislation is an addtional chapter consisting of mostly definitions added to Indiana Code I34-13, you have to read it in that context to understand the impact.
Religious liberty or discrimination Read the text of Indiana s religious freedom law - The Washington Post
You are absolutely right, but I still don't think a business such as a bakery should HAVE to serve anyone. A doctor, a firefighter, a police officer, different story. I do think it is a really STUPID business practice though. Lol. I think capitalism will take care of this problem, just as it is doing with the boycotts right now. Businesses who employ such discriminatory practices will lose business. The business down the road that does not, will gain that business. They are only hurting themselves, IMO. No need to punish them with the law.
