Indiana is for Bigots - video and Pence running for cover

[bripat9643]

Of course they are. That's exactly what the queer Nazis are trying to do.

The queer nazis? Lol. Okay. I can see that there is no reasoning with you people. A hateful little man is what you are.

I'm done reasoning with queers. From now on it's all-out war on them.

And don't whine when you face a backlash from the educated public.

The "backlash" comes from the ignorant. You'll watch the queers trample your rights into dust and do nothing about it

What rights of mine are the "queers" trying to trample? The right to treat them like crap?

They are trampling the right to chose who you can associate with. The federal government pretty much already trampled into dust. Choosing not to associate with queers was the last vestige of it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.

.

So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?

I think that discrimination between private individuals is just that...private.

Tell me the next time you hire a pedophile to babysit your children.

Oh, there's that hyperbole. Lol. This has NOTHING to do with pedophilia. Pedophilia is not between consenting adults and is illegal. Drop that stupid argument.

I didn't say a child molester, I said a pedophile, as defined by their sexual attraction. Why wouldn't you let a pedophile watch your kids?

Pedophiles ARE child molesters. Your analogy is retarded.

Not necessarily.

 

[bripat9643]

Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.

.

So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?

I think that discrimination between private individuals is just that...private.

Tell me the next time you hire a pedophile to babysit your children.

Or even someone who seems a little creepy.

Problem with that is that having someone babysit your child is NOT a business venture.

So......you have a right to discriminate but businesses don't? When did the Constitution become null and void once somebody goes into business?

It happened under the fascist FDR.

 

[ChrisL]

Gotta go. Gotta go to work now.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?

I think that discrimination between private individuals is just that...private.

Tell me the next time you hire a pedophile to babysit your children.

Or even someone who seems a little creepy.

Problem with that is that having someone babysit your child is NOT a business venture.

So......you have a right to discriminate but businesses don't? When did the Constitution become null and void once somebody goes into business?

It happened under the fascist FDR.

There's the problem, we've gotten so used to it that few question the right of government to dictate private associations.

 

[Flopper]

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

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.

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.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't this law would extend to any public services, like police, fire departments. I also THINK it's already against the law for a hospital to turn away a sick patient.

With your funeral home example, though, that would be an inconvenience to the gay person, that's pretty much about it. They might have to go to the next town over or something.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with bigotry and think that it's terrible, but I think it is a private business owner's right to do business with who he or she chooses. That doesn't make it right though. I think it's asinine just to be clear. I just think the government has no right to say you MUST do business with this person if you own a small private business.

The guaranteed right to public access in regard to businesses is a hotly contested issue. California has such a law and the courts have ruled in both directions a number of times.

Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? In cases not involving discrimination of a protected class, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The test that is usually applied is whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific business interest in refusing service. For example, a business in California refused to admit punk rockers and the owner was brought to court. He was able to show that admitting this type of clientele would be damaging to the business and the judge agreed. The key criteria is whether the business owner is making a business decision or personal one.

Denial of service can be devastating or just an inconvenience but it's almost always a humiliating experience.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

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.

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.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't this law would extend to any public services, like police, fire departments. I also THINK it's already against the law for a hospital to turn away a sick patient.

With your funeral home example, though, that would be an inconvenience to the gay person, that's pretty much about it. They might have to go to the next town over or something.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with bigotry and think that it's terrible, but I think it is a private business owner's right to do business with who he or she chooses. That doesn't make it right though. I think it's asinine just to be clear. I just think the government has no right to say you MUST do business with this person if you own a small private business.

The guaranteed right to public access in regard to businesses is a hotly contested issue. California has such a law and the courts have ruled in both directions a number of times.

Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? In cases not involving discrimination of a protected class, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The test that is usually applied is whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific business interest in refusing service. For example, a business in California refused to admit punk rockers and the owner was brought to court. He was able to show that admitting this type of clientele would be damaging to the business and the judge agreed. The key criteria is whether the business owner is making a business decision or personal one.

Denial of service can be devastating or just an inconvenience but it's almost always a humiliating experience.

It's also exceptionally rare. It's a delusion of the Left that if freedom of association were restored, rampant racism would ensue with "whites only" signs in every merchant's window. The truth is most business owners are business oriented and welcome every customer they can get in their doors. And the few that would discriminate would not go unscathed. Let's say someone did have such a sign in their window, would you ever shop there? Neither would I. Neither would a lot of people. People for the most part are not nearly the bigots you imagine them to be.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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.

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.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't this law would extend to any public services, like police, fire departments. I also THINK it's already against the law for a hospital to turn away a sick patient.

With your funeral home example, though, that would be an inconvenience to the gay person, that's pretty much about it. They might have to go to the next town over or something.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with bigotry and think that it's terrible, but I think it is a private business owner's right to do business with who he or she chooses. That doesn't make it right though. I think it's asinine just to be clear. I just think the government has no right to say you MUST do business with this person if you own a small private business.

The guaranteed right to public access in regard to businesses is a hotly contested issue. California has such a law and the courts have ruled in both directions a number of times.

Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? In cases not involving discrimination of a protected class, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The test that is usually applied is whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific business interest in refusing service. For example, a business in California refused to admit punk rockers and the owner was brought to court. He was able to show that admitting this type of clientele would be damaging to the business and the judge agreed. The key criteria is whether the business owner is making a business decision or personal one.

Denial of service can be devastating or just an inconvenience but it's almost always a humiliating experience.

It's also exceptionally rare. It's a delusion of the Left that if freedom of association were restored, rampant racism would ensue with "whites only" signs in every merchant's window. The truth is most business owners are business oriented and welcome every customer they can get in their doors. And the few that would discriminate would not go unscathed. Let's say someone did have such a sign in their window, would you ever shop there? Neither would I. Neither would a lot of people. People for the most part are not nearly the bigots you imagine them to be.

If they had a sign that said "no queers," I would be happy to shop there.

 

[Flopper]

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

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.

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.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't this law would extend to any public services, like police, fire departments. I also THINK it's already against the law for a hospital to turn away a sick patient.

With your funeral home example, though, that would be an inconvenience to the gay person, that's pretty much about it. They might have to go to the next town over or something.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with bigotry and think that it's terrible, but I think it is a private business owner's right to do business with who he or she chooses. That doesn't make it right though. I think it's asinine just to be clear. I just think the government has no right to say you MUST do business with this person if you own a small private business.

The guaranteed right to public access in regard to businesses is a hotly contested issue. California has such a law and the courts have ruled in both directions a number of times.

Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? In cases not involving discrimination of a protected class, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The test that is usually applied is whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific business interest in refusing service. For example, a business in California refused to admit punk rockers and the owner was brought to court. He was able to show that admitting this type of clientele would be damaging to the business and the judge agreed. The key criteria is whether the business owner is making a business decision or personal one.

Denial of service can be devastating or just an inconvenience but it's almost always a humiliating experience.

It's also exceptionally rare. It's a delusion of the Left that if freedom of association were restored, rampant racism would ensue with "whites only" signs in every merchant's window. The truth is most business owners are business oriented and welcome every customer they can get in their doors. And the few that would discriminate would not go unscathed. Let's say someone did have such a sign in their window, would you ever shop there? Neither would I. Neither would a lot of people. People for the most part are not nearly the bigots you imagine them to be.

Actually I agree with most of your post. I doubt there would be more than a handful of businesses closing their doors to gays and lesbians. You don't make money in a business by denying service to your customers. Advertising that you don't serve gay and lesbians would turn away a lot of straight customers.

For government to tell businesses, it's ok with us it you want to discriminate against gays and lesbians sends a message that can hurt both businesses and the community. I would have never expected the legislature and governor to do something so stupid. They just as well have posted signs on the state borders that say gays and lesbians keep out.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't this law would extend to any public services, like police, fire departments. I also THINK it's already against the law for a hospital to turn away a sick patient.

With your funeral home example, though, that would be an inconvenience to the gay person, that's pretty much about it. They might have to go to the next town over or something.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with bigotry and think that it's terrible, but I think it is a private business owner's right to do business with who he or she chooses. That doesn't make it right though. I think it's asinine just to be clear. I just think the government has no right to say you MUST do business with this person if you own a small private business.

The guaranteed right to public access in regard to businesses is a hotly contested issue. California has such a law and the courts have ruled in both directions a number of times.

Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? In cases not involving discrimination of a protected class, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The test that is usually applied is whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific business interest in refusing service. For example, a business in California refused to admit punk rockers and the owner was brought to court. He was able to show that admitting this type of clientele would be damaging to the business and the judge agreed. The key criteria is whether the business owner is making a business decision or personal one.

Denial of service can be devastating or just an inconvenience but it's almost always a humiliating experience.

It's also exceptionally rare. It's a delusion of the Left that if freedom of association were restored, rampant racism would ensue with "whites only" signs in every merchant's window. The truth is most business owners are business oriented and welcome every customer they can get in their doors. And the few that would discriminate would not go unscathed. Let's say someone did have such a sign in their window, would you ever shop there? Neither would I. Neither would a lot of people. People for the most part are not nearly the bigots you imagine them to be.

Actually I agree with most of your post. I doubt there would be more than a handful of businesses closing their doors to gays and lesbians. You don't make money in a business by denying service to your customers. Advertising that you don't serve gay and lesbians would turn away a lot of straight customers.

However, for government to tell businesses, it's ok with us it you want to discriminate against gays and lesbians sends a message that can hurt both businesses and the community. I would have never expected the legislature and governor to do something so stupid. They just as well have posted signs on the state borders that say gays and lesbians keep out.

Government doesn't need to send any such message. It simply needs to stay out of our business.

According to your logic we should abolish the First Amendment because allowing people to publish racist books is "sending a message."

That's the lamest excuse for tyranny ever conceived.

 

[Flopper]

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.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't this law would extend to any public services, like police, fire departments. I also THINK it's already against the law for a hospital to turn away a sick patient.

With your funeral home example, though, that would be an inconvenience to the gay person, that's pretty much about it. They might have to go to the next town over or something.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with bigotry and think that it's terrible, but I think it is a private business owner's right to do business with who he or she chooses. That doesn't make it right though. I think it's asinine just to be clear. I just think the government has no right to say you MUST do business with this person if you own a small private business.

The guaranteed right to public access in regard to businesses is a hotly contested issue. California has such a law and the courts have ruled in both directions a number of times.

Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? In cases not involving discrimination of a protected class, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The test that is usually applied is whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific business interest in refusing service. For example, a business in California refused to admit punk rockers and the owner was brought to court. He was able to show that admitting this type of clientele would be damaging to the business and the judge agreed. The key criteria is whether the business owner is making a business decision or personal one.

Denial of service can be devastating or just an inconvenience but it's almost always a humiliating experience.

It's also exceptionally rare. It's a delusion of the Left that if freedom of association were restored, rampant racism would ensue with "whites only" signs in every merchant's window. The truth is most business owners are business oriented and welcome every customer they can get in their doors. And the few that would discriminate would not go unscathed. Let's say someone did have such a sign in their window, would you ever shop there? Neither would I. Neither would a lot of people. People for the most part are not nearly the bigots you imagine them to be.

Actually I agree with most of your post. I doubt there would be more than a handful of businesses closing their doors to gays and lesbians. You don't make money in a business by denying service to your customers. Advertising that you don't serve gay and lesbians would turn away a lot of straight customers.

However, for government to tell businesses, it's ok with us it you want to discriminate against gays and lesbians sends a message that can hurt both businesses and the community. I would have never expected the legislature and governor to do something so stupid. They just as well have posted signs on the state borders that say gays and lesbians keep out.

Government doesn't need to send any such message. It simply needs to stay out of our business.

According to your logic we should abolish the First Amendment because allowing people to publish racist books is "sending a message."

That's the lamest excuse for tyranny ever conceived.

To the contrary, I think the governor and the legislature should continue to exercise their First Amendment rights. Both the media and gay rights people love it.

 

[ChrisL]

WEll then what the hell are you arguing for here?

The more appropriate question would be ... What the hell are you arguing with me about?
You are the one that asked the fucking question in regards to my post ... Don't get pissy with me because you cannot follow the discussion.

.

Wrong again. Post #804, you responding to my post. Apparently you are the one who can't follow along. Lol.

So, what are you arguing about? What about my position do you disagree with.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Women Are Trolling Indiana's Anti-Abortion Governor With Updates on Their Periods

Never cross a woman scorned, or deprived of ownership of their own body.

 

[Kondor3]

Women Are Trolling Indiana's Anti-Abortion Governor With Updates on Their Periods

Never cross a woman scorned, or deprived of ownership of their own body.

" All hands... repel Drama Queens, starboard !!! "

 

[bripat9643]

Women Are Trolling Indiana's Anti-Abortion Governor With Updates on Their Periods

Never cross a woman scorned, or deprived of ownership of their own body.

What you really mean is that there is no bar so low that a radical leftist feminist won't slither under it.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Women Are Trolling Indiana's Anti-Abortion Governor With Updates on Their Periods

Never cross a woman scorned, or deprived of ownership of their own body.

What you really mean is that there is no bar so low that a radical leftist feminist won't slither under it.

You're projecting again, own your own thoughts.

And you are attacking the messenger. You need to drive to Indiana and show your support for Governor tampon.