This Pizza Parlor Is Indiana s First Business to Deny Service to LGBT Customers - Eater
This article cites business owners who agree with the Indiana law protecting their right to exercise beliefs without getting sued for discrimination.
I AGREE they have the right to their beliefs, but this should be practiced consistently.
Where this IS getting discriminatory:
1. They don't treat heterosexual adulterers, fornicators, and abusers equally as homosexual ones
If the focus is on adultery (relations with someone other than one's spiritual intended partner)
or on fornication (sexual relations outside a committed spiritual / marital relationship),
then both heterosexual and homosexual partners should be judged the same way on those grounds:
that they are "abusing relationships" or "abusing sex."
Only targeting the homosexual couples is unfair, next to the adulterous or abusive relations of
heterosexuals that are just as in violation. "And if these people do not repent of their sin,
some people don't believe in doing business with them."
So if you are going to "refuse to do business with fornicators"
then kick out both the heterosexual and the homosexual abusers alike.
2. On that note, NO the STATE has no authority to force people to be consistent with their beliefs.
Otherwise, the Democrats could not go around defending political beliefs in "prochoice" for abortion
but "antichoice" for health care choices to go through govt, insurance or private means of health care.
So this is where the PEOPLE have to agree that the discrimination going on
STILL has to be resolved by FREE CHOICE and cannot be legislated, one way or the other,
either by legislation or by court ruling.
Trying to dictate to the people how to handle WHICH cases of WHICH beliefs
are discriminatory or not is up to the PEOPLE and not the job of the State to "dictate by law or ruling."
The people need to work this out among themselves, per state.
3. What I have suggested is having businesses sign Waivers with customers
agreeing to resolve any disputes by mediation and consensus, or else do not do business together.
So the rejection is MUTUAL if they don't have the same beliefs, or if these cannot be resolved civilly.
The issue is whether people can resolve their different beliefs,
instead of judging when or where one side is discriminating against the other.
Both sides are in conflict, so it is mutual. One side should not be punished more or less than the other.
Mediation to resolve conflicts and facilitate a consensus would protect and respect all beliefs equally,
and either arrive at a satisfactory conclusion they all agree includes them fairly, or they accept not to do business together without penalizing or discriminating against one party more than the other.
This article cites business owners who agree with the Indiana law protecting their right to exercise beliefs without getting sued for discrimination.
I AGREE they have the right to their beliefs, but this should be practiced consistently.
Where this IS getting discriminatory:
1. They don't treat heterosexual adulterers, fornicators, and abusers equally as homosexual ones
If the focus is on adultery (relations with someone other than one's spiritual intended partner)
or on fornication (sexual relations outside a committed spiritual / marital relationship),
then both heterosexual and homosexual partners should be judged the same way on those grounds:
that they are "abusing relationships" or "abusing sex."
Only targeting the homosexual couples is unfair, next to the adulterous or abusive relations of
heterosexuals that are just as in violation. "And if these people do not repent of their sin,
some people don't believe in doing business with them."
So if you are going to "refuse to do business with fornicators"
then kick out both the heterosexual and the homosexual abusers alike.
2. On that note, NO the STATE has no authority to force people to be consistent with their beliefs.
Otherwise, the Democrats could not go around defending political beliefs in "prochoice" for abortion
but "antichoice" for health care choices to go through govt, insurance or private means of health care.
So this is where the PEOPLE have to agree that the discrimination going on
STILL has to be resolved by FREE CHOICE and cannot be legislated, one way or the other,
either by legislation or by court ruling.
Trying to dictate to the people how to handle WHICH cases of WHICH beliefs
are discriminatory or not is up to the PEOPLE and not the job of the State to "dictate by law or ruling."
The people need to work this out among themselves, per state.
3. What I have suggested is having businesses sign Waivers with customers
agreeing to resolve any disputes by mediation and consensus, or else do not do business together.
So the rejection is MUTUAL if they don't have the same beliefs, or if these cannot be resolved civilly.
The issue is whether people can resolve their different beliefs,
instead of judging when or where one side is discriminating against the other.
Both sides are in conflict, so it is mutual. One side should not be punished more or less than the other.
Mediation to resolve conflicts and facilitate a consensus would protect and respect all beliefs equally,
and either arrive at a satisfactory conclusion they all agree includes them fairly, or they accept not to do business together without penalizing or discriminating against one party more than the other.
