Will Republicans ever learn? Indiana governor to sign bill allowing business not to serve gays

[bodecea]

Everyone - let's get back on topic please.

When have the homosexuals posted anything other than personal attacks?

Pobrecito.

 

[Dana7360]

No, the reason people are becoming hostile towards gays is because they are tired of constantly having the gay lifestyle rubbed in their faces. They are tired of having their kids brainwashed with gay propaganda in schools. They are tired of being forced to cater to gay events. They are tired of seeing gay pride parades and grown men masturbating in public. They are tired of being hectored by gay activists.

You mean like the gay bashers constantly berate the gays and make it out like the gays are an abomination on mankind? You think only gays masterbate? WTF is wrong with you?

None of what that poster typed is any reason to discriminate against anyone.

All that poster did was list petty and childish excuses why that poster wants to discriminate against gay people.

And none of it is a good excuse.

This law will be ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the 14th amendment. I will be surprised if it ever is actually implemented.

The 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee you access to someone's property. Moron.

You're not making any sense.

The government can't legally pass laws that are in violation of our constitution.

Which is what the people of Indiana have done. They've passed a law that's in violation of the 16th amendment and it will quickly be ruled unconstitutional.

The government of Indiana now has a law that treats some people different from everyone else. Which is a violation of the 16th amendment.

I don't know what you mean by private property but it's very clear to me you don't seem to have actually read that document and understood what it means.

I think you meant the 14th. The 16th is income tax.

Yes I did. Somehow I hit the 6 instead of the 4.

I corrected it when I saw the post.

Thank you.

 

[bodecea]

So...why be a coward about putting a "I don't serve.........." in a prominent place at your business entrance?

You know why, you stupid slut. That's like putting a target on your business so sleazy operators like you can attack it.

In other words, you want them to be able to keep their dirty little secrets and humiliate unknowing patrons publically. Sweet.

Where do you get the idea that you're entitled to know everything you want to know about a business? Should we put everyone on a polygraph and force them to testify about their sexual orientation?

You homosexual lovers act exactly like goose stepping Nazis.

Sounds like a strawman you're building.

If a restaurant doesn't allow small children say - they post a sign. If they insist patrons must wear a shirt and shoes - they post a sign. If a place does not allow dogs - they post a sign.

But if they don't serve gays - they don't post a sign.

Go figure

If they don't allow small children, they aren't going to be assaulted and picketed by swarms of angry homosexuals. Most people are civil, but not homosexuals. We have firmly established that fact in this very thread.

Fear of homosexuals rules your day.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Had you not cleverly edited my post, you too would agree that there is no place in a free society for the concept of branding what some, not all, people view as undesirables

In fact, I do find some people undesirable, liberty means in fact that I can do so without government telling me otherwise. I don't always go about my daily life letting people know if I find them undesirable, simply as a common courtesy. But I will make my beliefs known, liberty means that nobody can change my beliefs, or supplant them with their own.

But what I see here is both sides making it clear that A) Christians are undesirable because they are bigoted towards homosexuals, or B) Gays are undesirable because they unfairly and in some cases in a passive aggressive manner force a Christian business owner to serve them. Outside the bounds of their faith. So in essence you let the branding of others as "bigots" by certain posters in this thread pass, while not condemning it. This conflicts with your position.

There is no place in society where others can or should dictate the terms of another's liberty because it conflicts with theirs.

(By the way, I didn't edit your post. That's against forum rules.)

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberty is my right to access the public market place.

Not endorsing any side of this discussion, but liberty, in theory, could also mean my right to run the business I paid for without compromising my religiously held values.

Just an observation...

Liberty is the freedom to hold views without government intervention, no matter how noxious they may appear to the majority. Thus, homophobia can be expressed, even to the point of petitioning the government to deny homosexuals right and privileges held by heterosexuals, such as marriage. The fact is such a petition will not have the force of law if the principles inherent in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to our Constitution are to have any meaning.

 

[Coyote]

Wonderful. The no Jews or Christians gas station is in business. Have fun kiddos.

BTW, if you don't serve faggots and others, expect to have your business tagged, because it soon will be.

Indiana General Assembly 2015 Session

Religion is protected. So are women, and races......but not gays.......yet.

Here's the issue I have:

I see how gay people want more than just the right to marry, some of them insist on having more rights than everyone else. I support treating them equally, not preferentially.

Which "more rights" are those?

 

[RKMBrown]

Liberty is my right to access the public market place.

Not endorsing any side of this discussion, but liberty, in theory, could also mean my right to run the business I paid for without compromising my religiously held values.

Just an observation...

Did I say liberty is my right to access? If so, my bad, I meant one example of a liberty is the right to access the public market place. But yes holding your religiously held values while providing product to the public market place would be another liberty. Not saying it's not a liberty. I'm subjectively weighing which is harm. The extreme homophobic religious view appears to be it is sacrilegious to sell products to homos, much like some think it's sacrilegious to eat or even touch cloven meat on the Sabbath. IOW those folks believe that their religion makes it sacrilegious sell to gays. Thus they believe they should be passing judgement on gays, by refusing them their goods. Clearly there is harm there. On the other hand the guy buying the goods is not harming he's paying...

Seems to me if your religion directs you to go against public laws... then you need to stop selling to the public so you won't go to hell. I mean what if some gay person comes in and buys your cake, then tells you afterwards that they are gay. Do you now have the right to put that gay person in jail for pretending to be hetero? If not, then there really was no harm was there?

 

[RKMBrown]

Liberty is my right to access the public market place.

Not endorsing any side of this discussion, but liberty, in theory, could also mean my right to run the business I paid for without compromising my religiously held values.

Just an observation...

Liberty is the freedom to hold views without government intervention, no matter how noxious they may appear to the majority. Thus, homophobia can be expressed, even to the point of petitioning the government to deny homosexuals right and privileges held by heterosexuals, such as marriage. The fact is such a petition will not have the force of law if the principles inherent in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to our Constitution are to have any meaning.

No. Liberty is not the liberty to harm others.

 

[Stephanie]

If I don't want to do business with someone that is OUR RIGHT. I don't care who the hell you are.

all this law is protect people and businesses from being SUED by you people who demands to force yourself on others

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Your MO is a constant spew of personal attacks.

Do you think that makes you look smart?

if there was ever an Avatar that fits the poster yours is it....

 

[Nosmo King]

Had you not cleverly edited my post, you too would agree that there is no place in a free society for the concept of branding what some, not all, people view as undesirables

In fact, I do find some people undesirable, liberty means in fact that I can do so without government telling me otherwise. I don't always go about my daily life letting people know if I find them undesirable, simply as a common courtesy. But I will make my beliefs known, liberty means that nobody can change my beliefs, or supplant them with their own.

But what I see here is both sides making it clear that A) Christians are undesirable because they are bigoted towards homosexuals, or B) Gays are undesirable because they unfairly and in some cases in a passive aggressive manner force a Christian business owner to serve them. Outside the bounds of their faith. So in essence you let the branding of others as "bigots" by certain posters in this thread pass, while not condemning it. This conflicts with your position.

There is no place in society where others can or should dictate the terms of another's liberty because it conflicts with theirs.

(By the way, I didn't edit your post. That's against forum rules.)

I am a Christian and a heterosexual. I do not believe Christians are undesirable. I believe those who wrap themselves in righteous indignation and a warped understanding of true Christian values in order to justify denying others access to businesses serving the public are bigots. No more, no less.

I further believe that any action taken by bigots that makes others feel less than free has no place in the Land of the Free. I see it as the height of hypocrisy and a dilution of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Those without sin should cast the first stone. Judge not least ye be judged. Love one another as you would be loved. Where in His teachings does He say all that applies except to homosexuals.

If those merchants want to discriminate based on their warped interpretation of Christianity, they should proudly proclaim their disdain, fear and suspicions by posting a warning to all customers. At least that way, the public could be aware that here is a merchant who does not believe that rights should extend to all American citizens.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Anyone who is as hostile about it as you is almost certainly a homosexual.

Furthermore, there is no right to be served by any business.

Someone posting like you confirms you are "an entitled white man and a 10 on the manly scale in your dreams"

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

They believe that we should only be allowed to do what the government specifically says is allowed, and everything else is not permitted.

I oppose all marijuana laws specially the Federal Government's laws on marijuana

 

[TemplarKormac]

Liberty is the freedom to hold views without government intervention, no matter how noxious they may appear to the majority.

So, just as an observation, why is the minority dictating those terms? Liberty isn't something that can be dictated by a majority or minority.

Thus, homophobia can be expressed, even to the point of petitioning the government to deny homosexuals right and privileges held by heterosexuals, such as marriage.

I'm going out on a whim here and saying that not being served at a proprietorship by a Christian business owner does in no way impact how or when a homosexual can get married. I have already made clear that laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional, but not being served by someone does not in fact stop a homosexual from getting married. Even still, open discrimination is wrong.

The fact is such a petition will not have the force of law if the principles inherent in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to our Constitution are to have any meaning.

The Declaration of Independence itself has no force of law. If you want the specific phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you can refer to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, "life, liberty, and property."

It's also ironic how conservatives and liberals bandy about the Constitution, assuming it makes them an authority on such. Does it really? All I see here is one side using it to infringe on the liberties of the other.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Liberty is not the liberty to harm others.

Precisely.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Indiana's Governor Pence said “Today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.”

Government action is GOP theocratic code for the U.S. Constitution...shred that Document ....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberty is the freedom to hold views without government intervention, no matter how noxious they may appear to the majority.

So, just as an observation, why is the minority dictating those terms? Liberty isn't something that can be dictated by a majority or minority.

Thus, homophobia can be expressed, even to the point of petitioning the government to deny homosexuals right and privileges held by heterosexuals, such as marriage.

I'm going out on a whim here and saying that not being served at a proprietorship by a Christian business owner does in no way impact how or when a homosexual can get married. I have already made clear that laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional, but not being served by someone does not in fact stop a homosexual from getting married. Even still, open discrimination is wrong.

The fact is such a petition will not have the force of law if the principles inherent in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to our Constitution are to have any meaning.

The Declaration of Independence itself has no force of law. If you want the specific phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you can refer to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, "life, liberty, and property."

It's also ironic how conservatives and liberals bandy about the Constitution, assuming it makes them an authority on such. Does it really? All I see here is one side using it to infringe on the liberties of the other.

Damn, can't you read? "the principles in the DoI and the Preamble..." is what I posted, the principles are not laws, they are ideas and values.

Of course not "be served" is not the same as keeping a homosexual from marriage. I didn't say that and abstract thinkers understood the point I was making.

As for liberty, it is an abstraction too; only concrete thinker's believe the COTUS granted us the license to do what we want, when and where we want to, without restriction or limitations.

 

[squeeze berry]

how do you know not to serve "gays"

do they have a T-shirt proclaiming they are queers?
gay tattooed on their forehead?
they start queering out on each other when they get to the business?


or
they demand stupid shit b/c they are gay?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberty is my right to access the public market place.

Not endorsing any side of this discussion, but liberty, in theory, could also mean my right to run the business I paid for without compromising my religiously held values.

Just an observation...

Liberty is the freedom to hold views without government intervention, no matter how noxious they may appear to the majority. Thus, homophobia can be expressed, even to the point of petitioning the government to deny homosexuals right and privileges held by heterosexuals, such as marriage. The fact is such a petition will not have the force of law if the principles inherent in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to our Constitution are to have any meaning.

No. Liberty is not the liberty to harm others.

And refusing people the service your business provides others is HARM.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I believe those who wrap themselves in righteous indignation and a warped understanding of true Christian values in order to justify denying others access to businesses serving the public are bigots.

I believe those who wrap themselves in the causes of liberty to justify making someone go against their faith to be bigoted also. Oh, and I don't recall ever asking you for your interpretation of Christianity. Everyone has their own interpretation of Christianity, but we are all in fact Christians. But you must also, as a Christian, understand that you shouldn't interfere with the personal relationship someone else has with God. Go read Romans 14:13-23. I use the Bible to dictate my Christian values, not you.

If those merchants want to discriminate based on their warped interpretation of Christianity, they should proudly proclaim their disdain, fear and suspicions by posting a warning to all customers.

They can't. That's the problem. If they do, they risk their livelihoods. There is a big line between serving the public, and allowing the public to dictate your beliefs. If you don't want people dictating where gays can do business, don't dictate to a business who they can do business with. I think the idea of "freedom of association" applies (somewhat) here, to BOTH sides.

At least that way, the public could be aware that here is a merchant who does not believe that rights should extend to all American citizens.

Ironic you speak of "rights" when you can just as easily use your beliefs as a means to do the same. I said in another thread that there needs to be a compromise, something that doesn't infringe on the rights of either. This issue shouldn't be one sided.