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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

Have you flip flopped back to the anti-gay side already?

Why should someone be able to call a belief 'religious' and get special treatment from the government,

to the detriment of others?

 

[bodecea]

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....

His avatar is from a picture prominently displayed in a gay bar in Palm Springs.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

So the 'Liberty' of the merchants to conduct a discriminatory business trumps the Liberty of any and all American citizen. I could be cynical and infer that, to a Conservative, civil liberties mean less than capitalist Liberty.

Liberty for sale!

Horseshit. If a business wants to discriminat, they should at least have the guts their Conservative predecessors had durng the Jim Crow south.

But that shows them to be morally wrong. And that would harm their business. No matter the harm they do to others, their business is sacrosanct. Is Liberty something to be equivocated on a balance sheet?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Then I must ask why you would use the law to infringe on the liberty of someone who holds a religious belief? I also believe that all kinds of bigotry are wrong, whether if be from a Christian or a Homosexual.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So the 'Liberty' of the merchants to conduct a discriminatory business trumps the Liberty of any and all American citizen.

So, your concept of liberty trumps that of the liberty of this merchant to serve who he pleases. There's a reason I'm a libertarian you know. Government shouldn't be involved either way. Look where it has gotten us.

I could be cynical and infer that, to a Conservative, civil liberties mean less than capitalist Liberty.

Civil liberties are a double edged sword. Like I said earlier, you can't use your own liberty to infringe on the liberty of others, but then again, I could just be cynical.

If a business wants to discriminate, they should at least have the guts their Conservative predecessors had during the Jim Crow south.

That a disingenuous claim. Mayhap your argument is falling apart?

But that shows them to be morally wrong.

And you my friend have no place dictating the morals of others. Isn't that the argument you liberals use?

And that would harm their business.

Then let it. You are in no way obligated to shop there. Boycott freely. Don't cause further derision by making a spectacle out of someone.

No matter the harm they do to others, their business is sacrosanct. Is Liberty something to be equivocated on a balance sheet?

Really? But their religious liberty isn't? Is religious liberty something that can be equivocated on a balance sheet? Should religious freedom be weighed against the lifestyle choices of someone else?

Being gay does not make such a lifestyle sacrosanct to others, nor does someone's religious beliefs dictate what is sacrosanct to others either.

 

[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.

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

Not very often that you and I agree. But yes. Refusing the service your business provides others based on race, creed, sexual orientation etc. is harm. Refusing service for non payment... that's not harm, that's a consequence.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Then I must ask why you would use the law to infringe on the liberty of someone who holds a religious belief? I also believe that all kinds of bigotry are wrong, whether if be from a Christian or a Homosexual.

What if, yeah I know, my religious belief is that you should be stoned in the street for not wearing the right clothes. Is it then wrong for government to stop me from stoning you? Is that not infringing on my religious right to stone you, such as to death?

In my example the harm is visceral and more pronounced, so it is easier to see. In the subject we are discussing the harm is there but less pronounced for those who are not being denied access.

 

[Nosmo King]

So the 'Liberty' of the merchants to conduct a discriminatory business trumps the Liberty of any and all American citizen.

So, your concept of liberty trumps that of the liberty of this merchant to serve who he pleases. There's a reason I'm a libertarian you know. Government shouldn't be involved either way. Look where it has gotten us.

I could be cynical and infer that, to a Conservative, civil liberties mean less than capitalist Liberty.

Civil liberties are a double edged sword. Like I said earlier, you can't use your own liberty to infringe on the liberty of others, but then again, I could just be cynical.

If a business wants to discriminate, they should at least have the guts their Conservative predecessors had during the Jim Crow south.

That a disingenuous claim. Mayhap your argument is falling apart?

But that shows them to be morally wrong.

And you my friend have no place dictating the morals of others. Isn't that the argument you liberals use?

And that would harm their business.

Then let it. You are in no way obligated to shop there. Boycott freely. Don't cause further derision by making a spectacle out of someone.

No matter the harm they do to others, their business is sacrosanct. Is Liberty something to be equivocated on a balance sheet?

Really? But their religious liberty isn't? Is religious liberty something that can be equivocated on a balance sheet? Should religious freedom be weighed against the lifestyle choices of someone else?

Being gay does not make such a lifestyle sacrosanct to others, nor does someone's religious beliefs dictate what is sacrosanct to others either.

I cannot see any infringement on 'religious freedom'. If providing the exact same service provided to any other customer does not infringe on the proprietor's religios freedom, why is there a problem serving Gays?

Does that bigoted business owner have to undergo some ritualistic purification? Is he banned from church because he dared to serve homosexuals?

Claims of infringement of religion are sophistry.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

So is forcing someone to adhere to your lifestyle, causing them to be put out of business in order to appease your lifestyle is in fact HARM.

 

[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.

So is forcing someone to adhere to your lifestyle, causing them to be put out of business in order to appease your lifestyle is in fact HARM.

Everyone's a sinner. If a person can't serve sinners because of their religion, then they're in a fix.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is it then wrong for government to stop me from stoning you?

No. We have laws banning violent behavior against others, even in the name of religion.

In my example the harm is visceral and more pronounced, so it is easier to see.

I agree. It hurts everyone.

In the subject we are discussing the harm is there but less pronounced for those who are not being denied access.

But there has to be a way to compromise. Nobody's beliefs or lifestyles are sacrosanct. Why should this be any different?

 

[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.

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

So is forcing someone to adhere to your lifestyle, causing them to be put out of business in order to appease your lifestyle is in fact HARM.

Selling an item to a customer does not force the sell to adhere to the customer's lifestyle. That is a false meme.

 

[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.

So is forcing someone to adhere to your lifestyle, causing them to be put out of business in order to appease your lifestyle is in fact HARM.

I can sell a cup of coffee and a donut to an adulterer without having to engage in adultery myself.

Why can't you? You're weird.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I cannot see any infringement on 'religious freedom'.

You don't want to. All you wish to see is compliance, even if at the point of the proverbial gun.

If providing the exact same service provided to any other customer does not infringe on the proprietor's religios freedom, why is there a problem serving Gays?

I will ignore the asininity of this question. Simply because not everyone makes a demand that the proprietor actively participate in their lifestyles against their religious beliefs, and then suddenly seek to have the business ended accordingly if they don't comply.

Does that bigoted business owner have to undergo some ritualistic purification?

This is nothing but an argument based on absurd analogies. Does someone have to be methodically and systematically destroyed because they refuse to serve a certain segment of the population based on his religious beliefs?

Is he banned from church because he dared to serve homosexuals?

Is he banned from running his own business according to his own beliefs?

 

[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.

Not very often that you and I agree. But yes. Refusing the service your business provides others based on race, creed, sexual orientation etc. is harm. Refusing service for non payment... that's not harm, that's a consequence.

This law will allow businesses to be whites only if they choose to be.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

So is forcing someone to adhere to your lifestyle, causing them to be put out of business in order to appease your lifestyle is in fact HARM.

Selling an item to a customer does not force the sell to adhere to the customer's lifestyle. That is a false meme.

No, it doesn't. Selling something does not in fact make them adhere to the customer's lifestyle. I don't mind selling you an item or whatever the hell you want; money is money. But if selling you that item involves me having to participate in your lifestyle to enhance the value of said item, I don't want any part of it, and you can seek business elsewhere.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

How is wanting not to be barred from a restaurant because you're a gay couple translate to wanting special privileges?

 

[Nosmo King]

I cannot see any infringement on 'religious freedom'.

You don't want to. All you wish to see is compliance, even if at the point of the proverbial gun.

If providing the exact same service provided to any other customer does not infringe on the proprietor's religios freedom, why is there a problem serving Gays?

I will ignore the asininity of this question. Simply because not everyone makes a demand that the proprietor actively participate in their lifestyles against their religious beliefs, and then suddenly seek to have the business ended accordingly if they don't comply.

Does that bigoted business owner have to undergo some ritualistic purification?

This is nothing but an argument based on absurd analogies. Does someone have to be methodically and systematically destroyed because they refuse to serve a certain segment of the population?

Is he banned from church because he dared to serve homosexuals?

Is he banned from running his own business according to his own beliefs?

ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE???

Just how does a baker ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in a homosexual lifestyle by simply baking, decorating and delivering a cake?

How does a caterer ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE at any wedding when, in fact, they are there to cook, deliver, present and clean up afterward.

You are stretching way beyond your grasp when you clim ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in events when vendors are merely plying their trade.

There is NO HARM to the vendors, they are just bigots.

Demonstrate the harm befalling these shallow minded merchants. Show me the harm they endure. Will their business be harmed by adding the profits from a homosexual wedding?

 

[RKMBrown]

Is it then wrong for government to stop me from stoning you?

No. We have laws banning violent behavior against others, even in the name of religion.

In my example the harm is visceral and more pronounced, so it is easier to see.

I agree. It hurts everyone.

In the subject we are discussing the harm is there but less pronounced for those who are not being denied access.

But there has to be a way to compromise. Nobody's beliefs or lifestyles are sacrosanct. Why should this be any different?

There are ways to compromise. How many would you like me to list? Buyer can leave the establishment get a picket sign and stand outside that establishment. Buy advertisements, talk to the press,... make sure everyone knows what happened. The seller could have said I'll give you the cake cause it's the law but I don't endorse your activity. The seller could have changed his business to a private one instead of selling cakes to the public. The seller could have brought in a different baker and given that baker the business.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Not very often that you and I agree. But yes. Refusing the service your business provides others based on race, creed, sexual orientation etc. is harm. Refusing service for non payment... that's not harm, that's a consequence.

This law will allow businesses to be whites only if they choose to be.

They already can if they are private businesses that do not sell to the public.