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

[bodecea]

Indiana... land of low wages and a state going backwards. How are they going to test? Ask if you are gay or not? What if someone says I don't know?

Maybe order something detailed and expensive...then go...oops! I'm gay. You don't sell to me. Oh well...bye.

You won't think it's so funny when you're looking through some iron bars.

Nope...you won't sell to me. Oh well.....and to think that I would have provided such lucrative sales. Oh well....bye.

 

[bripat9643]

[
Welcome to reality. We "Leftists" are original thinkers.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

not 'informed' by 'pundits'.

Give me your original thoughts on my post.

Is that the talking point from KOS today?

Here is a thought that is not original, people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they please, for whatever reason they please, as long as the transaction is free of coercion, or fraud.

You seek to use coercion, the threat of violence, to force people to engage in business against their religious views. This violates the 1st Amendment and the 13th, but as an enemy of civil rights, you persist.

Pense took a step to protect the civil rights of people - this angers you of the left, who seek to utterly crush civil liberty.

Only in what I'll call 'the mind' of a Conservative does eroding right amount to protecting rights. Only in that Conservative 'mind' does crushing civil liberties amount to expanding them.

How does discrimination equal a civil liberty?

The racists in the Jim Crow south made the exact same arguments. You're in company with your Conservative predecessors.

You have no right to be served by any business. No one does. The business owner has the right to associate with whomever he wishes, or to not associate with whomever he wishes. That's called "freedom of association." Somehow you feel that compelling him to associate with people he has no desire to associate with increases rights. It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that idea.

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

Please try not to appear as stupid as we all think you are.

 

[natstew]

Who are you to judge what "true religion" is? Is Islam a true religion? You know, the guys who throw people off of buildings because they are homosexuals?

That can't be right!
Our President said, and I quote - "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance"
He also said, direct quote.. - "Islam has always been part of America
Also - "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.

So there is no way the Islamic faith is intolerant like that...our President said so.

George Dubya is not a conservative, never was, never will be.

 

[Nosmo King]

[
Welcome to reality. We "Leftists" are original thinkers.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

not 'informed' by 'pundits'.

Give me your original thoughts on my post.

Is that the talking point from KOS today?

Here is a thought that is not original, people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they please, for whatever reason they please, as long as the transaction is free of coercion, or fraud.

You seek to use coercion, the threat of violence, to force people to engage in business against their religious views. This violates the 1st Amendment and the 13th, but as an enemy of civil rights, you persist.

Pense took a step to protect the civil rights of people - this angers you of the left, who seek to utterly crush civil liberty.

Only in what I'll call 'the mind' of a Conservative does eroding right amount to protecting rights. Only in that Conservative 'mind' does crushing civil liberties amount to expanding them.

How does discrimination equal a civil liberty?

The racists in the Jim Crow south made the exact same arguments. You're in company with your Conservative predecessors.

You have no right to be served by any business. No one does. The business owner has the right to associate with whomever he wishes, or to not associate with whomever he wishes. That's called "freedom of association." Somehow you feel that compelling him to associate with people he has no desire to associate with increases rights. It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that idea.

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.

I would have thought you would proudly display a sign that says you refuse to serve some people,l but not all people. Isn't that an affirmation of what you consider to be a right to be a bigot?

 

[bripat9643]

Indiana... land of low wages and a state going backwards. How are they going to test? Ask if you are gay or not? What if someone says I don't know?

Maybe order something detailed and expensive...then go...oops! I'm gay. You don't sell to me. Oh well...bye.

You won't think it's so funny when you're looking through some iron bars.

Nope...you won't sell to me. Oh well.....and to think that I would have provided such lucrative sales. Oh well....bye.

If you order something and refuse to pay for it, you have committed a crime. If it was my restaurant, I would have you in prison before you munch your next carpet.

 

[bodecea]

Let's imagine that a married Lesbian couple walks into a car dealership. They tell the General Manager that they plan to adopt a baby and need to buy a mini van to accommodate their growing family.

Does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse to sell them a vehicle because he does not want to "participate" in their family plans?

If an African American couple comes to a dealership with the same circumstances, again, does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse them as well?

Suppose an elderly couple wanted to adopt a baby and needed a mini van. Could the dealer see this as 'deviant' and refuse the sale?

Where does an unusual misinterpretation of scripture begin to no longer be a factor in business?

A business has a right to refuse to do business with whomever it likes for whatever reason it likes. That's called "freedom of exchange."

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

 

[bodecea]

Another state added to the list I don't want to visit:

1. Alabama
2. Arizona
3. Oklahoma
4. Indiana

I would sooner visit Russia or Saudi Arabia, than those four states.

In fact, I would say that Russia is a tolerant utopia in comparison.
If they want to take a hit to their tourism and income they are welcome to it.

I hope they enjoy their illegal immigration problem too: Immigration in Arizona Fact Sheet 2012

Please add Texas to your list.

Already done....why won't they secede already?

Thank you and why don't you and your liberal bastions secede and save the majority of the US, that actually believes in the Constitution, the trouble.

So...is Texas going to secede or are they just going to keep whining?

Are you going to keep blabbering incoherently like a senile old fool?

Well, you've already established yourself as a coward of the first order.

 

[Nosmo King]

I just had a pizza delivered to my home. Does that mean the delivery boy and store manager approve of me?

The home is the most intimate of venues. Should a restaurant refuse to deliver to the homes of homosexuals? Or are those deliveries simply part and parcel of that restaurant's business?

 

[bripat9643]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



Is that the talking point from KOS today?

Here is a thought that is not original, people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they please, for whatever reason they please, as long as the transaction is free of coercion, or fraud.

You seek to use coercion, the threat of violence, to force people to engage in business against their religious views. This violates the 1st Amendment and the 13th, but as an enemy of civil rights, you persist.

Pense took a step to protect the civil rights of people - this angers you of the left, who seek to utterly crush civil liberty.

Only in what I'll call 'the mind' of a Conservative does eroding right amount to protecting rights. Only in that Conservative 'mind' does crushing civil liberties amount to expanding them.

How does discrimination equal a civil liberty?

The racists in the Jim Crow south made the exact same arguments. You're in company with your Conservative predecessors.

You have no right to be served by any business. No one does. The business owner has the right to associate with whomever he wishes, or to not associate with whomever he wishes. That's called "freedom of association." Somehow you feel that compelling him to associate with people he has no desire to associate with increases rights. It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that idea.

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.

I would have thought you would proudly display a sign that says you refuse to serve some people,l but not all people. Isn't that an affirmation of what you consider to be a right to be a bigot?

I'm not going to make myself a target for all the hostile radical perverts in the city. This has already been explained. We know why you want something like that to be required: so you can organize a lynch mob, vandalize their property and harass them night and day.

Do you really expect people to be as stupid as you are?

 

[bripat9643]

Please add Texas to your list.

Already done....why won't they secede already?

Thank you and why don't you and your liberal bastions secede and save the majority of the US, that actually believes in the Constitution, the trouble.

So...is Texas going to secede or are they just going to keep whining?

Are you going to keep blabbering incoherently like a senile old fool?

Well, you've already established yourself as a coward of the first order.

You're a legend in your own mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



Is that the talking point from KOS today?

Here is a thought that is not original, people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they please, for whatever reason they please, as long as the transaction is free of coercion, or fraud.

You seek to use coercion, the threat of violence, to force people to engage in business against their religious views. This violates the 1st Amendment and the 13th, but as an enemy of civil rights, you persist.

Pense took a step to protect the civil rights of people - this angers you of the left, who seek to utterly crush civil liberty.

Only in what I'll call 'the mind' of a Conservative does eroding right amount to protecting rights. Only in that Conservative 'mind' does crushing civil liberties amount to expanding them.

How does discrimination equal a civil liberty?

The racists in the Jim Crow south made the exact same arguments. You're in company with your Conservative predecessors.

Except there is no civil liberty that requires one person to serve another against a person's will. Such is the very opposite of what civil liberties were intended to eliminate. The requirement can be written into the social contract, but it should never be confused with civil liberties.

There is no civil liberty that entitles somebody to have lunch provided to him/her. There is no civil liberty that requires me to open a restaurant in the first place. Where it does come down to civil liberties, there must be some provision for the business owner to be able to be who and what he is as much as the people he/she serves have that right.

Check out Public Accompdation laws.

I am speaking of principle, not what the law says. The law can get it wrong and in this case often has. So I don't CARE what the law says because the law has absolutely nothing to do with the principle I am arguing. The original intent of the Constitution I believe does support that principle, however.

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

You can be that crass if you want to and call it honesty. But since I don't want to take up all my wall and window space with signs listing the groups I would not serve, and don't know how many of them might be out there, putting up a sign doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially if there is no sign, then I have to serve them no matter how reprehensible they are.

Again, I personally would accommodate the gay wedding. And I would not accommodate the Westboro Baptists who make it their policy to interrupt a gay wedding or funeral and do other indefensible acts. But if I want to be allowed the strength of my convictions, I have to give the same allowance to others even though I don't share their beliefs.

 

[natstew]

Your right ends when it violates my right to practice my religious convictions.

 

[bodecea]

Your right ends when it violates my right to practice my religious convictions.

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

 

[Valerie]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

There is a very narrow group of merchants who must deliver their wares to an off site venue. Are you saying that such merchants should be exempt from discrimination charges simply because they deliver their wares off site?

And do they really "participate", or are they simply plying their trade?

I won't discuss this any further with you Nosmo until you address the off site venues I took some trouble to describe in a previous post. If you are at a somebody's event providing a service, you are participating in that event. Period. And nobody should be forced into participating in somebody's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible. And there should be no law that punishes somebody for refusing to participate in somebody else's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible.

it's not about punishing anyone... the law, or social contract as you call it, requires public accommodations which you say you believe in but then seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth..? how is anyone punished, really?



I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense.

I explain it fully in the thread Valerie. I don't want to have to repeat all the nuances of the argument for those who haven't kept up. I have been very consistent on this subject for a very long time and you are free to think whatever you wish about what side of my mouth I talk out of.

i read your posts and understood the nuance...

i am asking how do you reconcile your expressed views regarding PUBLIC business licenses, which require non discriminatory practices toward the PUBLIC, as somehow having to provide special exceptions for "off site venues", and act as if lack of such exceptions equals PUNISHMENT..? no one forces anyone to seek to do business with the PUBLIC.

 

[Pop23]

Can someone point me to the part of the law that says businesses must refuse service to gays?

If it's not there, then how many businesses do you really think would partake of this?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

Holy shit.

If the business routinely goes off premises to work events...then they need to do so for everyone. This equivocation is bullshit.

And.....we as a society have decided that it is not OK for a business to sell to "whites only". Liberty has nothing to do with it. It's not avoided because it alienates customers. It is avoided because it is ******* stupid and doesn't meet the standards that we have set for ourselves in this modern civilized nation.

We are not going back to the "good ol' days". Progress has been made.

We're not discussing law here. We are discussing principle. Try to keep up.

Bullshit. The thread is about a law that has been passed.

In any case...my post was not focused on law...it was focused on principle.
Try to keep up. You fail miserably.

 

[bodecea]

I would have thought you would proudly display a sign that says you refuse to serve some people,l but not all people. Isn't that an affirmation of what you consider to be a right to be a bigot?

Doesn't take any bravery to hide behind your keyboard and throw insults.....does it?

Oh right. "He's a coward" isn't in insult. I've never encountered more egregious hypocrites than homosexual liberals.

Well. It IS spot on.

Using logic and facts on homosexuals is a waste of time because they always devolve into personal attacks. That's why I don't waste my time. I get straight to the insults and ridicule. It's the only thing you understand.

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

 

[Foxfyre]

Can someone point me to the part of the law that says businesses must refuse service to gays?

If it's not there, then how many businesses do you really think would partake of this?

The law doesn't address gays at all. The language is pretty similar to 30 other states that have such laws and ALL of them are intended to remove ambiguity from the law re people with religious convictions. It protects Muslims, gays, Atheists, Christians et al equally.

Again if some of the numbnuts would just read the law instead of parroting what their leftist sources say about the law, they might actually get it. But then again probably not.

 

[bodecea]

Can someone point me to the part of the law that says businesses must refuse service to gays?

If it's not there, then how many businesses do you really think would partake of this?

If there are any, they need to not be cowards about their principles and put a "We don't serve gays" sign by their entrance.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

There is a very narrow group of merchants who must deliver their wares to an off site venue. Are you saying that such merchants should be exempt from discrimination charges simply because they deliver their wares off site?

And do they really "participate", or are they simply plying their trade?

I won't discuss this any further with you Nosmo until you address the off site venues I took some trouble to describe in a previous post. If you are at a somebody's event providing a service, you are participating in that event. Period. And nobody should be forced into participating in somebody's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible. And there should be no law that punishes somebody for refusing to participate in somebody else's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible.

it's not about punishing anyone... the law, or social contract as you call it, requires public accommodations which you say you believe in but then seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth..? how is anyone punished, really?



I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense.

I explain it fully in the thread Valerie. I don't want to have to repeat all the nuances of the argument for those who haven't kept up. I have been very consistent on this subject for a very long time and you are free to think whatever you wish about what side of my mouth I talk out of.

i read your posts and understood the nuance...

i am asking how do you reconcile your expressed views regarding PUBLIC business licenses, which require non discriminatory practices toward the PUBLIC, as somehow having to provide special exceptions for "off site venues", and act as if lack of such exceptions equals PUNISHMENT..? no one forces anyone to seek to do business with the PUBLIC.

Try reading what I wrote about that instead of what you seem to be trying to read into it. I think I was pretty clear.