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

[2aguy]

Sorry....most political violence in this country has been conducted by the political left....Oklahoma city is an exception and not the rule and it isn't even a good example of trying to make the bomber into a right winger.....

I'm not even sure OKC is an exception. McVeigh was a JOOOOO hating nut job, not an advocate of free markets and civil rights.

He and Eric Holder espouse the same sort of rhetoric, death to Israel, the 1%, etc...

Which is why I am leary of letting them use him as an example......he wasn't even religious and they try to pin that on him as well......

 

[RKMBrown]

You are welcome to show me any anti-gay legislation being passed at any level of government by Democrats.......otherwise STFU

Hey, nimrod. It was illegal in just about every state. But if you really want an example: DOMA, was anti-gay legislation signed by Bill Clinton, and supported by nearly every democrat.

DOMA was bad legislation demanded by Republicans

Thankfully, it was overturned by the courts.......most of it

Oh? Why did the democrats listen to republican demands? Why did Clinton bend over and sign it.

Clinton was an idiot

At the time, nobody envisioned that gay marriage would be actively pursued. But Republicans were afraid of it

Bad legislation any way you look at it

Yes.

Clinton shouldn't have signed it -- but even if he hadn't, it would have passed.

They had a veto-proof majority.

So? Clinton was against same sex marriage... he said so many times.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hey, nimrod. It was illegal in just about every state. But if you really want an example: DOMA, was anti-gay legislation signed by Bill Clinton, and supported by nearly every democrat.

DOMA was bad legislation demanded by Republicans

Thankfully, it was overturned by the courts.......most of it

Oh? Why did the democrats listen to republican demands? Why did Clinton bend over and sign it.

Why indeed? Could it have been a {GASP} compromise of some sort?

How do you know it was the democrats compromising and not the republicans? I can remember quite a few homophobic statements from Clinton, and Obama. How many times did they have to state that they believe in marriage being between a man and a woman? Was that a compromise too?

In June of 1996 Clinton states, “I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or considered.”

In 1998 Barrack Obama said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

Twenty years ago - a whole lot of people felt that way.

Look at how the country has changed since then.

A solid majority now support same sex marriage.

Times, and people, evolve.

Correct.

 

[WorldWatcher]

According to Wiki there's one:

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nope...Maine and Maryland.

Voters approve same-sex marriage for the first time - CNN.com

Marriage equality was on the ballot in my state in the 2012 election.

The people of my state voted and voted in a good majority for marriage equality.

So the people of Washington state spoke loud and proud, gay marriage will forever be legal in Washington. It wasn't done by a court or a state legislature. It was done by the vote of the people.

California voters voted against it. What happened there?

It was a different time

It would pass overwhelmingly in California today

Black democrats killed it in California......

Actually blacks were pretty low on the demographic scale on the outcome of Prop 8...

Blacks were 7% of the voting population and voted 58% in support of Prop 8.

Other demographics that had a greater impact were:

Conservative - 36% of the voting population voting 82% in support of the measure
Republican - 34% of the voting population voting 81% in support of the measure
Weekly Religious Services - 45% of the voting population voting 70% of the measure
Age 65+ - 23% of the voting population voting 67% in support of the measure
Latino/Hispanic - 14% of the voting population voting 59% in support of the measure​

It would be more accurate to say that Conservatives, Republicans, Religious Folks, older folks, and Latino/Hispanics had more impact on passing Prop 8 than did Blacks.


http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/pi_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

According to Wiki there's one:

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nope...Maine and Maryland.

Voters approve same-sex marriage for the first time - CNN.com

Marriage equality was on the ballot in my state in the 2012 election.

The people of my state voted and voted in a good majority for marriage equality.

So the people of Washington state spoke loud and proud, gay marriage will forever be legal in Washington. It wasn't done by a court or a state legislature. It was done by the vote of the people.

California voters voted against it. What happened there?

It was a different time

It would pass overwhelmingly in California today

Black democrats killed it in California......

And Mormons from Utah

 

[rightwinger]

Hey, nimrod. It was illegal in just about every state. But if you really want an example: DOMA, was anti-gay legislation signed by Bill Clinton, and supported by nearly every democrat.

DOMA was bad legislation demanded by Republicans

Thankfully, it was overturned by the courts.......most of it

Oh? Why did the democrats listen to republican demands? Why did Clinton bend over and sign it.

Clinton was an idiot

At the time, nobody envisioned that gay marriage would be actively pursued. But Republicans were afraid of it

Bad legislation any way you look at it

Yes.

Clinton shouldn't have signed it -- but even if he hadn't, it would have passed.

They had a veto-proof majority.

So? Clinton was against same sex marriage... he said so many times.

It was a different country 20 years ago

Very few, outside the gay community supported gay marriage

Ask Clinton what he thinks today? Ask Dick Cheney

 

[OKTexas]

DOMA was bad legislation demanded by Republicans

Thankfully, it was overturned by the courts.......most of it

Oh? Why did the democrats listen to republican demands? Why did Clinton bend over and sign it.

Clinton was an idiot

At the time, nobody envisioned that gay marriage would be actively pursued. But Republicans were afraid of it

Bad legislation any way you look at it

Homophobia is not a republican only malaise. Homophobia, is a phobia exhibited by people that were taught from childhood that being a homo is a horrible thing. Democrats like you are trying to turn gays into a political football for you to carry on to the end zone. For the thousandth time, just because some democrats and some republicans are homophobic does not mean everyone in that party is homophobic. Just because some people in the democrat party are in the KKK does not mean YOU are in the KKK does it?

Sorry, but religious Freedom in the First Amendment trumps the other laws......

My religion hates guns

Should I be able to refuse service to gun owners?

Businesses do it all the time, next.

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL the left did not exist when the commerce clause was drafted. Thx for playing.

Have you actually read the commerce clause lately, the feds were never intended to interfere with individual businesses unless they were dealing across state lines, with foreign countries or indian tribes. The left is the cause of it being expanded beyond all reason.

That was before the civil war. After the war the fed had the leverage to force the states to do their bidding wrt. taking away our life, liberty, and property.

That said, I'm a fan of civil rights. And I'm a fan of the idea that we should all have the liberty to partake in the public market. I'm also a fan of private businesses having the right to buy and sell privately, such as through barter, trade, and even monetary exchanges for access to private benefits. Just don't advertise for public sale. For example, if you are a church it's ok to charge for weddings to members of the church, but it's not ok to advertise to the public the sale of wedding services then deny because the couple is black or gay etc.

Nothing in the commerce clause has been changed, that would require an Amendment. The courts have bastardized it beyond all recognition. What you should have said is you're a fan of civil rights as long as they conform to your ideas. A business owner doesn't surrender his/her rights just by virtue of opening a business.

Apparently you are confused by interstate highways, state to state travel, online sales, and most of all you are confused by the difference between private company with products for private sale, and opening a business that wants to sell to the public at large, only not to just anyone in the public but rather only to the portion of the public that you like. If you want to pick and choose your customers, do it through private selection, just don't put up a sign that says open to the public come on in and buy my goods, then turn around the blacks and gays as they come through your door.

If you had actually read my post I haven't advocated denying anything to people who walk through your door. The only thing I have advocated is not participating in events that are objectionable outside the the physical business, assuming the business doesn't provide the venue for the event. If the business provides wedding services or a reception/party hall, they should be able to reject any event the object to whether it's gays, KKK or black panthers. That being said, I think if a business, such as a bakery or photography studio, wants to commit suicide by refusing people inside their doors by refusing customers, let them, the market will decide if they survive. The one thing that is available now that wasn't in the past is the internet, people have the ability to check out a company before they ever do business with them and have access to customer ratings.

Like I said earlier, the values that give you the freedom to be you, include my freedom to be free from you, doesn't matter if it's in my personal or professional life.

First you say you have not advocated denying anything to people who walk through your door... you don't specify public customers or private matters. Then you advocate for "denying anything to people who walk through your door" by stating "if a business, such as a bakery or photography studio, wants to commit suicide by refusing people inside their doors by refusing customers, let them, the market will decide if they survive." You appear to be saying you would not do refuse ___ to blacks but you are ok with ___ in your state doing it, cause the market will decide if blacks should be allowed to ___ in your state. Now let's fill in the blanks shall we? You appear to be saying you would not do refuse food to blacks but you are ok with all the food providers in your state doing it, cause the market will decide if blacks should be allowed to eat in your state.

No. Your freedom to be free from me in private ends when it steps on my freedom to be a member of the public.

 

[RKMBrown]

DOMA was bad legislation demanded by Republicans

Thankfully, it was overturned by the courts.......most of it

Oh? Why did the democrats listen to republican demands? Why did Clinton bend over and sign it.

Clinton was an idiot

At the time, nobody envisioned that gay marriage would be actively pursued. But Republicans were afraid of it

Bad legislation any way you look at it

Yes.

Clinton shouldn't have signed it -- but even if he hadn't, it would have passed.

They had a veto-proof majority.

So? Clinton was against same sex marriage... he said so many times.

It was a different country 20 years ago

Very few, outside the gay community supported gay marriage

Ask Clinton what he thinks today? Ask Dick Cheney

Correct. My issue is you using gays as a political football for the left. Let's solve the problems not use social views to divide the country pls.

 

[OKTexas]

Then why does your filthy party insist on using the threat of violence to force them into involuntary servitude?

I agree that word will get out and harm businesses - thus FREEDOM is the right path. But you leftists NEVER give freedom a chance, you always engage in force with the threat of violence.

They don't want to lose business is why. They want to be cowardly about their discrimination because they know they can't survive on bigots business alone.

What you leftists can't grasp, is it is their right alone to decide if they can.

I used to support homosexuals - now I don't - because you are thugs. You lost the moral high ground when you decided to exact revenge from those whom you hate.

Hey cry baby ...your party supports those that assassinate Doctors at women's clinics, your party wants women o undergo vaginal probes for political reasons...your party supports the bombing of women's clinics.......you wing nut...your party wing nut central

You're a ******* liar.

 

[Dana7360]

They can be sued for that.

Of course they can and no doubt will be.

In truth, no one is talking about not 'serving' homosexuals... and this despite the Left's deceitful attempt to project such upon the issue, this as a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.

It's typical of evil... as such is its stock in trade.

Episodes like these are just attempts by gays to gain respectability by stomping out all opposition. It's spectacularly Orwellian, but these vermin are constantly spouting off about "freedom" and their "rights" when they obviously don't give a damn about anyone else's rights.

I never used to be hostile to gay people until I started posting in forums like this one. Over the years I've learned that they are the most dishonest, spiteful, hypocritical, hostile and authoritarian people on this planet.

You never had this hostility before reading stuff on forums? Then the ones you knew in real life probably weren't so bad. The only reason gays are the whipping boys is because love of guns, hatred of gays, hatred of abortion, hatred of the poor, is the only thing republicans have to offer a right wing working stiff. The base they focus their love on is corporations and billionaires. When you're down and out , a democrat will give you a hand. A republican (politician) will spit on you and tell you to get a job.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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

If they refuse to serve a gay person, you don't think the word will get out?

They don't want to lose business is why. They want to be cowardly about their discrimination because they know they can't survive on bigots business alone.

I doubt that will happen. The worst that will happen is that gay people will avoid the business. How many business owners give a damn about 2% of the population not patronizing their business?

Then what are they so afraid of that they would not advertise that they refuse to serve that 2%? Know what other group makes up 2% of the population?

I've already explained that, but morons have to have everything explained to them at least a dozen times before they get it.

You're just a mass of contradictions. You say that businesses should not have to say up front that they won't serve gays because they will be "targeted", but that if they don't serve gays and word gets out its no big deal because gays are only 2%. Which is it? Are you afraid of the gays or aren't you?

You're too stupid to bother arguing with.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Come on Republicans

I know you love to pander to your gay hating base. But are you ever going to learn?

Indiana Governor Mike Pence is ready to sign into law a bill allowing businesses to refuse service to gays for "religious reasons" . All this ten days before the NCAA Final Four comes to Indianapolis. So what was once an opportunity to show the country what a great location his state is for major events, now becomes a poster child for "We hate gays".
See how many Final Fours come back to Indianapolis. Superbowl? Forget it Mike

But at least you got to score points with your gay hating base

Republicans just can't help themselves.






Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com

Why are you so dishonest?

I support a business' right to serve whom they want, I don't hate gays. And this bill doesnt support hating gays either.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Of course they can and no doubt will be.

In truth, no one is talking about not 'serving' homosexuals... and this despite the Left's deceitful attempt to project such upon the issue, this as a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.

It's typical of evil... as such is its stock in trade.

Episodes like these are just attempts by gays to gain respectability by stomping out all opposition. It's spectacularly Orwellian, but these vermin are constantly spouting off about "freedom" and their "rights" when they obviously don't give a damn about anyone else's rights.

I never used to be hostile to gay people until I started posting in forums like this one. Over the years I've learned that they are the most dishonest, spiteful, hypocritical, hostile and authoritarian people on this planet.

You never had this hostility before reading stuff on forums? Then the ones you knew in real life probably weren't so bad. The only reason gays are the whipping boys is because love of guns, hatred of gays, hatred of abortion, hatred of the poor, is the only thing republicans have to offer a right wing working stiff. The base they focus their love on is corporations and billionaires. When you're down and out , a democrat will give you a hand. A republican (politician) will spit on you and tell you to get a job.

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.

 

[OKTexas]

Have you actually read the commerce clause lately, the feds were never intended to interfere with individual businesses unless they were dealing across state lines, with foreign countries or indian tribes. The left is the cause of it being expanded beyond all reason.

That was before the civil war. After the war the fed had the leverage to force the states to do their bidding wrt. taking away our life, liberty, and property.

That said, I'm a fan of civil rights. And I'm a fan of the idea that we should all have the liberty to partake in the public market. I'm also a fan of private businesses having the right to buy and sell privately, such as through barter, trade, and even monetary exchanges for access to private benefits. Just don't advertise for public sale. For example, if you are a church it's ok to charge for weddings to members of the church, but it's not ok to advertise to the public the sale of wedding services then deny because the couple is black or gay etc.

Nothing in the commerce clause has been changed, that would require an Amendment. The courts have bastardized it beyond all recognition. What you should have said is you're a fan of civil rights as long as they conform to your ideas. A business owner doesn't surrender his/her rights just by virtue of opening a business.

Apparently you are confused by interstate highways, state to state travel, online sales, and most of all you are confused by the difference between private company with products for private sale, and opening a business that wants to sell to the public at large, only not to just anyone in the public but rather only to the portion of the public that you like. If you want to pick and choose your customers, do it through private selection, just don't put up a sign that says open to the public come on in and buy my goods, then turn around the blacks and gays as they come through your door.

If you had actually read my post I haven't advocated denying anything to people who walk through your door. The only thing I have advocated is not participating in events that are objectionable outside the the physical business, assuming the business doesn't provide the venue for the event. If the business provides wedding services or a reception/party hall, they should be able to reject any event the object to whether it's gays, KKK or black panthers. That being said, I think if a business, such as a bakery or photography studio, wants to commit suicide by refusing people inside their doors by refusing customers, let them, the market will decide if they survive. The one thing that is available now that wasn't in the past is the internet, people have the ability to check out a company before they ever do business with them and have access to customer ratings.

Like I said earlier, the values that give you the freedom to be you, include my freedom to be free from you, doesn't matter if it's in my personal or professional life.

First you say you have not advocated denying anything to people who walk through your door... you don't specify public customers or private matters. Then you advocate for "denying anything to people who walk through your door" by stating "if a business, such as a bakery or photography studio, wants to commit suicide by refusing people inside their doors by refusing customers, let them, the market will decide if they survive." You appear to be saying you would not do refuse ___ to blacks but you are ok with ___ in your state doing it, cause the market will decide if blacks should be allowed to ___ in your state. Now let's fill in the blanks shall we? You appear to be saying you would not do refuse food to blacks but you are ok with all the food providers in your state doing it, cause the market will decide if blacks should be allowed to eat in your state.

No. Your freedom to be free from me in private ends when it steps on my freedom to be a member of the public.

Now you want to play the semantics game, not going to go there, semantics are the last bastion of a loser. I've said exactly what I intended to say, take it or leave it. Carry on.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Signing a bill into law, one passed by a legislature, which deprives a segment of the population of the same right available to the majority of citizens defines Authoritarianism.

The 1st Amendment is already law, Comrade. You have no right to force others to serve you. Free people serve whom they choose, slave serve whom they are ordered to serve.

You leftists still demand slavery, 150 years after the Republicans kicked your ass on this issue the first time.

People are NOT your property to depose of as you please.

As a concrete thinker, and I use the word thinker in relation to you loosely, I understand how you compartmentalize the word Freedom. Freedom is not absolute, no matter how you have come to understand the language used in the First and Second Amendments to the COTUS.

No religion can engage in human sacrifice.
No citizen can utter they have a bomb as they board a plane.
No citizen can yell fire in a crowded theater.
The right to own a fully automatic weapon is highly restricted.

Technically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows what Indiana has done, because the GLBT community was not included in the protected class. That does not mean the Governor and legislature is not culpable. Though in the current iteration of the of the Republican Party, the Party of the small tent, such a law is fine and dandy - one more example of dishonesty and hypocrisy in their membership.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Signing a bill into law, one passed by a legislature, which deprives a segment of the population of the same right available to the majority of citizens defines Authoritarianism.

The 1st Amendment is already law, Comrade. You have no right to force others to serve you. Free people serve whom they choose, slave serve whom they are ordered to serve.

You leftists still demand slavery, 150 years after the Republicans kicked your ass on this issue the first time.

People are NOT your property to depose of as you please.

As a concrete thinker, and I use the word thinker in relation to you loosely, I understand how you compartmentalize the word Freedom. Freedom is not absolute, no matter how you have come to understand the language used in the First and Second Amendments to the COTUS.

No religion can engage in human sacrifice.
No citizen can utter they have a bomb as they board a plane.
No citizen can yell fire in a crowded theater.
The right to own a fully automatic weapon is highly restricted.

Technically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows what Indiana has done, because the GLBT community was not included in the protected class. That does not mean the Governor and legislature is not culpable. Though in the current iteration of the of the Republican Party, the Party of the small tent, such a law is fine and dandy - one more example of dishonesty and hypocrisy in their membership.

How so? The GOP has made it clear. They believe a business ought be able to refuse service to those they don't like. So how are they being dishonest or hypocritical when they pass a bill that does exactly that?

 

[bripat9643]

Liberty is my right to access the public market place. You want to refuse me business? Fine GTF out of my public market.

Public market place, another invention of the left. Your public market place consist of PRIVATE businesses.

ROFL the left did not exist when the commerce clause was drafted. Thx for playing.

Have you actually read the commerce clause lately, the feds were never intended to interfere with individual businesses unless they were dealing across state lines, with foreign countries or indian tribes. The left is the cause of it being expanded beyond all reason.

The commerce clause was meant only to allow the federal government to strike down state created obstacles to commerce like internal tariffs.

Link?

102RP6

 

[bripat9643]

Come on Republicans

I know you love to pander to your gay hating base. But are you ever going to learn?

Indiana Governor Mike Pence is ready to sign into law a bill allowing businesses to refuse service to gays for "religious reasons" . All this ten days before the NCAA Final Four comes to Indianapolis. So what was once an opportunity to show the country what a great location his state is for major events, now becomes a poster child for "We hate gays".
See how many Final Fours come back to Indianapolis. Superbowl? Forget it Mike

But at least you got to score points with your gay hating base

Republicans just can't help themselves.






Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com

The white christian party cries that they are being persecuted for their religion, and yet pass laws to making it OK discriminate against another group

They are screaming for the right of their religion to persecute others

No, actually, they want the right to practice their religion....and that right is in the Bill of Rights, and if they don't want to make cakes for weddings that violate their religious beliefs then the founding document of this country codifies that that don't have to.....

That's fine...then they put signs up stating that....caveat emptor.

What the sign really states is "here is someone for you to attack."

 

[rightwinger]

Come on Republicans

I know you love to pander to your gay hating base. But are you ever going to learn?

Indiana Governor Mike Pence is ready to sign into law a bill allowing businesses to refuse service to gays for "religious reasons" . All this ten days before the NCAA Final Four comes to Indianapolis. So what was once an opportunity to show the country what a great location his state is for major events, now becomes a poster child for "We hate gays".
See how many Final Fours come back to Indianapolis. Superbowl? Forget it Mike

But at least you got to score points with your gay hating base

Republicans just can't help themselves.






Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com

Why are you so dishonest?

I support a business' right to serve whom they want, I don't hate gays. And this bill doesnt support hating gays either.

Hating gays is its sole reason for being
If not, why wasn't it introduced ten years ago?