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

[TemplarKormac]

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

When the customer asks them to deliver it to the site of their wedding. Easy.

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

By the very activity of "cooking, delivering, presenting, and cleaning up afterward." Active participation.

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

No I'm not. They are not merely "plying their trade" when they are actually there amongst the festivities or enhancing the value of the event. Physical presence in this case, implies ACTIVE PARTICIPATION.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You've never seen angry mobs of mothers who feel their little darlings belong everywhere.

Nope, I've never seen that, and there are plenty of businesses that don't allow kids under a certain age, like movie theaters.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[bripat9643]

Keep in mind this law revives the right to racial discrimination. All you have to do is assign it to a religious belief.

Yeah, well first of all, whats wrong wih that? Blacks want black only businesses.... Let em have em.

Yes, what's wrong with racial discrimination?

lolol.

I know your ilk sees nothing wrong with it. When do you ever attack black-only scholarships? Affirmative action?

 

[bripat9643]

No one is telling you faggots that you can't discriminate against Christians.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Oh, you're a Libertarian, that explains it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, you're a Libertarian, that explains it.

That must be rough for you.

 

[bripat9643]

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....

Here's the avatar that fits you:

 

[bripat9643]

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

So you support drug use and promiscuous sex. That certainly is a broad conception of liberty you have there.

 

[Gadawg73]

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

How about just a sign that says, no signs please. If you're gay, straight, black, white, religious, Atheist, white supremacist, opera singer, anti-defamation league, accordian player, etc., leave your sign at home please and come in and have lunch.

So a member of the KKK can come in and have lunch. But if he wants me to cater the KKK convention next month, no. I'm not going to do it and I don't want my government forcing me to do so. I won't interfere in any way with his right to have his convention. And he won't interfere in any way with my right not to participate in it.

I really like this as this is exactly what I think also.
In a perfect world which this is not so your example would never apply.
If 2 women come in and say they want something for their wedding, they should be able to say "their" and not "a" wedding and doing so does not constitute "wearing a sign."
If everyone was like you and accepting none of these things would matter.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I saw your picture displayed in the men's urinal in a gas station on Topeka.

 

[Gadawg73]

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

So you support drug use and promiscuous sex. That certainly is a broad conception of liberty you have there.

What exactly constitutes "promiscuous sex"? You oppose "legal" drugs sold on TV and a DOPE R US store at every intersection?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

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

So you support drug use and promiscuous sex. That certainly is a broad conception of liberty you have there.

What exactly constitutes "promiscuous sex"? You oppose "legal" drugs sold on TV and a DOPE R US store at every intersection?

I'm not sure I understand what your point is.

 

[rightwinger]

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

When the customer asks them to deliver it to the site of their wedding. Easy.

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

By the very activity of "cooking, delivering, presenting, and cleaning up afterward." Active participation.

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

No I'm not. They are not merely "plying their trade" when they are actually there amongst the festivities or enhancing the value of the event. Physical presence in this case, implies ACTIVE PARTICIPATION.

Agree

They have to be careful not to catch the ghey

 

[bripat9643]

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!

Forcing people to serve you is not liberty. It's tyranny.

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

Those signs were legally required under Jim Crow, moron. Under what logic should a business be required to put any sign some angry resentful queers insist on?

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?

It doesn't show any such thing, and It doesn't harm anyone, but your sign would harm the business. You obviously just want revenge on anyone who doesn't pay you the respect you believe you're entitled to. You're a petulant childish whiner.

 

[Gadawg73]

I grew up late 50s and early 60s and heard all the same lame milk weak excuses about black folk. Make all the quack religious excuses you want to but what it boils down to is your book says you must not treat gay folk as equals.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's assume it's not cake bakers who refuse to serve members of the GLBT community, but Doctors, Lawyers, Cops, Dentists, EMT and Firefighters. And how about roofers, gas and electric workers, public transportation workers and the local medical marijuana dispenser. And let's not forget hotels, motels and airlines.

Now, I'm aware that the Slippery Slope Argument is a logical fallacy, but what is good for the Conservatives is good for the rest. And let's consider, our military has evolved from don't ask, don't tell into a modern model and it took only 60 years for it to allow integration.

So, my point is this, the current defenders of Pence are typical of those who feel an affinity for the good old days, when separate but equal was good enough for our grandparents, they believe it should be good enough for us today.

I also know that the use of the term Reactionary is often used as a pejorative, but sometimes the use of the word is warranted, and in this case and on this thread it is.

 

[Nosmo King]

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

When the customer asks them to deliver it to the site of their wedding. Easy.

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

By the very activity of "cooking, delivering, presenting, and cleaning up afterward." Active participation.

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

No I'm not. They are not merely "plying their trade" when they are actually there amongst the festivities or enhancing the value of the event. Physical presence in this case, implies ACTIVE PARTICIPATION.

Does the pizza delivery boy actively participate in my household? Does the airline pilot actively participate in my vacation?

The notion of participation is an untenable stretch.

Who participates in the wedding? The bride, groom, their families, a clergyman, a flower girl a ring bearer. But how about the tuxedo rental place? Are they active participants?

Let's face it. There is no harm to the religous freedom of bigoted merchants and there is no active participation on their part.

It is, in fact, a smokescreen to rationalize homophobia and have religion serve as a shield for bigotry.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's not for you to decide, numskull.