By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Indiana Governer signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers.

generic-user-1 on 28 March 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
generic-user-1 said:
Illusion said:

Sorry if this comes off as a bit much, but I made a lot of friends at school that are homosexual and to hear their stories makes me weep for society.

P.S.

People should have the right to feel whatever way they want about others as long as they keep it private and do not harm others. The problem is the group that is wielding the power humiliates because they believe its right.

I just want to say that I am a Christian and I completely sympathize with gays and the bullying and hatred that they experience.  To love one's neighbour is as important to a Christian as loving God and those that bully or abuse power are not Christian even if they appear to be on the surface.

Without supporting or opposing this law:  If a Christian family had a wedding cake business and they believed in traditional marriage, do you feel that this couple should be forced to offer their services for a gay wedding even if it would violate their consciences?  What if other wedding cake companies were available in town?  Even if you don't agree with Christian beliefs on traditional marriage, surely you can relate to the fear that such a family would experience if they were being forced by those in power to do something that they don't believe in or go out of business.  

I think we all have to live in this world together.  I'm not saying that this law is the right thing to do, but I do think we should consider the needs of all parties in cases like the one I mentioned above.  We may disagree with other people's views, but when society starts forcing people to go against their beliefs I think we start looking an awfully like the authoritarians who we were fighting against in the first place.

well, realy important businesses shouldnt be allowed to not serve a person, if somebody is ill, the hospital has to cure him.

a cake business isnt that important, but it shouldnt be just gay, what if i dont wanna offer my service to women? or dwarfs? or christians?or catholics? or blacks?or mexicans? or republicans? or NRA members? or people who think star wars episode 1 is a good movie?

 

 

btw what is wrong with the us of a? arent there any sane americans? seems like one half is feminazi and the other half is fucked up "christians".  normal societys would tell those minoritys to fuck off... 

 

 

 

 

 



So essentially if more bigoted people show up and deny service and it bcomes a town or even city issue, the person would be forced to move out of town. Jesus would love that, right? No. This is not religious freedom because Jesus would've just told them that if they cannot be saved move on.  

sure he would! i mean he multiplyed fish in the good book just to hit ugly chicks with them...

and he gave the blindmen aids, and he resurrected the fag lazarus just to stone him to dead...



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 28 March 2015
generic-user-1 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

well, realy important businesses shouldnt be allowed to not serve a person, if somebody is ill, the hospital has to cure him.

a cake business isnt that important, but it shouldnt be just gay, what if i dont wanna offer my service to women? or dwarfs? or christians?or catholics? or blacks?or mexicans? or republicans? or NRA members? or people who think star wars episode 1 is a good movie?

 

 

btw what is wrong with the us of a? arent there any sane americans? seems like one half is feminazi and the other half is fucked up "christians".  normal societys would tell those minoritys to fuck off... 

 

 

 

 

 



So essentially if more bigoted people show up and deny service and it bcomes a town or even city issue, the person would be forced to move out of town. Jesus would love that, right? No. This is not religious freedom because Jesus would've just told them that if they cannot be saved move on.  

sure he would! i mean he multiplyed fish in the good book just to hit ugly chicks with them...

and he gave the blindmen aids, and he resurrected the fag lazarus just to stone him to dead...

I really need to see that version of the book. Heh



Wonktonodi on 28 March 2015
pokymon90 said:

Yeah. I sort of agree with where you are coming from.  Sorry if I offended you. I am trying to argue why it's a good thing, but there are plenty of negatives to it. Employment being a big one. The problem is that I have never encountered a situation where somebody did not provide entrance/serve a person because of religious views. I could only assume that those people are very strong to stand at their guns(not literal guns..have to make that clear) on denying gay people though that trying to change them will just bring more trouble than it helps. Does that make sense, or no? Also, I would never support a company that disrespects me or my friends. I would just leave. I guess that's just my personality. Pretty quiet person who doesn't like to complain about stuff.

I thought this issue was mainly about churches providing weddings for gay couples, anyway. I believe it's in their right for a church to not provide weddings for gay couples. The law protects businesses against providing anything for the occassion of a gay wedding. Also, it's unlikely that this law can be used to prevent people from getting Housing, Insurance, Banking, or employment because that isn't what the law is for anyway. The law is to let people who don't want to help in a gay marriage because of religious beliefs  not have to serve those people.  If the people's religious views are being "corrupted" by having to work on a gay marriage they have a right to not. People were being sued because they didn't want to provide a service(photography, cake, decorations, dresses) for a gay wedding. That is not something I am not OK with.

Churches aren't public businesses to begin with so them being forced to do things would be wrong agreed.

While the law might be "intended" only for stopping individuals from being forced to provide goods or services or services for gay weddings. It allows for much more.

and there have already been cases where discrimination in businesses and employment happen before this law existed, why would it be reduced when businesses could get away with it without being sued? 



mornelithe on 28 March 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
tiffac said:
Isn't that state law against the constitution? I don't think it will hold any validity, especially in the court of law.


Christians are always claiming persecution when they are pretty much the major religion in the country by number of practicing members. Shows how much they look things up. 

Christians mistake persecution for loss of overwhelming authority/control. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 March 2015
mornelithe said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Christians are always claiming persecution when they are pretty much the major religion in the country by number of practicing members. Shows how much they look things up. 

Christians mistake persecution for loss of overwhelming authority/control. 


And the horrifying part is they don't even notice. They think they are doing right by their book when they are only bastardizing it.



Around the Network
generic-user-1 on 28 March 2015
Wonktonodi said:
pokymon90 said:

Yeah. I sort of agree with where you are coming from.  Sorry if I offended you. I am trying to argue why it's a good thing, but there are plenty of negatives to it. Employment being a big one. The problem is that I have never encountered a situation where somebody did not provide entrance/serve a person because of religious views. I could only assume that those people are very strong to stand at their guns(not literal guns..have to make that clear) on denying gay people though that trying to change them will just bring more trouble than it helps. Does that make sense, or no? Also, I would never support a company that disrespects me or my friends. I would just leave. I guess that's just my personality. Pretty quiet person who doesn't like to complain about stuff.

I thought this issue was mainly about churches providing weddings for gay couples, anyway. I believe it's in their right for a church to not provide weddings for gay couples. The law protects businesses against providing anything for the occassion of a gay wedding. Also, it's unlikely that this law can be used to prevent people from getting Housing, Insurance, Banking, or employment because that isn't what the law is for anyway. The law is to let people who don't want to help in a gay marriage because of religious beliefs  not have to serve those people.  If the people's religious views are being "corrupted" by having to work on a gay marriage they have a right to not. People were being sued because they didn't want to provide a service(photography, cake, decorations, dresses) for a gay wedding. That is not something I am not OK with.

Churches aren't public businesses to begin with so them being forced to do things would be wrong agreed.

While the law might be "intended" only for stopping individuals from being forced to provide goods or services or services for gay weddings. It allows for much more.

and there have already been cases where discrimination in businesses and employment happen before this law existed, why would it be reduced when businesses could get away with it without being sued? 


im pretty sure churches have the right to discriminate allreadys.  otherwise the catholic church couldnt work... 



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 March 2015
generic-user-1 said:
Wonktonodi said:

Churches aren't public businesses to begin with so them being forced to do things would be wrong agreed.

While the law might be "intended" only for stopping individuals from being forced to provide goods or services or services for gay weddings. It allows for much more.

and there have already been cases where discrimination in businesses and employment happen before this law existed, why would it be reduced when businesses could get away with it without being sued? 


im pretty sure churches have the right to discriminate allreadys.  otherwise the catholic church couldnt work... 


The Catholic Church will learn with time. They aren't protestant. The Vatican has its own science wing. They know to stop denying the truth.



Materia-Blade on 28 March 2015
The_Yoda said:
Materia-Blade said:

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. homosexuality is like liking or disliking chocolate, there isn't a right or wrong, just a preference. when someone discriminates a preferance, the person is wrong.


Ok so liking to have sex with 10 year olds is ok it is a person's preference.  Man they sure got things wrong with that national registry in your opinion then.

It's quite predicatable that you would say something like this. let me draw for you: there are WRONG things. sexual abuse of minors is one of those. homosexuality isn't wrong, therefore anyone discriminating it is wrong and deserving of the darwin prize.



Materia-Blade on 28 March 2015
Aura7541 said:
The_Yoda said:

Lol right on, not in any hurry. Materia has been back and forth on what causes (... poor word perhaps) homosexuality I think maybe he is trying to say it is a genetically (biological) driven preference now.

I must ask, is Materia-blade trying to argue that homosexuality is biologically driven or only genetically driven?

No. I'm saying it makes no difference if it is a choice. what matters is that it's a harmless preference. (it isn't a choice, by the way).



Aura7541 on 28 March 2015
Materia-Blade said:
Aura7541 said:

I must ask, is Materia-blade trying to argue that homosexuality is biologically driven or only genetically driven?

No. I'm saying it makes no difference if it is a choice. what matters is that it's a harmless preference. (it isn't a choice, by the way).

I know that it isn't a choice. I already clreared things up with yoda yesterday with epigenetics.