Indiana Governer signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers.

[sc94597]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

sc94597 said:

Yes, but the key difference is that people who don't want to discriminate are not mandated by law to discrimate, as they were before the Civil's Rights act. The provision in said act to make private businesses open to every race/gender/etc was meant as a correction for the state priorly skewing the market by forcing everyone to discriminate, whether they wanted to or not. It might've made sense, like affirmative action, in that era, but it doesn't make much sense today. Forcing the racists, homophobes, etc to act a certain way just increases their resentment and forces them to hide their true feelings. I'd rather know what these people honestly think, and know who is the homophobe or racist, so that I can avoid them and also so that I don't act as a patron to their business and benefit them. I don't want to associate with such people, and such legislation makes it harder for me to identify them. 

Despite this eroding things on a constitutional level I guess you're right. The bigots should be like Chic-Fil-A and just let everyone know so they know to stay away. Making this into a state law is just asking to unearth a lot of hell. Once again...religion always pushing back society.

I don't really care about the constitution to be honest. Sure the government mandating how people use their property and associate with others is probably "unconstitutional" by the tenth amendment, but it's not like it mattered with any of their other intrusions on property rights and rights to liberty (in this case to freely associate.) The constitution itself was a generally illiberal document that was designed to create a centralized state. Anything liberal (when I say liberal I mean in the classical sense) in it, is only there as a compromise with the opposition at the time (anti-federalists.) The Declaration of Independence on the other hand is a fantastic document, and it would be nice if more Americans put an emphasis on the principles pre-faced in that. My opposition to the civil rights act is based on something more fundamental than the U.S constitution, a principle that we all should have control over our own lives and our own property, a principle based on self-ownership. With that, we should also accept full responsibility for our actions, as our actions are entirely ours to be made. As for this law, I see it as another reaction to a prior action. It is a legal precedent that gay couples can sue, say a bakery, for not producing a cake for their wedding and consequently the reaction is that people who don't agree with this push call on their representative in their state house to allow discrimination against homosexuals, out of mostly - fear and anger. If people just associated with those who were accepting of them then there wouldn't be a problem. There are more than 315 million Americans, and the year is 2015. There are dozens of millions of people with whom we can interact with voluntarily without forcing people who don't want to like us for whichever pre-determined trait we might have.