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

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

Wonktonodi on 27 March 2015
sc94597 said:

The point is, they are not denying service because the other person is a sinner, they are denying it because they believe if they partake in the ceremony it is a sin (immoral) on their own personal part as well. A more extreme analogy of this, which isn't exactly the same thing (no analogies are), is whether or not a doctor will give an abortion after a certain trimester in states where such abortions are legal. Many doctors will refuse to give an abortion after say the first trimester, not because it is illegal in their state, but because they don't want to morally. Should these doctors be forced to treat all pregnant woman the same, and enact the abortion? Should they lose their license if they refuse? Another more close to the point analogy is the question of whether or not a minister will perform a gay wedding or not is discrimination. Do you think all ordained ministers should perform gay weddings? If not, then why should all wedding cake producers make wedding cakes for gay weddings? Both entities are paid to perform a task, even if it is only a tip in the minster's case. Should all church buildings be willing to have gay wedding in them as well? 

In my opinion things like this hurt the LGBT movement. They make it harder for LGBT to be accepted, and it creates a mentality of us vs. them filled with resent on the religious persons end and resent on the non-heterosexual person's end. 

makeing a cake is not the same as performing a ceremony, it is a buisness transaction.  Making cakes is not a religious function. I already said if the buiness was totally religious I would understand but considering that many only draw the line at gay wedding and not beyond, I do have issues with it it. like  here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-oregon_n_3355314.html  I also don't have problems with religious leaders not performing mariages for people of other religions, mixed religions etc. I would have a problem with a county clerk refusing to issue a mairage license do to personal convictions though.

People being able to refuse buiness already hurts the LGBT comunity, laws protecting them while possibly leading to backlash and resentment for a while will diminish in time. Yes some of thesse places have increased buisness for a while, but others have to catch up with the times.



Around the Network
Augen on 27 March 2015
zumnupy10 said:

Yes I think.

I'm a typical latin american man, mixed of portuguese and indians and I know I wouldn't be welcome in some places even in my country.  

I find that sad and unfortunate that you'd be unwelcome anywhere based on your heritage.

Yet, you would be okay with a society where the government stated that you were a second class citizen based on what you are and it openly allowed to be discriminated against?

We differ in opinion here if that is how you feel.



sc94597 on 27 March 2015
Aura7541 said:
sc94597 said:

My point is, even if the discrepancy is 100%, which is very unlikely a case, they are in the same order of magnitude. The hate crime statistic was based on Federal law, not state law. I already said that. 

Based on Federal law or based on the collection of data from a federal agency? There's a big distinction between the two. And another variable to consider is the magnitude of discrimmination in different regions of the US and Canada. How are these hate crimes distributed because surely, they aren't distributed in an artistic mosaic.

In Canada it was mentioned that hate crimes most often occur in cities, which make sense because of their population density and diverse populations. I think it is safe to assume the same is true for the U.S was well, as rural areas tend to be predominately one race or another. 

As for how the FBI classifies hate crimes. 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

  • The FBI initiates a hate crime investigation when an allegation is received from a reliable source. Most complaints are received from the victim, a witness, or a third party. Many cases are also initiated by media reports, community group complaints, referrals from Department of Justice or U.S. Attorneys, and congressional inquiries.
  • Under guidelines developed in conjunction with the Department of Justice, once a complaint is received, the FBI will determine if the matter warrants a preliminary or full investigation.
  • Once a case is opened, a logical investigation is conducted within a reasonable period of time.


Wonktonodi on 27 March 2015
Aeolus451 said:

I can see how someone might tie in race into this but it's not about that or related to it. Those are very different from eachother. Before I say anymore, I'm completely neutral in this. I'm trying to see it as logically as possible. To me this is not a matter of right and wrong or what's politically correct.

Christianity and other religions think of homosexuality as a choice or a way of life. To them, it's a sinful lifestyle. Christians when confronted by sin or surrounded by it, will try to isolate themselves and their family from it. Hence why they want to isolate themselves from homosexuals or any other sinful people as much as possible. They simply see that lifestyle as sinful and that they should denouce it to get on the "right" path with god. 

As long as homosexuality is viewed as sin by christianity, there's no wiggle room or common ground with 'em. It's better to let them isolate themselves until they change their mind. You can't forcibly change their mind with laws or social pressure. It has to be done gradually. That's why I mentioned just relocating to a friendlier place or really just avoiding them. It's logical for most people to move from a dangerous place or community. In my opinion, it's just as logical to move from a community that doesn't want you there especially if it's the majority of 'em. I want to live in a positive environment. 

In this particular case, homosexuals should avoid the businesses that don't want them inside their businesses. That doesn't mean they should move just because of that. 

It is related though. people might as well be saying race is a sin and a life choice. how can the majority isolate themselves? Discrimination doesn't go away on its own. Sometimes people need to be forced to stop. you can't always change minds but you can change behavior.

While it's nice that you could just relocate. Most people don't have that luxury. Assuming that all people can, doesn't make them able to.



sc94597 on 27 March 2015
Wonktonodi said:
sc94597 said:

The point is, they are not denying service because the other person is a sinner, they are denying it because they believe if they partake in the ceremony it is a sin (immoral) on their own personal part as well. A more extreme analogy of this, which isn't exactly the same thing (no analogies are), is whether or not a doctor will give an abortion after a certain trimester in states where such abortions are legal. Many doctors will refuse to give an abortion after say the first trimester, not because it is illegal in their state, but because they don't want to morally. Should these doctors be forced to treat all pregnant woman the same, and enact the abortion? Should they lose their license if they refuse? Another more close to the point analogy is the question of whether or not a minister will perform a gay wedding or not is discrimination. Do you think all ordained ministers should perform gay weddings? If not, then why should all wedding cake producers make wedding cakes for gay weddings? Both entities are paid to perform a task, even if it is only a tip in the minster's case. Should all church buildings be willing to have gay wedding in them as well? 

In my opinion things like this hurt the LGBT movement. They make it harder for LGBT to be accepted, and it creates a mentality of us vs. them filled with resent on the religious persons end and resent on the non-heterosexual person's end. 

1. makeing a cake is not the same as performing a ceremony, it is a buisness transaction.  Making cakes is not a religious function. I already said if the buiness was totally religious I would understand but considering that many only draw the line at gay wedding and not beyond, I do have issues with it it. like  here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-oregon_n_3355314.html  I also don't have problems with religious leaders not performing mariages for people of other religions, mixed religions etc. I would have a problem with a county clerk refusing to issue a mairage license do to personal convictions though.

2. People being able to refuse buiness already hurts the LGBT comunity, laws protecting them while possibly leading to backlash and resentment for a while will diminish in time. Yes some of thesse places have increased buisness for a while, but others have to catch up with the times.

1. If the cake owner needs to be involved in what they perceive to be a religious function (a wedding) then I think it is perfectly normal for them to have religious beliefs on the matter. Furthermore, having a wedding at a church isn't free, if you don't already belong to the church. It certainly is a business transaction as well, just a more covert one. The cake maker isn't just making a generic wedding cake. They need to make it specific for the couple's demands, and it must fit with the rest of the wedding, which they might view as partaking in the ceremony. I agree, I have issues with county clerks not giving mariage licenses as well. That is why I support legally-recognized gay marriage. I don't expect every person to support gay marriage though, and I realize that these things must come incremental or otherwise they'll run from them. 

2. One of the best slogans found in the LGBT movement is ,"if two people of the same sex are married it won't affect you." I stand by this slogan quite a bit. However, if we are to start forcing people to partake in the marriage (in their eyes) or lose their business, it does indeed affect those people. This creates even more fear and paranoia on the part of the anti-LGBT people, and it leads them to call their legislators to create laws like this one. The best option for us is to say, "alright, then I will take my business elsewhere and tell all of my straight friends who will be having weddings about your overly traditionalist beliefs." Instead an atmosphere was created that frightens these fundamentalists and by the power of democracy they got a less than desirable law passed, which can make things much worst for the LGBT community. 



Around the Network
The_Yoda on 27 March 2015
Materia-Blade said:
The_Yoda said:
Skullwaker said:
The_Yoda said:
The hypocrisy of your earlier statement is perhaps lost on you?

There is no hypocrisy to be found. The difference between hating someone for something they can't change and hating someone for their own actions is astounding. 

If we are talking only about homosexuals then I take it you fall in with the side that believes homosexuality to be biological rather than a choice?

you seem to be on the side that thinks it makes a difference wheter it's a choice or not. the fact is that it's a preference and anyone against it is automatically wrong.

This is contrary to what you said before is it not. Look at your two quotes I bolded. To me preference is chioce which is why I was calling the first bolded statement out as hypocritical.



sc94597 on 27 March 2015

Wonktonodi said:

 Discrimination doesn't go away on its own. Sometimes people need to be forced to stop. you can't always change minds but you can change behavior.

If these beliefs are not logically sound, certainly they will indeed become unpopular on their own. Nobody banned religion, yet it has become increasingly unpopular since the enlightnment. The only reason discrimination had lasted as long as it had with race was because the southern states enforced it through mandates. I am personally of the belief that good ideas beat out bad ideas in a free society where ideas are allowed to be shared. Forcing people just makes them take a step back regroup and react with force, as we've seen with this law. 



pokymon90 on 27 March 2015

Isn't this more about public signs of affection? How will they honestly know you are gay? 2 men, 2 women, 1 man 1 woman, I don't like make out sessions in public.



CladInShadows on 27 March 2015
The_Yoda said:
theprof00 said:
daredevil.shark said:

Western world learned the word "karma" a few decades ago, when we are using this word for thousands of years. Lol. As for the "impact" of the word, I dont care. Because its not applicable for me. I havent done anything bad for anyone.

What are you so mad about?

Anyway, feel free to hold whatever beliefs you will. I think the flames you're receiving here are because people are tired of having other people's beliefs forced onto them.

But you are ok with the LGBT community forcing their beliefs on other people? This is the attidue that makes me shake my head.  People rallying so hard against something and not realizing they are doing the same thing to others that they are rallying against.

Their belief is that they should have the right to exist and not be treated as lesser human beings.  That's a tad different from the belief that it's OK to discriminate against and hate members of the LGBT community.



pokymon90 on 27 March 2015
Ka-pi96 said:
pokymon90 said:
Isn't this more about public signs of affection? How will they honestly know you are gay? 2 men, 2 women, 1 man 1 woman, I don't like make out sessions in public.

Quite easy to tell depending on the business. Say it was a restaurant taking an anniversary booking and then 2 people of the same sex walk in, they'd know straight away wouldn't they.


In that case nothing wrong it. There will be plenty of other shops/people that will help with their anniversery.  The government shouldn't make you serve somebody you don't want to serve. I applaud Mike Pence.