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.

S.T.A.G.E. on 27 March 2015
Lyrikalstylez said:
Good just as gay people have the right to get married, people have the right to have their own opinions

Yeah, but marriage is not an opinion its just a marital status. The religious have been trying to step in the way of other peoples rights for the longest. Now they've compelled a state to allow them to discriminate in businesses. The lunacy is incredible. They have ever right to have an opinion, but to have public backed allowance to discriminate is intolerable and only pushes society back.

They cannot just spread the good word and leave it at that. They feel compelled to tell people how to live and control them. Its more emotional of a religion than it is spiritual. Emotional things cause us to make some irrational decisions.



Around the Network
The_Yoda on 27 March 2015
Aura7541 said:
The_Yoda said:

He is an idividual in said community (or at least for the purposes of the video he plays as one) I didn't say he was representative of the whole community.  You said "The cuts in the video didn't make the opposition look foolish. The opposition made the opposition look foolish." so those individuals on the side of the oppostion represent the whole of the opposition? Is that your view?

And yet you keep presenting that video as a counterargument to the statement that "the LGBT community doesn't force its views on other people". Perhaps, you interpreted the LGBT community as the entire LGBT community while I interpreted it as the general LGBT community. I would agree if we were talking about the entire community, though I have already gone over that. However, the LBGT community, in general, doesn't force views on other people.

And when I said the opposition, I meant the opposition in the video. I thought I made that clear, but apparently I did not. So the technically correct phrase would be "the opposition in the video made the opposition in the video look foolish."


I looked up something quick found someone on the side of the LGBT community being disrespectful and posted it.  It is a poor example, I didn't have the time to find good videos while still getting my job done. Still don't have time started this response an hour or so ago and just now getting to post it ..sorry.



The_Yoda on 27 March 2015
Materia-Blade said:
The_Yoda said:
Materia-Blade said:
The_Yoda said:

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.

Preference is not a choice but even if it was, anyone against homosexuality is automaticaly wrong in my eyes.

I mentioned it as preference because it's no different than liking certain foods/clothes/games... Can't you see how terrible it is to discriminate against a preference that isn't your business?

Corrected that for you.

You're right prefernece influences choice, but it isn't the same thing as choice.

You saying "anyone against homosexuality is automaticaly wrong" is no different than IF i held the view of "anyone for homosexuality is automatically wrong" when you say something like this you seem imobile in your opinion or close minded.  Your way is the only right way and anyone that doesn't agree is wrong. Seems an awful lot like the "bigots" you seem to dispise.  If you can prove to me there is a gene that causes people to be gay and personal choice plays absolutely no part in homosexuality then I will conceed that it is completely biological and you're not being hipocritical in your dug in stance.



Materia-Blade on 27 March 2015
The_Yoda said:
Materia-Blade said:

Preference is not a choice but even if it was, anyone against homosexuality is automaticaly wrong in my eyes.

I mentioned it as preference because it's no different than liking certain foods/clothes/games... Can't you see how terrible it is to discriminate against a preference that isn't your business?

Corrected that for you.

You're right prefernece influences choice, but it isn't the same thing as choice.

You saying "anyone against homosexuality is automaticaly wrong" is no different than IF i held the view of "anyone for homosexuality is automatically wrong" when you say something like this you seem imobile in your opinion or close minded.  Your way is the only right way and anyone that doesn't agree is wrong. Seems an awful lot like the "bigots" you seem to dispise.  If you can prove to me there is a gene that causes people to be gay and personal choice plays absolutely no part in homosexuality then I will conceed that it is completely biological and you're not being hipocritical in your dug in stance.

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.



S.T.A.G.E. on 27 March 2015
The_Yoda said:

Corrected that for you.

You're right prefernece influences choice, but it isn't the same thing as choice.

You saying "anyone against homosexuality is automaticaly wrong" is no different than IF i held the view of "anyone for homosexuality is automatically wrong" when you say something like this you seem imobile in your opinion or close minded.  Your way is the only right way and anyone that doesn't agree is wrong. Seems an awful lot like the "bigots" you seem to dispise.  If you can prove to me there is a gene that causes people to be gay and personal choice plays absolutely no part in homosexuality then I will conceed that it is completely biological and you're not being hipocritical in your dug in stance.


Having a choice implies the person is innately bi-sexual. Some food for thought.



Around the Network
The_Yoda on 27 March 2015
Materia-Blade said:
The_Yoda said:

Corrected that for you.

You're right prefernece influences choice, but it isn't the same thing as choice.

You saying "anyone against homosexuality is automaticaly wrong" is no different than IF i held the view of "anyone for homosexuality is automatically wrong" when you say something like this you seem imobile in your opinion or close minded.  Your way is the only right way and anyone that doesn't agree is wrong. Seems an awful lot like the "bigots" you seem to dispise.  If you can prove to me there is a gene that causes people to be gay and personal choice plays absolutely no part in homosexuality then I will conceed that it is completely biological and you're not being hipocritical in your dug in stance.

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.



S.T.A.G.E. on 27 March 2015
Scisca said:
Cool story. I'm happy with this regulation It's only natural that after years of brutal assault of the LGBT community there had to be a reaction. I approve!


Thats not a reaction, but an escalation. A reaction happens from an opposite and equal action causing either deflection or retaliation.



S.T.A.G.E. on 27 March 2015
The_Yoda said:


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.


Curious? Weren't kids married off around puberty in the US back a couple centuries ago?



The_Yoda on 27 March 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
The_Yoda said:


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.


Curious? Weren't kids married off around puberty in the US back a couple centuries ago?

10 is typically below the age of puberty. By todays laws a 10 year old can't consent to sex.  Slavery was also legal and common a couple hundred years ago so I'll ask what your point is.



ofrm1 on 27 March 2015
sc94597 said:
ofrm1 said:

It has nothing to do with what is harsher on the bigots. It has to do with protecting the rights of minorities in a liberal society.

If Chick Fil A at some point decided to refuse service to gays and there was no law preventing them from doing so, they would not fold. There would be a mass of people that would support the resturaunt out of principle. The same goes with minorities.

This is why principles that guide one's action must be universal principles, like the categorical imperative. Otherwise there will be cases where your principles cannot apply, so you must abandon them, which defeats the purpose of having principles if you abandon them at the drop of a hat.

There are no laws in many states preventing Chic Fil A from not providing service to gay people, yet they still provide services to gay people in those states. Why? Because they know if they didn't they'd lose a lot of revenue and their competitors would gain market power. A company doesn't have to fold for its owner/owners to be hurt by poor choices. Large companies like Chic Fil A aren't in the business of losing customers or forcing people from buying their food. They are in the business to make money and gain market power. Discrimination was only so debilitating in the southern states because the southern states forced everyone to do it, making it cheaper and less harmful for the people who wanted to do it and much more harmful for those who didn't want to do it.

If their motive was to focus on maximizing profit, the CEO wouldn't have said anything on the issue as making statements like that is a big risk financially speaking. So this libertarian notion that personal beliefs do not affect a business's decisions and that the free market will weed out bigots is just false.

Also, this notion that discrimination in the south was only a result of de jure segregation is also patently false. De Facto discrimination still occurs today. The video I linked mentions Bob Jones University and how it wasn't until 2000 that they finally dropped their prohibition on interracial dating. Clearly the free market sucked at coercing them out of the market. You know why? Because there's still a ton of bigoted people in America that will support these bigoted businesses, and unless the government uses coercive force to stop them, those bigoted businesses will stay in business.

I've had this exact discussion dozens of times and I'm tired of having to argue against something that is really only an idealistic, academic discussion and has no effect on the real world. The real legal system places a priority on people's right to equal treatment under the law over a person's right to discriminate. That's just the fact of the matter. Arguing whether that ought to be the case really doesn't matter because it's not going to change a thing, and anyone who thinks pragmatically rather than on principle comes to the conclusion that it should. Since no one ever changes their mind on this issue, there's really no point in continuing.