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.

Wonktonodi on 28 March 2015
pokymon90 said:
Wonktonodi said:
pokymon90 said:


Agree completely. They own the place, you play by their rules. Love seeing all the different viewpoints in this thread though. I am just a firm believer that people should be able to sell to whomever they want. However, if the world was majority black athiest homosexuals and they did not accept white Catholic heterosexual men I guess I would feel kind of sad though. I could see myself complaining in that situation if there wasn't other options. Luckily for gay people, The majority DO NOT deny service to gay people. And like I said earlier, if the majority did deny service that speaks to what the American people want as the people have the power and shouldn't be forced to do something by the minority. That is called Minoritarianism.

 

 

in your society where people can discriminate would you force them to post signs saying that they deny sevice to whomever they deny it to, or would even that be to terible a thing to force them to do?

My whole point is that people should be able to serve who they want. And yes, it would be preferable for businesses to put up signs saying they do not accept somebody to their business. That would fix all problems of an altercation. It's when people try to argue with the people that are providing the service that major altercations happen. It's obvious that they don't want to have you as a customer so why the fuck are you trying to be a customer!?!?! Let them lose your money if they don't want your money. Heard a story a few months ago about a woman complaining that a wedding cake was not made for her because the woman who makes the cakes did not agree with the woman's sexual orientation. Then she started complaining. What is the point in trying to make somebody serve you who didn't want to serve you to begin with?!?!?! It's common sense. Let people do what they want, and go somewhere else. Instead of gay couples making a big deal about one business disrespecting you why not just stop complaining and not go to that business and put your money elsewhere. There is no issue.

Also, I would like to point out that I am pro-people rights. I have friends who are gay. I just look at them as normal people...because that's what they are. However, I am not in a position to hate on people who do not want to serve them because of their beliefs. I may disagree with them, but trying to make them change makes the world a shitty place where everybody has to think the same. That is stupid.

My point is there isn't always a service of the same type right next to the place that's discriminating. And it's not all about cakes.

Housing

Insurance

Banking

Or simply matters of employment. Where people can be fired for being gay. 

 

How far do you let people discriminate based on "religious beliefs"? Should all businesses be allowed or should some be exempt? 

 

The world is a shittier place when we stand back and go nothing when others do wrong and hide their wrongs behind beliefs. 

 

So not only do you think it's ok for gays not to be served but you think we shouldn't complain about it either? You might have gay friends but I don't get the impression you'd have their backs in a situation. Where they'd be kicked out and you and other friends wouldn't. Would you still support the business? Would you listen to your friends complaints or world you tell them hey it's just their beliefs get over it? 

 



Around the Network
pokymon90 on 28 March 2015
Wonktonodi said:
pokymon90 said:

My whole point is that people should be able to serve who they want. And yes, it would be preferable for businesses to put up signs saying they do not accept somebody to their business. That would fix all problems of an altercation. It's when people try to argue with the people that are providing the service that major altercations happen. It's obvious that they don't want to have you as a customer so why the fuck are you trying to be a customer!?!?! Let them lose your money if they don't want your money. Heard a story a few months ago about a woman complaining that a wedding cake was not made for her because the woman who makes the cakes did not agree with the woman's sexual orientation. Then she started complaining. What is the point in trying to make somebody serve you who didn't want to serve you to begin with?!?!?! It's common sense. Let people do what they want, and go somewhere else. Instead of gay couples making a big deal about one business disrespecting you why not just stop complaining and not go to that business and put your money elsewhere. There is no issue.

Also, I would like to point out that I am pro-people rights. I have friends who are gay. I just look at them as normal people...because that's what they are. However, I am not in a position to hate on people who do not want to serve them because of their beliefs. I may disagree with them, but trying to make them change makes the world a shitty place where everybody has to think the same. That is stupid.

My point is there isn't always a service of the same type right next to the place that's discriminating. And it's not all about cakes.

Housing

Insurance

Banking

Or simply matters of employment. Where people can be fired for being gay. 

 

How far do you let people discriminate based on "religious beliefs"? Should all businesses be allowed or should some be exempt? 

 

The world is a shittier place when we stand back and go nothing when others do wrong and hide their wrongs behind beliefs. 

 

So not only do you think it's ok for gays not to be served but you think we shouldn't complain about it either? You might have gay friends but I don't get the impression you'd have their backs in a situation. Where they'd be kicked out and you and other friends wouldn't. Would you still support the business? Would you listen to your friends complaints or world you tell them hey it's just their beliefs get over it? 

 

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.



tiffac on 28 March 2015

Isn't that state law against the constitution? I don't think it will hold any validity, especially in the court of law.



pokymon90 on 28 March 2015
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.


Actually, No. if the CNN article is correct, then there are 20 other states with similar laws.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/

"Is Indiana the first state to implement this kind of a law?

Nope. It's actually the 20th state to adopt a "religious freedom restoration" law, most of which are modeled after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993."

 

 



sc94597 on 28 March 2015
Zappykins said:

The outrage is about gay people - right now, but more disturbing is the law says religion trumps law on very flimsy grounds.

So you could just not serve anyone cause you felt like it - which doesn't sound bad unless you think about it.

1. How about an Emergency Room Doctor not treating you because 'gamers are against his/her religion?'

2. Or a Taxi cab kick you out because they only allow 'The Right Console Gamers' gamers in their cab? And they leave you in a really bad part of town.

3. It was just a display to say 'we don't want to be forced to like gay marriage!' And nobody expect anyone to be forced to do that. Recently a Reverend refused to marry a bride because he didn't like her dress. And yes, he has the right to do that.

4. The problem is that it's basically a Christan version of Sharia Law - and the US was founded on the separation of Church and State, and this law, with the Hobby Lobby ruling say Church > State.

5. Plus, its going to get tied up in the courts and cost Indiana another bunch of money.

6. Bonus point:  I'm going to move there and decide that Taxes are against my Religion, and that everybody I say hi to, owes me $100 or they are violating my religion.

While I think the law should include any ethical views, as this refers to private property, I do have some criticisms of your post beyond that: 

1. Slippery Slope fallacy. Hippocratic oath prevents this in most cases. The doctor would likely lose his job and license (which is granted through private organizations) if he did that. A hospital that turned down sick people would likely have absymal reputation. 

2. Again Taxi cab drivers don't determine who they are allowed to drive, they just drive. It is a boss who determies this. And if Taxi corporations did this Lyft and Uber would run them into the ground. Furthermore, since Taxi companies have a monopoly privelge and subsidies by government in many cities, the city should/would threaten to remove said monopoly privelege if they were to discriminate. Taxi companies would comply with said cities because they realize they'd lose even more revenue if the city were to do this. 

3. It was a response to people getting sued hundreds of thousands of dollars or losing their business because they didn't provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding. 

4. No it's not. This is a false equivalence.  

5. Probably not. SCoTUS has shied away from determining sexuality as protected under the CRA. I don't see where the courts would conflict on this matter. As for seperation of church and state, it isn't a codified law but more of a legal policy. I do think non-religious ethical views/morals matter as well though. It is silly to single out only religous beliefs.  

6. The tax argument is legitimate for any one to be honest, not just religious people, but we won't get into that because I realize that isn't how the overwhelming majority of people see things. You only have rights in so much as you don't infringe upon others (not providing a piece of your property in exchange for another piece of property is not infringing on another's rights, although it might reduce their "positive freedoms.") If you steal from other people you are taking their property without their permission, therefore you are infringing on their property rights, and no - religion doesn't protect that, just like religion doesn't protect against murder and slavery. This one is a non-sequitur. 



Around the Network
sc94597 on 28 March 2015

A good comparison that I've read, which I personally agree with," This is not to say discrimination shouldn't be socially condemned, it certainly should be. However, just like hate speech is socially condemned BUT NOT ILLEGAL, so too should be discrimination."



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 March 2015
pokymon90 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


I wish more people were like you, but then again we're human. I guess the struggle is the beauty of it all philosophically.


Same to you, my friend. I am glad we could have a little argument on the way this problem should be handled. Associate yourself with likeminded people and it's guaranteed you will be happier. Negativity is the root of all evil IMO. Gaming may be a very broad genre in theory, but all we want is just to have fun and escape from the troubles of the world to a world where none of that matters. Have a great night.


Sorry I missed this. Hope you had a great night. :)



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 March 2015
nanorazor said:
I think I overreacted a bit, but It actually depends on the terms and conditions of the bills. I only assume the bill will be harsh. You shouldn't able to reject them if they haven't done anything wrong/uncomfortable, but if they do anything unusual or any uncomfortable actions then they can tell them to stop or reject them of business. That's what I think, especially in larger businesses agreement, not just retail.


Yep. Nothing great happens when the church and the state get together. Someones rights will be stepped on. As someone said before one can only hope that the Supreme Court does something about this because they are. If worse came to worse and the businesses played along in the state it could be be considered a reason for segregation. It would become another case of gays civil rights being attacked. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 March 2015
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.  



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 March 2015
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.