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.

super6646 on 26 March 2015
OttoniBastos said:
in what century are we? what next? inquisition?!


We (The US at least) is still from the 19th century apparently. What next? Blacks as slaves!



Around the Network
Goatseye on 26 March 2015
McDonaldsGuy said:
BMaker11 said:

No, you can't. You have to have an actual reason (they're disturbing customers, destroying property, etc). And that reason can't be because of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. That pesky Civil Rights act gets in the way of that. 

I'm from Indiana. Fuck this law


I think the Civil Rights act outside of government  is unconstitutional. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. I am Jewish, but if a Nazi opened a restaurant I simply wouldn't go there and ask other people not to.

You might as well rip the constitution that champions that every human being is equal.



sc94597 on 26 March 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
sc94597 said:

As a non-heterosexual (yes I said hetero), athiest, and ethnic "minority" I support the right to freely associate. That means discrimination shouldn't be illegal in people's private affairs. I also recognize that the majority (not all) of discrimination before the Civil Right's Act was state enforced (mandated by state law.) In today's very welcoming society such businesses would not last very long, and if they did, there is always competition.


Very true, but this is being done on the state level, which means any and every business that had an underlying amount of discriminatory thought could enforce it. Padoras box would've been opened up.

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. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 26 March 2015
Roronaa_chan said:
So we have to approach employees with a frown on our face?


Yep, no need to lie just to get a customer to hand over their cash in Indiana.



sc94597 on 26 March 2015
Goatseye said:
McDonaldsGuy said:


I think the Civil Rights act outside of government  is unconstitutional. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. I am Jewish, but if a Nazi opened a restaurant I simply wouldn't go there and ask other people not to.

You might as well rip the constitution that champions that every human being is equal.

"Equality before the law" is a vastly different concept than "equality in ends." 



Around the Network
Goatseye on 26 March 2015
sc94597 said:
Goatseye said:

You might as well rip the constitution that champions that every human being is equal.

"Equality before the law" is a vastly different concept than "equality in ends." 

Differentiate the two please.



sc94597 on 26 March 2015
Goatseye said:
sc94597 said:

"Equality before the law" is a vastly different concept than "equality in ends." 

Differentiate the two please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome



S.T.A.G.E. on 26 March 2015
sc94597 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Very true, but this is being done on the state level, which means any and every business that had an underlying amount of discriminatory thought could enforce it. Padoras box would've been opened up.

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.



Soundwave on 26 March 2015

So what happens if I follow a religious doctrine that says I don't have to listen to or obey people with red hair? Or blue eyes? Or freckles?

Hey it's my religion (or my interpretation of such) ... the Bible also says eating shellfish is wrong or wearing blended fabric is wrong, as a doctor for example can I refuse to see someone who's wearing clothing that's of blended fabric? 



Mr Khan on 26 March 2015

It's the petulant lashing-out of people on the wrong side of history and running out of options.

A similar "religious freedom" push came after civil rights to justify segregated private (religious) schools and universities. The supreme court didn't sit for it (except for William Reinquist).



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.