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.

wilco on 26 March 2015
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.


No, hes not right. If you absolutely must discriminate there are smart ways to go about it. It certainly shouldn't be endorsed by law. This will just lead to social unrest.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 26 March 2015
Soundwave said:

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 blending fabric? 


Its not called moral dogma for nothing. Heh



S.T.A.G.E. on 26 March 2015
Mr Khan said:
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).


Yep, religion was also used to excuse slavery in the US.



wilco 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.

Noone is forcing them to open a business.



RCTjunkie on 26 March 2015

Please don't throw religion under the bus and generalize like that. I know you are angry and rightfully so, but direct your anger at those that deserve it.



WHO IS JESUS REALLY?

Around the Network
Skullwaker on 26 March 2015

Oh what a time to be alive.



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

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


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.


No, hes not right. If you absolutely must discriminate there are smart ways to go about it. It certainly shouldn't be endorsed by law. This will just lead to social unrest.


In the end I think we all agree that the ramifications of this being a law wouldn't be that great for homosexuals in Indiana. I see your point as well. 



sc94597 on 26 March 2015
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. 



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


I'm not saying it is. Quite the opposite. If anyone is being a dick in aforementioned business and is causing a massive disturbance, kick their ass out. IDC if they're straight, gay, black, white, Peter Griffin or a Koala. There ass is being thrown out.


I agree. If they cannot abide by your code in your business they should leave. Its just simple manners and respect. 


So your willing to discriminate based off of personality type?  And what of a Christian's moral code? Screw religion is your answer?



S.T.A.G.E. on 26 March 2015
RCTjunkie said:
Please don't throw religion under the bus and generalize like that. I know you are angry and rightfully so, but direct your anger at those that deserve it.


The religious are the reason this law is coming to pass. This was a religious decision. As you can see the clergey is right next to the governor at the table.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/indiana-defines-stupidity-as-religion