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.

t3mporary_126 on 26 March 2015
FunFan said:
Hows this different from ROAR? Is it discrimination if a guy gets kicked from an female-only nightclub? There are definitely certain business that should have this right. There are some that not (Hospitals, being the best example). I think that a privately owned business should have the right to kick anyone for whatever stupid reason (except in the health industry). If a company goes public then it forfeits this right.


No because that club has most likely adverised that that they are a female only club. If they did not, then yeah, they could very likely be sued. Business that don't explicitly come forward about their stance against gays or lesbians should come forward because most Americans are accepting gays and lesbians as equals. Business that do not come forward should not need a law that helps them hide their belief. If they are afraid of advertising, "We only serve heterosexuals" will lose heterosexual customers as well, then that's their problem and not the gay and lesbian community. Not advertising their business policy and wasting a gay and lesbians' effort to do business with them is false advertising. 



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 26 March 2015
t3mporary_126 said:
FunFan said:
Hows this different from ROAR? Is it discrimination if a guy gets kicked from an female-only nightclub? There are definitely certain business that should have this right. There are some that not (Hospitals, being the best example). I think that a privately owned business should have the right to kick anyone for whatever stupid reason (except in the health industry). If a company goes public then it forfeits this right.


No because that club has most likely adverised that that they are a female only club. If they did not, then yeah, they could very likely be sued. Business that don't explicitly come forward about their stance against gays or lesbians should do the same because most Americans are accepting gays and lesbians as equals. Business that do not come forward should not need a law that prevents them from hiding their belief. If they are afraid of advertising, "We only serve heterosexuals" will lose heterosexual customers as well, then that's their problem and not the gay and lesbian community. Not advertising their business policy and wasting a gay and lesbian effort to do business with them is false advertising. 


Chic-Fil-A came out as anti-gay before the leader died. The stupidity of it all is that they cannot tell who is gay from who isnt unless its out there smacking them in the face. Chic-Fil-A knows they can get away with it and still profit because of the fact that the US is 60% Christian.



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


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


Code and law are the things which keep people civilized. Modern thought and philosophy do as well, but even less people know about that. If you own a business, the least you can expect from people is to be civilized in the place. If I owned a business that was pretty much what I would consider my code, but again on a sociological level that changes from society to society.

If people do things which cause your business to no longer be a safe environment, then yes, you must ask that they leave. Thats the point of expelling a person for the proper reasons, and not because of their race/creed/religion.

Granted no institution is perfect but Christian values are aligned with many of our laws. You've said religion does nothing but set society back, I think that is unfair , close minded and flat out wrong.  Have there been instances where religions had negative influence or made mistakes ... sure there are, any organization is made up of individuals.  Those individuals are human and prone to short sightedness and making mistakes.


Its actually a fact that religion has held society back, which caused the founding fathers to look back at history and actually be forced to separate church and state. Its because of being closed minded, but actually allows you to practice the religion of your choice without being approached by a non-believer in your religion or even an athiest. The problem with Christianity in general is that assumes position and dominion over the US of A because certain members of the founding members of society practiced Christianity and said somethings. Science progressed because religion backed down and now religion follows science (follow the catholic church). 

"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document. You've fallen for a common misconception.

You're not even focusing on the fact that the fundamental reasoning of this discriminatory law is actually going to affect people in a state. Thats extremely selfish. 

I haven't read the law myself yet so I am not addressing it here. It seems like some of the posters are using double standards I am just trying to point them out.

Closed minded? Christians make up the majority of the religious people on the planet boasting billions. How were they spread? You take a guess.

I'll guess mostly mission work the same way the word is spread in this day and age. In the past ... there were prime examples of the wrong way to go about it to be certaint. Thruthfully you lost me on this one, not comepletely sure what you are gettgin at.

Am I saying stop Christianity? NO. Be free to believe in it, but do not force your beliefs on a state of people because you might ruin their lives.

It is ok though to force your beleifs on a bussiness owner that they need to serve even those they disagree with, those they think would set a bad example? I'm like others leave them the right to serve who they will and let those practices drag down their business.

This is where a lack of humanity occurs. Humanity moves forward because of proper education and the progress of science (not religion). If you put religion over proper education, you just doomed your countries progress. Tell me have you even seen the debate between Bill Nye and Kenneth Ham?  Nope haven't seen it but I'd be willing to look it up when i have time.

I should probably let you know where I stand.  Like others have said it is not Man's place to judge, I think that is very very true.  No one is perfect, people are individuals I think they should be acceptided warts and all (there are a few exceptions to this in my opinion, murders and rapists come quickly to mind.)



wilco on 26 March 2015
FunFan said:
Hows this different from ROAR? Is it discrimination if a guy gets kicked from an female-only nightclub? There are definitely certain business that should have this right. There are some that not (Hospitals, being the best example). I think that a privately owned business should have the right to kick anyone for whatever stupid reason (except in the health industry). If a company goes public then it forfeits this right.


I am actually more okay with the idea that a business owner could refuse anyone service for any reason (not an explicitly stated reason). That is less disturbing to me than the idea that we would codify in law the ability to discriminate based on the business owners religious beliefs. Yes, I realize that both laws would allow for discrimination but one is less problematic. Anyone who is okay with the kind of law being passed in Indiana better not be mad when Shariah law comes to the US.



wilco on 26 March 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
t3mporary_126 said:


No because that club has most likely adverised that that they are a female only club. If they did not, then yeah, they could very likely be sued. Business that don't explicitly come forward about their stance against gays or lesbians should do the same because most Americans are accepting gays and lesbians as equals. Business that do not come forward should not need a law that prevents them from hiding their belief. If they are afraid of advertising, "We only serve heterosexuals" will lose heterosexual customers as well, then that's their problem and not the gay and lesbian community. Not advertising their business policy and wasting a gay and lesbian effort to do business with them is false advertising. 


Chic-Fil-A came out as anti-gay before the leader died. The stupidity of it all is that they cannot tell who is gay from who isnt unless its out there smacking them in the face. Chic-Fil-A knows they can get away with it and still profit because of the fact that the US is 60% Christian.

Is it really only 60%? I could've sworn it was higher.



Around the Network
Materia-Blade on 26 March 2015

Does the bill also say the gay people are free to punch the rejectors into oblivion?



t3mporary_126 on 26 March 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
t3mporary_126 said:


No because that club has most likely adverised that that they are a female only club. If they did not, then yeah, they could very likely be sued. Business that don't explicitly come forward about their stance against gays or lesbians should do the same because most Americans are accepting gays and lesbians as equals. Business that do not come forward should not need a law that prevents them from hiding their belief. If they are afraid of advertising, "We only serve heterosexuals" will lose heterosexual customers as well, then that's their problem and not the gay and lesbian community. Not advertising their business policy and wasting a gay and lesbian effort to do business with them is false advertising. 


Chic-Fil-A came out as anti-gay before the leader died. The stupidity of it all is that they cannot tell who is gay from who isnt unless its out there smacking them in the face. Chic-Fil-A knows they can get away with it and still profit because of the fact that the US is 60% Christian.

We should give credit where credit is due though. Although chick - fil - a thinks gay marriage is wrong, they won't discriminate against gays who want their products. That's why they're still in business. Plus, the owner publicly admitted his mistake in making the company a symbol in the marriage debate back then.

And although most Americans may be Christian, 37 of the 50 states support gay marriage. Indiana's stance toward gay and lesbian and this law is definitely in the minority. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see this law get repealed pretty soon (and rightfully so).



arcane_chaos on 26 March 2015

MURICA!!!! why...?



The_Yoda on 26 March 2015

I said before people should be accepted warts and all. Perspective plays a huge roll in this. From a Christian perspective homosexuality is a sin or in my simplified example a wart. From a homosexual's perspective they may consider the view of homosexuality being sin as a wart. It depends from whose perspective you view things who is right and who is wrong. So many things in life boil down to perspective.



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


Chic-Fil-A came out as anti-gay before the leader died. The stupidity of it all is that they cannot tell who is gay from who isnt unless its out there smacking them in the face. Chic-Fil-A knows they can get away with it and still profit because of the fact that the US is 60% Christian.

Is it really only 60%? I could've sworn it was higher.

You're right, which only makes it worse. 78% and they claim religious persecution from non-believers. Laughable at best.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports