Post by: tbc on Thu, 26 March 2015, 19:42:38
does this bill mean what i think it means? they're going to make and sell gaydar technology?
how exactly do you tell your customer is gay when they do online shopping?
Post by: hwood34 on Thu, 26 March 2015, 19:53:46
Post by: Joey Quinn on Thu, 26 March 2015, 19:57:19
Post by: nubbinator on Thu, 26 March 2015, 20:02:17
Now the real question is, what other unintentional doors did they open with the bill? You can read the text here (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#), but to me, armchair lawyer that I am, it sounds like they just legalized marijuana for Rastafarians, animal cruelty and sacrifice for Santeria and other similar religions, made it legal to discriminate against women if the woman has their head uncovered or is not "modest" enough in apparel, or even for businesses owned by religious persons to refuse to serve people of other religions, say Jews or Muslims.
Post by: R1N3 on Thu, 26 March 2015, 20:33:35
No.
Privately owned businesses should have the right to refuse anyone they want. Just like each of us has the right to take our own money elsewhere.
Would that more people were out in the open about how they felt so I'd have an easier time deciding on who I do/do not want to support.
Either way, *obligatory* "mah slippery slope" because that's exactly what bills like this are.
Post by: tbc on Thu, 26 March 2015, 20:54:01
if there is...well. alot of dead people who wouldn't be able to make it to the next stste?
Post by: jacobolus on Thu, 26 March 2015, 21:08:06
If you're a homosexual would you want to give your money to someone that would refuse to serve you if they could based solely on your sexual orientation?In many cases, sure, since there often aren’t reasonable alternatives. Depends what they’re selling and what the broader context of the market is. I’m not a homosexual, but I’m perfectly happy to buy things from people who might refuse to serve me if they realized I fell into some stupid category they cared about, e.g. for being a marxist, or an atheist, or for being in a mixed-race marriage, or for whatever other stupid reason they might come up with. Just because someone is a hateful ******* doesn’t mean I might not need to sleep somewhere, eat somewhere, etc.
How this relates to racial/religious discrimination in restaurants, hotels, etc. is very clear cut in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For various other kinds of businesses and various other groups that might be discriminated against, there are other laws at both federal and state level which sometimes apply. (Or sometimes don’t, see e.g. http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3481&context=mlr) I’m not sure about online stores, per se; ask a lawyer. Personally I think anti-discrimination laws should be strengthened and clarified.
“Privately owned business” doesn’t mean they have personal sovereignty on the premises. Live in our society, live subject to our society’s rules.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 26 March 2015, 21:23:25
That's kinda what Grinder is, but I suppose what some of them are looking for is a discreet gay-dar.
Closet-Gay-Dar
Post by: R1N3 on Thu, 26 March 2015, 21:29:09
TBH, i think the majority of the people who'd want a reliable Gay-dar are themselves Gay..
That's kinda what Grinder is, but I suppose what some of them are looking for is a discreet gay-dar.
Closet-Gay-Dar
What's Grinder got to do with gay? I've hooked up with tons of dudes off there. Didn't seem gay at all.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 26 March 2015, 21:30:13
TBH, i think the majority of the people who'd want a reliable Gay-dar are themselves Gay..
That's kinda what Grinder is, but I suppose what some of them are looking for is a discreet gay-dar.
Closet-Gay-Dar
What's Grinder got to do with gay? I've hooked up with tons of dudes off there. Didn't seem gay at all.
I've only heard about it, never tried it myself.. Any nice girls on Grinder ?
Post by: R1N3 on Thu, 26 March 2015, 21:32:58
Nah mainly just me and a bunch of other guys. Kind of a sausage fest..TBH, i think the majority of the people who'd want a reliable Gay-dar are themselves Gay..
That's kinda what Grinder is, but I suppose what some of them are looking for is a discreet gay-dar.
Closet-Gay-Dar
What's Grinder got to do with gay? I've hooked up with tons of dudes off there. Didn't seem gay at all.
I've only heard about it, never tried it myself.. Any nice girls on Grinder ?
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 26 March 2015, 21:49:12
A restaurant owner is perfectly free to decide who he invites to dinner in the private dining room of his home, but if he opens the door of his business to the public, it is a different matter altogether.
Post by: Melvang on Thu, 26 March 2015, 22:31:41
Like Jacobolus said, the Civil Rights Act is quite clear, and the letter and the spirit of the legislation is to make "public" facilities open and free from discrimination.
A restaurant owner is perfectly free to decide who he invites to dinner in the private dining room of his home, but if he opens the door of his business to the public, it is a different matter altogether.
This and jacobolus are on the money here. A good friend of mine ran into a lot of issues when she was trying to find a wedding photographer. They are a lesbian couple and everywhere that has a state tax ID refused to do their wedding photography. So they turned it into a crowd sourced photography event. My wife did the personal and formal shots, everything else, they had a bunch of disposable cameras around. Actually turned out very well.
I find it absolutely disgusting when I find out business's turn away people based on religion or sexual preference. That deal with Hobby Lobby, is an utter disgrace to all of the USA and all of Christianity. I say that and I am agnostic.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 26 March 2015, 22:46:02
Like Jacobolus said, the Civil Rights Act is quite clear, and the letter and the spirit of the legislation is to make "public" facilities open and free from discrimination.
A restaurant owner is perfectly free to decide who he invites to dinner in the private dining room of his home, but if he opens the door of his business to the public, it is a different matter altogether.
This and jacobolus are on the money here. A good friend of mine ran into a lot of issues when she was trying to find a wedding photographer. They are a lesbian couple and everywhere that has a state tax ID refused to do their wedding photography. So they turned it into a crowd sourced photography event. My wife did the personal and formal shots, everything else, they had a bunch of disposable cameras around. Actually turned out very well.
I find it absolutely disgusting when I find out business's turn away people based on religion or sexual preference. That deal with Hobby Lobby, is an utter disgrace to all of the USA and all of Christianity. I say that and I am agnostic.
It's equally bigoted to assess ALL businesses that discriminate in the same manner.
For example, if you're in a country that's heavily anti-gay, as a business, the options are limited not only by "personal" belief.. It's influenced by the political climate of its service radius.
I've dealt with shops before that refused service out of fear of losing the business of their majority patrons..
MANY businesses fall under this category..
So one must be careful when making a blanket statement in either direction regarding discrimination..
Post by: tbc on Thu, 26 March 2015, 22:49:22
incoming lgbt plantations?
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 26 March 2015, 23:01:15
so...
incoming lgbt plantations?
What do these people plant? Corn ? Soy ?
Post by: heedpantsnow on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:16:33
Post by: Melvang on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:21:26
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.
If that is the way a business owner feels, then they either need to get with the times, or move somewhere that practice is legal.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:23:34
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want.
They can.
But they can't discriminate against entire types of people, be they black, white, gay etc etc... As someone who worked in a shop I could refuse to serve anyone for for kind of anything, except for things they can't do anything about like race and sexuality.
Post by: R1N3 on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:23:49
so...
incoming lgbt plantations?
What do these people plant? Corn ? Soy ?
They plant god awful ideas into each others heads. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.......
(http://i.imgur.com/GoF5X7I.gif)
Post by: paicrai on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:25:40
whatso...
incoming lgbt plantations?
What do these people plant? Corn ? Soy ?
They plant god awful ideas into each others heads. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.......Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/GoF5X7I.gif)
Post by: nubbinator on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:25:44
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.
If that is the way a business owner feels, then they either need to get with the times, or move somewhere that practice is legal.
I hear Tunisia, Somalia, and Afghanistan are pleasant places to do business if you like to be able to discriminate on religion, gender, and color.
Post by: Melvang on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:28:10
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.
If that is the way a business owner feels, then they either need to get with the times, or move somewhere that practice is legal.
I hear Tunisia, Somalia, and Afghanistan are pleasant places to do business if you like to be able to discriminate on religion, gender, and color.
Sounds like a good place to me for those bigots and racists.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:31:31
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.
If that is the way a business owner feels, then they either need to get with the times, or move somewhere that practice is legal.
I hear Tunisia, Somalia, and Afghanistan are pleasant places to do business if you like to be able to discriminate on religion, gender, and color.
Sounds like a good place to me for those bigots and racists.
They are all wonderful examples of freedom and civil liberties
Post by: Melvang on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:35:18
Post by: SpAmRaY on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:38:48
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want.
They can.
But they can't discriminate against entire types of people, be they black, white, gay etc etc... As someone who worked in a shop I could refuse to serve anyone for for kind of anything, except for things they can't do anything about like race and sexuality.
I thought people were allowed to decide what they are nowadays? So there is a choice sometimes, I mean if your born brown there's no hope, unless your Michael Jackson.
Boys can be girls, girls can be boys and anyone can be a snowflake unless your brown then you get to be a target.
Anyways I'm glad to know I'll never share my personal beliefs and/or feelings here, tough crowd.
Being able to refuse service to someone based on something they do, like being rude, obnoxious, or fighting is one thing. To refuse service to someone based on the color of their skin, religion, or where they were born is wrong and illegal. Those types of business owners have no business owning their own business in USA.
I think you left out sexual preference because that ultimately is where these things are coming from.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:43:12
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want.
They can.
But they can't discriminate against entire types of people, be they black, white, gay etc etc... As someone who worked in a shop I could refuse to serve anyone for for kind of anything, except for things they can't do anything about like race and sexuality.
I thought people were allowed to decide what they are nowadays? So there is a choice sometimes, I mean if your born brown there's no hope, unless your Michael Jackson.
Boys can be girls, girls can be boys and anyone can be a snowflake unless your brown then you get to be a target.
Anyways I'm glad to know I'll never share my personal beliefs and/or feelings here, tough crowd.Being able to refuse service to someone based on something they do, like being rude, obnoxious, or fighting is one thing. To refuse service to someone based on the color of their skin, religion, or where they were born is wrong and illegal. Those types of business owners have no business owning their own business in USA.
I think you left out sexual preference because that ultimately is where these things are coming from.
yeah, I could have worded it better...
Post by: heedpantsnow on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:51:46
Post by: SpAmRaY on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:51:59
I'm just being contrary really.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want.
They can.
But they can't discriminate against entire types of people, be they black, white, gay etc etc... As someone who worked in a shop I could refuse to serve anyone for for kind of anything, except for things they can't do anything about like race and sexuality.
I thought people were allowed to decide what they are nowadays? So there is a choice sometimes, I mean if your born brown there's no hope, unless your Michael Jackson.
Boys can be girls, girls can be boys and anyone can be a snowflake unless your brown then you get to be a target.
Anyways I'm glad to know I'll never share my personal beliefs and/or feelings here, tough crowd.Being able to refuse service to someone based on something they do, like being rude, obnoxious, or fighting is one thing. To refuse service to someone based on the color of their skin, religion, or where they were born is wrong and illegal. Those types of business owners have no business owning their own business in USA.
I think you left out sexual preference because that ultimately is where these things are coming from.
yeah, I could have worded it better...
But a few friends have suggested they may start a religion where clothes are optional and it's considered an abomination to have to work.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:53:02
Wow, feel like I'm getting flamed and told GTFO because of something I think (not practice, I'm not a business owner). I thought I could share what I thought around here, especially in this thread, without getting flamed for it.
You can, but this is a forum.
It's worthless to state something without being able to back it up with some sort of reasoning or logic.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:54:28
But a few friends have suggested they may start a religion where clothes are optional and it's considered an abomination to have to work.
I've always wanted to create a suicide cult or some sort of insane cult like Scientology... but I'm lazy and socially awkward
Post by: SpAmRaY on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:56:12
Belief is not enough?Wow, feel like I'm getting flamed and told GTFO because of something I think (not practice, I'm not a business owner). I thought I could share what I thought around here, especially in this thread, without getting flamed for it.
You can, but this is a forum.
It's worthless to state something without being able to back it up with some sort of reasoning or logic.
I believe things are wrong that others believe are right and vice versa.
No amount of reason or logic will ever change that.
Post by: nubbinator on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:57:35
But a few friends have suggested they may start a religion where clothes are optional and it's considered an abomination to have to work.
I've always wanted to create a suicide cult or some sort of insane cult like Scientology... but I'm lazy and socially awkward
If you want a really weird cult, check out the Raëlian cult.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Fri, 27 March 2015, 09:58:22
Wow, feel like I'm getting flamed and told GTFO because of something I think (not practice, I'm not a business owner). I thought I could share what I thought around here, especially in this thread, without getting flamed for it.
You can, but this is a forum.
It's worthless to state something without being able to back it up with some sort of reasoning or logic.
I don't think it's the government 's place to tell a business who they should do business with. The government tends to screw up things it gets its fingers into. So while I do think discrimination is morally wrong, it's not the government's place to do something about it. Anyway, I guess I should just stop posting in this as I'm in the minority.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 10:01:29
Belief is not enough?Wow, feel like I'm getting flamed and told GTFO because of something I think (not practice, I'm not a business owner). I thought I could share what I thought around here, especially in this thread, without getting flamed for it.
You can, but this is a forum.
It's worthless to state something without being able to back it up with some sort of reasoning or logic.
No?
>ugh idk how to reply to this without derailing this thread and this being some anti faith rant lol... ermm...
LOOK A DOG IS PLAYING TENNIS
Wow, feel like I'm getting flamed and told GTFO because of something I think (not practice, I'm not a business owner). I thought I could share what I thought around here, especially in this thread, without getting flamed for it.
You can, but this is a forum.
It's worthless to state something without being able to back it up with some sort of reasoning or logic.
I don't think it's the government 's place to tell a business who they should do business with. The government tends to screw up things it gets its fingers into. So while I do think discrimination is morally wrong, it's not the government's place to do something about it. Anyway, I guess I should just stop posting in this as I'm in the minority.
being a minority doesn't make your opinion any less valid as long as your able to reasonably and rationally able to talk about it :)
Post by: azhdar on Fri, 27 March 2015, 10:03:54
I remember them, I think they are from France, crazy people.But a few friends have suggested they may start a religion where clothes are optional and it's considered an abomination to have to work.
I've always wanted to create a suicide cult or some sort of insane cult like Scientology... but I'm lazy and socially awkward
If you want a really weird cult, check out the Raëlian cult.
Another exemple on how people with no personnal judgement can be lured easily , and not only in cults...
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 10:06:57
But a few friends have suggested they may start a religion where clothes are optional and it's considered an abomination to have to work.
I've always wanted to create a suicide cult or some sort of insane cult like Scientology... but I'm lazy and socially awkward
If you want a really weird cult, check out the Ra�lian cult.
Thats like the most half-aressed cult I've come across...
Post by: iri on Fri, 27 March 2015, 10:43:50
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Post by: JinDesu on Fri, 27 March 2015, 10:48:52
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Post by: azhdar on Fri, 27 March 2015, 10:50:59
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group.
I mean some group of people boycot a company, if a company want to refuse clients it's up to them.
Post by: iri on Fri, 27 March 2015, 10:52:31
no problem, the world is generally unfair.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 10:55:19
Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group.
I mean some group of people boycot a company, if a company want to refuse clients it's up to them.
If only we lived in world free of sexism, homophobia and racism...
The problem with the world today is extremism, and given that the only fix to this is long term and expensive, it's not going to get sorted anytime soon. So in the mean time things like this have to happen in order to help curve the views of extremists (yes thinking people of a different sexual orientation or race are lower forms of life than you is extremist).
Post by: JinDesu on Fri, 27 March 2015, 10:58:09
no problem, the world is generally unfair.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Right, but this is in the United States, where equality gets just as much airtime as freedom. Hence the whole discussion - does equality trump freedom (businesses must serve all customers equally), or does freedom trump equality (businesses are free to deny certain customers)?
Post by: azhdar on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:07:59
Problem is we are shown only a few elements of a group to present it totally.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group.
I mean some group of people boycot a company, if a company want to refuse clients it's up to them.
If only we lived in world free of sexism, homophobia and racism...
The problem with the world today is extremism, and given that the only fix to this is long term and expensive, it's not going to get sorted anytime soon. So in the mean time things like this have to happen in order to help curve the views of extremists (yes thinking people of a different sexual orientation or race are lower forms of life than you is extremist).
For exemple when I say muslim a solid portion of you will think or terrorist, while it's only a minority of the group.
Same goes for gay, you'll see the typical guy in leather or dressed like a doll. But that's not the majority of the group itself.
Being borned and raised in rural part of the France, the only view we had of those "minorities" was through media. And I got to say, I was all of what you quoted above( homophobic, racist, ....), because that how I was raised. THEY are not interested in us getting along. THEY are the one that want us to fight and seperate in differents groups.
But most of the people( for exemple the one in my rural area), won't go further and try to understand, they'll just eat the **** TV poop on them and take it as a blessing, accept what's told as a true without even trying to process the information.
As long as people won't try to comprehend things on their own and go further the curtain of lies, we'll fight each other to feed the pigs.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:14:33
Problem is we are shown only a few elements of a group to present it totally.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group.
I mean some group of people boycot a company, if a company want to refuse clients it's up to them.
If only we lived in world free of sexism, homophobia and racism...
The problem with the world today is extremism, and given that the only fix to this is long term and expensive, it's not going to get sorted anytime soon. So in the mean time things like this have to happen in order to help curve the views of extremists (yes thinking people of a different sexual orientation or race are lower forms of life than you is extremist).
For exemple when I say muslim a solid portion of you will think or terrorist, while it's only a minority of the group.
Same goes for gay, you'll see the typical guy in leather or dressed like a doll. But that's not the majority of the group itself.
Being borned and raised in rural part of the France, the only view we had of those "minorities" was through media. And I got to say, I was all of what you quoted above( homophobic, racist, ....), because that how I was raised. THEY are not interested in us getting along. THEY are the one that want us to fight and seperate in differents groups.
But most of the people( for exemple the one in my rural area), won't go further and try to understand, they'll just eat the **** TV poop on them and take it as a blessing, accept what's told as a true without even trying to process the information.
As long as people won't try to comprehend things on their own and go further the curtain of lies, we'll fight each other to feed the pigs.
Which is exactly why you can't refuse to deal with someone simply because of gender, sexuality or race etc... forcing people who (or want of a better word) live in a bubble to deal with these other people forces them to come to the realisation that they aren't scary or different and that we are all basically the same.
Unfortunately we are a species that strives to put things into boxes, to organise things etc etc...
Post by: Melvang on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:16:23
no problem, the world is generally unfair.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Right, but this is in the United States, where equality gets just as much airtime as freedom. Hence the whole discussion - does equality trump freedom (businesses must serve all customers equally), or does freedom trump equality (businesses are free to deny certain customers)?
Business do have a choice, but not total freedom of choice.
I remember reading of a story here in the US about cake shop that refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couples wedding because of religion. They took the place to court and the court said they had to make the cake, that sexual preferece of the client was not a valid reason to refuse service. The cake shop just said screw it and closed shop.
Had the couple come in drunk, no clothes on, disruptive, rude, etc, then the shop would have had legal grounds to refuse service. But their reasons were not legal. I say good on the court for standing up to the bigotry.
If you are that narrow minded that you wouldn't service clients for those reasons, then I don't feel a bit sorry when courts make these decisions.
I really hope that the law suit for that indoor gun range owner in South West US gets hammered by the courts. She has publicly stated that she will refuse service to Muslims. This is outright illegal for a public business. Her reasoning is she doesn't want terrorists in here range. If she is that worried about it, then she needs to make it a private club and preform background checks based on the results. And then she can refuse membership based on that. Though I am not sure if a private club can legally refuse membership based on religion, race, sex, creed, and the other terms of illegal discrimination.
For what its worth, in 2014 you had better chances of being killed by a toddler than a terrorist in the USA. There were 3 deaths from terrorists on US soil, and 5 deaths from toddlers on US soil.
Post by: iri on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:18:38
THEY are not interested in us getting along. THEY are the one that want us to fight and seperate in differents groups.who "THEY"? TV in France spreads racism and homophobia? interesting if that's what you are saying. the only TV show i've ever seen in France was about islam haha
But most of the people( for exemple the one in my rural area), won't go further and try to understand, they'll just eat the **** TV poop on them and take it as a blessing
Post by: azhdar on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:22:19
I still believe a company is in his right to refuse a customer/business.no problem, the world is generally unfair.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Right, but this is in the United States, where equality gets just as much airtime as freedom. Hence the whole discussion - does equality trump freedom (businesses must serve all customers equally), or does freedom trump equality (businesses are free to deny certain customers)?
Business do have a choice, but not total freedom of choice.
I remember reading of a story here in the US about cake shop that refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couples wedding because of religion. They took the place to court and the court said they had to make the cake, that sexual preferece of the client was not a valid reason to refuse service. The cake shop just said screw it and closed shop.
Had the couple come in drunk, no clothes on, disruptive, rude, etc, then the shop would have had legal grounds to refuse service. But their reasons were not legal. I say good on the court for standing up to the bigotry.
If you are that narrow minded that you wouldn't service clients for those reasons, then I don't feel a bit sorry when courts make these decisions.
I really hope that the law suit for that indoor gun range owner in South West US gets hammered by the courts. She has publicly stated that she will refuse service to Muslims. This is outright illegal for a public business. Her reasoning is she doesn't want terrorists in here range. If she is that worried about it, then she needs to make it a private club and preform background checks based on the results. And then she can refuse membership based on that. Though I am not sure if a private club can legally refuse membership based on religion, race, sex, creed, and the other terms of illegal discrimination.
For what its worth, in 2014 you had better chances of being killed by a toddler than a terrorist in the USA. There were 3 deaths from terrorists on US soil, and 5 deaths from toddlers on US soil.
If a client were to come and ask a website on a thing that's against my principles (but legal in term of the law), I should be able to refuse it.
Same goes for the cake story, you have to agree that if you were religious, doing a gay wedding cake, would not be something you want to do.
Post by: iri on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:23:24
Tunisia, really? Have you just randomly picked a country with brown people?Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.
If that is the way a business owner feels, then they either need to get with the times, or move somewhere that practice is legal.
I hear Tunisia, Somalia, and Afghanistan are pleasant places to do business if you like to be able to discriminate on religion, gender, and color.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:23:53
I still believe a company is in his right to refuse a customer/business.no problem, the world is generally unfair.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Right, but this is in the United States, where equality gets just as much airtime as freedom. Hence the whole discussion - does equality trump freedom (businesses must serve all customers equally), or does freedom trump equality (businesses are free to deny certain customers)?
Business do have a choice, but not total freedom of choice.
I remember reading of a story here in the US about cake shop that refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couples wedding because of religion. They took the place to court and the court said they had to make the cake, that sexual preferece of the client was not a valid reason to refuse service. The cake shop just said screw it and closed shop.
Had the couple come in drunk, no clothes on, disruptive, rude, etc, then the shop would have had legal grounds to refuse service. But their reasons were not legal. I say good on the court for standing up to the bigotry.
If you are that narrow minded that you wouldn't service clients for those reasons, then I don't feel a bit sorry when courts make these decisions.
I really hope that the law suit for that indoor gun range owner in South West US gets hammered by the courts. She has publicly stated that she will refuse service to Muslims. This is outright illegal for a public business. Her reasoning is she doesn't want terrorists in here range. If she is that worried about it, then she needs to make it a private club and preform background checks based on the results. And then she can refuse membership based on that. Though I am not sure if a private club can legally refuse membership based on religion, race, sex, creed, and the other terms of illegal discrimination.
For what its worth, in 2014 you had better chances of being killed by a toddler than a terrorist in the USA. There were 3 deaths from terrorists on US soil, and 5 deaths from toddlers on US soil.
If a client were to come and ask a website on a thing that's against my principles (but legal in term of the law), I should be able to refuse it.
Same goes for the cake story, you have to agree that if you were religious, doing a gay wedding cake, would not be something you want to do.
+1
Post by: Melvang on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:24:52
I still believe a company is in his right to refuse a customer/business.no problem, the world is generally unfair.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Right, but this is in the United States, where equality gets just as much airtime as freedom. Hence the whole discussion - does equality trump freedom (businesses must serve all customers equally), or does freedom trump equality (businesses are free to deny certain customers)?
Business do have a choice, but not total freedom of choice.
I remember reading of a story here in the US about cake shop that refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couples wedding because of religion. They took the place to court and the court said they had to make the cake, that sexual preferece of the client was not a valid reason to refuse service. The cake shop just said screw it and closed shop.
Had the couple come in drunk, no clothes on, disruptive, rude, etc, then the shop would have had legal grounds to refuse service. But their reasons were not legal. I say good on the court for standing up to the bigotry.
If you are that narrow minded that you wouldn't service clients for those reasons, then I don't feel a bit sorry when courts make these decisions.
I really hope that the law suit for that indoor gun range owner in South West US gets hammered by the courts. She has publicly stated that she will refuse service to Muslims. This is outright illegal for a public business. Her reasoning is she doesn't want terrorists in here range. If she is that worried about it, then she needs to make it a private club and preform background checks based on the results. And then she can refuse membership based on that. Though I am not sure if a private club can legally refuse membership based on religion, race, sex, creed, and the other terms of illegal discrimination.
For what its worth, in 2014 you had better chances of being killed by a toddler than a terrorist in the USA. There were 3 deaths from terrorists on US soil, and 5 deaths from toddlers on US soil.
If a client were to come and ask a website on a thing that's against my principles (but legal in term of the law), I should be able to refuse it.
Same goes for the cake story, you have to agree that if you were religious, doing a gay wedding cake, would not be something you want to do.
Actually no I wouldn't agree. I don't agree with any organized religion, does that mean I should refuse to do any keyboard/fabrication work here to anyone that has any sort of religious belief? No, because my beliefs have no bearing on a business relationship.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:26:50
Tunisia, really? Have you just randomly picked a country with brown people?Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.
If that is the way a business owner feels, then they either need to get with the times, or move somewhere that practice is legal.
I hear Tunisia, Somalia, and Afghanistan are pleasant places to do business if you like to be able to discriminate on religion, gender, and color.
Bro that wasn't me. Nubs posted that basically telling me to GTFO since I don't agree with him.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:27:24
I still believe a company is in his right to refuse a customer/business.no problem, the world is generally unfair.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Right, but this is in the United States, where equality gets just as much airtime as freedom. Hence the whole discussion - does equality trump freedom (businesses must serve all customers equally), or does freedom trump equality (businesses are free to deny certain customers)?
Business do have a choice, but not total freedom of choice.
I remember reading of a story here in the US about cake shop that refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couples wedding because of religion. They took the place to court and the court said they had to make the cake, that sexual preferece of the client was not a valid reason to refuse service. The cake shop just said screw it and closed shop.
Had the couple come in drunk, no clothes on, disruptive, rude, etc, then the shop would have had legal grounds to refuse service. But their reasons were not legal. I say good on the court for standing up to the bigotry.
If you are that narrow minded that you wouldn't service clients for those reasons, then I don't feel a bit sorry when courts make these decisions.
I really hope that the law suit for that indoor gun range owner in South West US gets hammered by the courts. She has publicly stated that she will refuse service to Muslims. This is outright illegal for a public business. Her reasoning is she doesn't want terrorists in here range. If she is that worried about it, then she needs to make it a private club and preform background checks based on the results. And then she can refuse membership based on that. Though I am not sure if a private club can legally refuse membership based on religion, race, sex, creed, and the other terms of illegal discrimination.
For what its worth, in 2014 you had better chances of being killed by a toddler than a terrorist in the USA. There were 3 deaths from terrorists on US soil, and 5 deaths from toddlers on US soil.
If a client were to come and ask a website on a thing that's against my principles (but legal in term of the law), I should be able to refuse it.
Same goes for the cake story, you have to agree that if you were religious, doing a gay wedding cake, would not be something you want to do.
I don't really agree... being gay or straight isn't something you can choose to be... being religious is a choice you have made, as such you then can't expect to be able to force your view of the world on other people.
While idk the details of that exact example I think it's pretty fair the couple took them to court.
Post by: Melvang on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:33:53
I still believe a company is in his right to refuse a customer/business.no problem, the world is generally unfair.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Right, but this is in the United States, where equality gets just as much airtime as freedom. Hence the whole discussion - does equality trump freedom (businesses must serve all customers equally), or does freedom trump equality (businesses are free to deny certain customers)?
Business do have a choice, but not total freedom of choice.
I remember reading of a story here in the US about cake shop that refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couples wedding because of religion. They took the place to court and the court said they had to make the cake, that sexual preferece of the client was not a valid reason to refuse service. The cake shop just said screw it and closed shop.
Had the couple come in drunk, no clothes on, disruptive, rude, etc, then the shop would have had legal grounds to refuse service. But their reasons were not legal. I say good on the court for standing up to the bigotry.
If you are that narrow minded that you wouldn't service clients for those reasons, then I don't feel a bit sorry when courts make these decisions.
I really hope that the law suit for that indoor gun range owner in South West US gets hammered by the courts. She has publicly stated that she will refuse service to Muslims. This is outright illegal for a public business. Her reasoning is she doesn't want terrorists in here range. If she is that worried about it, then she needs to make it a private club and preform background checks based on the results. And then she can refuse membership based on that. Though I am not sure if a private club can legally refuse membership based on religion, race, sex, creed, and the other terms of illegal discrimination.
For what its worth, in 2014 you had better chances of being killed by a toddler than a terrorist in the USA. There were 3 deaths from terrorists on US soil, and 5 deaths from toddlers on US soil.
If a client were to come and ask a website on a thing that's against my principles (but legal in term of the law), I should be able to refuse it.
Same goes for the cake story, you have to agree that if you were religious, doing a gay wedding cake, would not be something you want to do.
I don't really agree... being gay or straight isn't something you can choose to be... being religious is a choice you have made, as such you then can't expect to be able to force your view of the world on other people.
While idk the details of that exact example I think it's pretty fair the couple took them to court.
Just did a little digging and apparently they would bake cakes and such for gay couples, just not the wedding cake. After the ruling they quit doing wedding cakes and not closing doors. Though according to one article they did do a wedding cake for a pair of dogs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-_n_5438726.html
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
Post by: azhdar on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:34:49
I still believe a company is in his right to refuse a customer/business.no problem, the world is generally unfair.Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.sure. but they will lose money this way...
Heedpantsnow subscribes to the theory that the government should stay out of the businesses and let the free market decide the fate of these businesses. So if the business refuses to deal with a certain group, that group shouldn't deal with those businesses and the people who support those group should follow suit - thereby either the business loses enough money (to their rivals that serve said groups) to rectify their ways (or they don't, but no one cares because the group doesn't deal with the business anyways).
Some of the others subscribe to the theory that there are locations where such businesses are the only said businesses in town, and to deny a group the ability to access those businesses (let's say, a funeral casket business in a town where the next nearest casket store is several hundred miles away) would be unfair to that group. And the argument that said groups should create a competing business is an unreasonable request because of the complications and cost of creating a business to compete with one that is already in place.
Right, but this is in the United States, where equality gets just as much airtime as freedom. Hence the whole discussion - does equality trump freedom (businesses must serve all customers equally), or does freedom trump equality (businesses are free to deny certain customers)?
Business do have a choice, but not total freedom of choice.
I remember reading of a story here in the US about cake shop that refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couples wedding because of religion. They took the place to court and the court said they had to make the cake, that sexual preferece of the client was not a valid reason to refuse service. The cake shop just said screw it and closed shop.
Had the couple come in drunk, no clothes on, disruptive, rude, etc, then the shop would have had legal grounds to refuse service. But their reasons were not legal. I say good on the court for standing up to the bigotry.
If you are that narrow minded that you wouldn't service clients for those reasons, then I don't feel a bit sorry when courts make these decisions.
I really hope that the law suit for that indoor gun range owner in South West US gets hammered by the courts. She has publicly stated that she will refuse service to Muslims. This is outright illegal for a public business. Her reasoning is she doesn't want terrorists in here range. If she is that worried about it, then she needs to make it a private club and preform background checks based on the results. And then she can refuse membership based on that. Though I am not sure if a private club can legally refuse membership based on religion, race, sex, creed, and the other terms of illegal discrimination.
For what its worth, in 2014 you had better chances of being killed by a toddler than a terrorist in the USA. There were 3 deaths from terrorists on US soil, and 5 deaths from toddlers on US soil.
If a client were to come and ask a website on a thing that's against my principles (but legal in term of the law), I should be able to refuse it.
Same goes for the cake story, you have to agree that if you were religious, doing a gay wedding cake, would not be something you want to do.
Actually no I wouldn't agree. I don't agree with any organized religion, does that mean I should refuse to do any keyboard/fabrication work here to anyone that has any sort of religious belief? No, because my beliefs have no bearing on a business relationship.
It is to be noted that I'm strongly anti religion aswell.
Then you're much stronger than I about making a distinction of your personnal life and your work life.
Of course if I'm not part of the decision I'd do the job regardless of my principles but if I had a word to say, I will never do something I don't believe in.
You're not forcing your "view of the world" on them, you're refusing to do something that make you uncomfortable. Refusing to do a cake, is such a minor event. It's not like they harmed them or make their life miserable. They had to go to another bakery to get a cake.
I don't really agree... being gay or straight isn't something you can choose to be... being religious is a choice you have made, as such you then can't expect to be able to force your view of the world on other people.
While idk the details of that exact example I think it's pretty fair the couple took them to court.
And more over they forced them to do a cake through tribunal ? Don't know who's the most messed up, the couple or the bakery?
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:35:47
You're not forcing your "view of the world" on them, you're refusing to do something that make you uncomfortable. Refusing to do a cake, is such a minor event. It's not like they harmed them or make their life miserable. They had to go to another bakery to get a cake.
And more over they forced them to do a cake through tribunal ? Don't know who's the most messed up, the couple or the bakery?
How can making a cake make you feel uncomfortable?
They (apparently) held the opinion that there was something wrong with two men being married (or together idk the details like I've said). This opinion they then used as a reason to single out and refuse to serve these people, that would be them forcing there opinion on others.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:37:49
I knew they were going to be Christian... haha as always upholding Christian values hahaha!
I thought this was an anti-bigotry thread.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:40:36
I knew they were going to be Christian... haha as always upholding Christian values hahaha!
I thought this was an anti-bigotry thread.
wow m8 your salt levels are dangerously high
Post by: nubbinator on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:44:31
Tunisia, really? Have you just randomly picked a country with brown people?Business owners should be able to do business with whomever they want. If they don't want to serve Christians, or gays, or whites, that's fine.
If that is the way a business owner feels, then they either need to get with the times, or move somewhere that practice is legal.
I hear Tunisia, Somalia, and Afghanistan are pleasant places to do business if you like to be able to discriminate on religion, gender, and color.
Check the news bro. Tunisia is all kinds of fun right now. If you want, I can add Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and some Asian countries to the list. I was picking war torn places where the war is based around those kinds of radical hatred you see increasingly in some of the radical Christians in the mid-Eest. It doesn't hurt that two of the countries are places where there has been a history of abuse and even murder and war based on differences of belief and oppression based upon gender and sexuality.
And heedpantsnow, I want telling you to GTFO, I was saying there's no place for that kind of oppression in civil society and giving absurd examples of places where that might be acceptable. Religious beliefs are to be internalized, there are not to be foisted on others. The law in question is one of bigoted belief by a group of people who pick and choose what to believe and what to take literally from the Bible, forgetting that Jesus hung out with tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, and so on. He hung out with the lowest if the low, the worst of the worst and didn't judge. He even forgave the one who would betray him before he did so. It's people like that that made me agnostic.
I also disagree with your political logic, but that's something that could go all day.
Post by: iri on Fri, 27 March 2015, 11:54:45
Check the news bro. Tunisia is all kinds of fun right now. If you want, I can add Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and some Asian countries to the list. I was picking war torn places where the war is based around those kinds of radical hatred you see increasingly in some of the radical Christians in the mid-Eest.Ah, it's because of the terrorist attacks. You can surely add Russia to the list. Or France. It has a problem with hateful muslim terrorists too.
Post by: vivalarevolución on Fri, 27 March 2015, 12:08:02
Post by: vivalarevolución on Fri, 27 March 2015, 21:37:03
To understand this law and the people that passed, you should understand a little bit about the Indiana state legislature. First of all, they don't represent every citizen. Next, I consider Indiana to be a one-party state at this point. Even the Democrats have to be Conservative Light in order to elected to state-wide office. The Republicans have gerrymandered the districts so effectively, that they basically guaranteed themselves control the legislature indefinitely. Now that they don't have to worry about actually listening to the people because they always will run the state, they basically sell out to the corporations. And this legislature is overwhelming old, white, Christian men and women that mainly represent conservative suburbs, smalls towns, and rural areas.
The majority of voters in Indiana is not actually Republicans; they are majority apathetic. Rarely you will ever have a majority of the voting population actually go the polls in the election. In the mid-term elections last November, Indiana had the lowest voter turnout IN THE COUNTRY. So most of the population doesn't give two sh!ts because they feel voting is meaningless, and the minority of the population that goes to the polls most votes Republican, except for the people in Indianapolis, northwest Indiana near Chicago, the college towns, and maybe a couple other places. But remember that most of us Hoosiers don't give a sh!t because we feel that we are getting screwed regardless of who runs the show.
This is just a sample of the incredibly dumb nonsense that is introduced into the legislature every year. Now this frickin law. Nowhere does it say anything about discriminating against the LBGT community. But there are many religions that do not accept people in the LGBT community, and the law says that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." So a person can exercise their religion freely. Sounds good, right? But not if the exercise of religious is discriminatory in a public arena.
To summarize some of the important legalese in the law, the religious person becomes a protected class and the government entity must prove that they can only burden a person's exercise of religion if the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive was of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Translation: a person can do whatever the f*ck they want to exercise their religion unless the governmental entity can prove that restricting their practice of religion is conflicting with compelling government interest, whatever that means. This law basically establishes a protected class that is allowed to discriminate on the basis their religious beliefs, and the burden is on others to prove that they are discriminatory, rather than the burden on the discriminating person. F*ck. This. Sh!t. Then the law has more stuff about handing out freebies to the religious person if it is found that the governmental entity did not demonstrating they rightfully burdened a person's exercise of religion.
In an ideal world, one of the purposes of government is to protect the individual against the tyranny of the majority, the minority, and any other group. On the surface, it looks like this law is protecting a person that simply wishes to exercise their religious beliefs. Implicitly, as many news organizations have stated, this law protects a group that wishes to discriminate against one of the protected classes (race, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc), in the name of religious. So I can start a religion tomorrow with a couple of my buddies, say that doing business with redheads is against our religion, and now the plaintiff and a government entity have to prove that they can substantially burden my exercise of religion only if the burden to me is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. What exactly is a compelling governmental interest, the courts will figure that out.
What's gonna happen is that affected parties will take this nonsense to the courts, and hopefully the courts will overturn this on a basis of a violation of some civil rights laws. This language looks so legally flimsy, that I can't see it holding up. We'll see. Now if a real lawyer wants to swoop in and tell me I'm wrong, go ahead, because I probably am wrong about some things.
I would like to start on a new religion here in Indiana and just start hating on all kinds of people because this law will protect me until I'm messing with "the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest." These 150 people in our legislature do not represent all Indiana residents. The city government of Indianapolis, many, many businesses, and nearly everyone I know have already spoken their opposition to this law.
This whole things represents a total lack of acceptance for the diversity of humanity that populate this city, state, and planet. Now you can say that opponents of the law are not being accepting of different religious beliefs. But your religious beliefs systematically discriminate against a class of people in a public arena for some bullsh!t reason, I have plenty of reason to not like this individual and their religious beliefs.
Post by: fohat.digs on Fri, 27 March 2015, 21:54:42
To summarize some of the important legalese in the law, the religious person becomes a protected class and the government entity must prove that they can only burden a person's exercise of religion if the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive was of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
the religious person becomes a protected class
So what about the Muslim religious persons who carry out Sharia Law?
Post by: Melvang on Fri, 27 March 2015, 22:07:30
To summarize some of the important legalese in the law, the religious person becomes a protected class and the government entity must prove that they can only burden a person's exercise of religion if the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive was of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
the religious person becomes a protected class
So what about the Muslim religious persons who carry out Sharia Law?
Some mayor down in texas just shot that down hard.
Post by: vivalarevolución on Sat, 28 March 2015, 06:50:13
To summarize some of the important legalese in the law, the religious person becomes a protected class and the government entity must prove that they can only burden a person's exercise of religion if the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive was of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
the religious person becomes a protected class
So what about the Muslim religious persons who carry out Sharia Law?
Basically this:
Sec. 8. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's
exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates
that application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.
So what "compelling governmental interest" would Sharia Law be in conflict with? How about protecting basically individual rights, like a right to not being killed, raped, forced to obey a religion, speak out against a religion? The way I read it, now the governmental entity or affected person has to prove that you cannot kill people in the name of religion, rather than that simply not being allowed to kill people, period?
The way I read it (and I'm no lawyer), a person now have to prove that they are being discriminated against by another person exercising a religion. So the religious person has the right to discriminate so they can exercise their religion, unless the affected person can prove the discrimination is conflicting with a "compelling governmental interest," like civil or individual rights.
Now there might be a higher authority in the Indiana Code that guarantees basic individual rights before a person has to prove that the exercise of religion is infringing on their individual rights. But they effectively made the Indiana Code website so burdensome to navigate last year (giant PDFs rather than html language), that I don't bother much anymore.
Here is how the law describes exercise of religion, just for fun:
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes
any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to,
a system of religious belief.
Like I said, if anyone else would like to establish of system of religious belief and go hog wild, let me know.
Post by: vivalarevolución on Sat, 28 March 2015, 07:07:41
If the legislators wanted to write this law so it wouldn't seem like license to discriminate on the basis of their religion, they have included a section that says:
Sec. X. A person's exercise of religion does not allow that person to substantially burden another person's [reference to laws concerning individual rights].
Perhaps some part of the Indiana Code already has those protections for individual rights. But the way I read this, the exercise of religion is above individual rights in Indiana, unless the affected person can prove the exercise of religion is in conflict with a "compelling governmental interest."
While the freedom to exercise religion is an important protection, it should not be above the freedom to, you know, BE TREATED LIKE A FRICKIN HUMAN BEING.
Post by: paicrai on Sat, 28 March 2015, 07:17:03
Post by: davkol on Sat, 28 March 2015, 08:25:18
Post by: paicrai on Sat, 28 March 2015, 08:35:13
Post by: JinDesu on Sat, 28 March 2015, 09:05:31
Post by: vivalarevolución on Sat, 28 March 2015, 09:06:58
I'm a lesbian prostitute. If I refuse to do business with a heterosexual guy, am I a bigot?
You could be a bigot but that has nothing to do with laws. That's just an title.
In the state of Indiana now, if you are exercising your religious beliefs, you are fine unless the government entity can burden your exercise of religion in the furtherance of a compelling government interest.
Post by: davkol on Sat, 28 March 2015, 09:22:59
Post by: jacobolus on Sat, 28 March 2015, 12:26:03
Prostitution is illegal in Indiana. So you’re fine refusing whoever you want, but as soon as you do some business, you’re breaking the law.I'm a lesbian prostitute. If I refuse to do business with a heterosexual guy, am I a bigot?In the state of Indiana now, if you are exercising your religious beliefs, you are fine unless the government entity can burden your exercise of religion in the furtherance of a compelling government interest.
Post by: davkol on Sat, 28 March 2015, 12:37:29
Post by: jacobolus on Sat, 28 March 2015, 12:59:37
Thanks for completely missing the point.Your hypothetical example of a lesbian prostitute refusing to service a straight man is basically 100% irrelevant; you set up an absurd example for rhetorical effect. I hardly think it deserves to be called a “point”.
Post by: davkol on Sat, 28 March 2015, 13:15:51
Post by: jacobolus on Sat, 28 March 2015, 13:25:47
Among people who support prostitution at all, how many of them think that a prostitute should be forced to accept any potential client?
Selling sex and selling cakes are fundamentally different, and trying to make an analogy between the two is IMO ridiculous. I can come up with any number of similarly absurd cases. For instance, imagine I’m a rich retired guy, and I give money to religious charities; if a charity run by a satanist cult comes and asks me for money, would I be a bigot to refuse them? Or imagine I’m a Republican governor, and I take bribes from people who I plan to support politically; if I refuse to take bribes from a gay rights group in return for political favors, would that make me a bigot? Should we keep playing this game?
(Also note: the whole context of this discussion is Indiana law.)
Post by: kurplop on Sun, 29 March 2015, 00:04:06
Last month I spent 2 days in voir dire, as attorneys attempted to find agreeable jurors for their case. A man was suing a local Mexican restaurant for not giving him the 2 dollar discount for a ladies drink on "Señorita Night". No I'm not kidding. He was suing for an undisclosed amount for gender discrimination. Because of this, me and 50+ others from the jury pool missed 2 days of earnings, a courtroom was tied up for 8 days, judges , bailiffs, court recorders and other staffers were unable to move other cases through the system and many of us saw just how broken the courts are. I estimate at least $100,000 in lost wages or wasted public resources, not to mention attorney fees. All for $2.
Most of us have a sense of gender fairness, equal wages for equal work, etcetera. It's displays like this however, that tend to make a mockery of the real intent of the laws. These extreme actions polarize people, splitting them up into adversarial camps when most of them weren't that far apart initially. I repeat, I have seen plenty of examples of this kind of travesty coming from my own camp as well as from those I don't share the same convictions with. I could go on but this is a very bright audience that can connect the dots.
I will say that effective communication listens carefully, especially to the opposing view, putting everything on the table and being ready to modify long held convictions if honesty demands it.
Post by: slip84 on Sun, 29 March 2015, 00:06:48