Will Republicans ever learn? Indiana governor to sign bill allowing business not to serve gays

[Wry Catcher]

Golly! Some Conservatives sure do not understand what Liberty means!

Uh, "liberty"? One of the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution is the freedom of religion; another one is the freedom of speech; another one is the freedom of association; and another one is the right of private property.

There's no "liberty" that bigoted gay couples get to target Christian business people and then get them fined or jailed, and even bankrupted, for not wanting to service a ceremony that they find spiritually and morally offensive, especially when the gay couple has their choice of plenty of businesses that don't mind servicing their ceremony. That's not "liberty"; that's un-American bigotry and intolerance toward people of faith.

Argued like a lunch counter manager in Woolwoth's circa 1962.

Somehow, Conservative (who consistently provide the resistence to equal rights for all Americans) have calculated bigotry as a constitutionally protected right.

It is a protected right, moron. Freedom of speech means freedom to express bigotry as well as any other idea. It means especially unpopular ideas are protected. The freedom to say whatever is popular is no freedom at all.

It's no surprise that you have no understanding of the Bill of Rights.

Well, you finally made a valid point, one which is irrelevant to the topic but in fact true. You have every right to be a proud bigot, I'd never pass a law to censor you. In fact you are the best argument for one to support liberal and progressive ideas and policies.

That said the point to this thread is not about free speech, it's about a Governor of a State signing a law to make a set of citizens unequal before the law. No real American will support this law - it is Putinesque, and we not Russians even though people like bripat act as if he is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Thanks for giving me more credit than deserved. I created the analogy, I did not pilfer it.

You, on the other hand, are unable to concoct a response.

Gee! I wonder why?

My assumption is that not a one of you drones has a single thought that doesn't originate on one of the leftist hate sites...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Deviate from the question, add a heaping portion of hyperbole, run down the primrose path, declare victory and clear the field.

Hallmarks of an untenable argument and a shallow mind. Well played!

Hardly, you sought to slander through fabricated association. You are a demagogue after all.

McVeigh is a hero to no one, but you don't mind lying - do you. Randolph is a hero to no one I've ever met. No idea who the other asshole was.

 

[Nosmo King]

[
Thanks for giving me more credit than deserved. I created the analogy, I did not pilfer it.

You, on the other hand, are unable to concoct a response.

Gee! I wonder why?

My assumption is that not a one of you drones has a single thought that doesn't originate on one of the leftist hate sites...

Welcome to reality. We "Leftists" are original thinkers. We are not 'informed' by 'pundits'.

Give me your original thoughts on my post.

 

[Nosmo King]

Deviate from the question, add a heaping portion of hyperbole, run down the primrose path, declare victory and clear the field.

Hallmarks of an untenable argument and a shallow mind. Well played!

Hardly, you sought to slander through fabricated association. You are a demagogue after all.

McVeigh is a hero to no one, but you don't mind lying - do you. Randolph is a hero to no one I've ever met. No idea who the other asshole was.

Please point out where I cited either of those two.

Or is this precisely what you mean by slander through fabricated association?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Welcome to reality. We "Leftists" are original thinkers.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

not 'informed' by 'pundits'.

Give me your original thoughts on my post.

Is that the talking point from KOS today?

Here is a thought that is not original, people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they please, for whatever reason they please, as long as the transaction is free of coercion, or fraud.

You seek to use coercion, the threat of violence, to force people to engage in business against their religious views. This violates the 1st Amendment and the 13th, but as an enemy of civil rights, you persist.

Pense took a step to protect the civil rights of people - this angers you of the left, who seek to utterly crush civil liberty.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Republicans don't realize....this all goes on your "permanent record"

Pence may go down in history as the last to sign off on offensive anti-gay legislation

More likely he'll go down and one who stood firm for the 1st Amendment under the assault on liberty by the anti-liberty left.

He'll go down as the man who set the state back, by 30 years, but to you, that's a good thing...

 

[Nosmo King]

[
Welcome to reality. We "Leftists" are original thinkers.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

not 'informed' by 'pundits'.

Give me your original thoughts on my post.

Is that the talking point from KOS today?

Here is a thought that is not original, people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they please, for whatever reason they please, as long as the transaction is free of coercion, or fraud.

You seek to use coercion, the threat of violence, to force people to engage in business against their religious views. This violates the 1st Amendment and the 13th, but as an enemy of civil rights, you persist.

Pense took a step to protect the civil rights of people - this angers you of the left, who seek to utterly crush civil liberty.

Only in what I'll call 'the mind' of a Conservative does eroding right amount to protecting rights. Only in that Conservative 'mind' does crushing civil liberties amount to expanding them.

How does discrimination equal a civil liberty?

The racists in the Jim Crow south made the exact same arguments. You're in company with your Conservative predecessors.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

There is a very narrow group of merchants who must deliver their wares to an off site venue. Are you saying that such merchants should be exempt from discrimination charges simply because they deliver their wares off site?

And do they really "participate", or are they simply plying their trade?

 

[Foxfyre]

[
Welcome to reality. We "Leftists" are original thinkers.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

not 'informed' by 'pundits'.

Give me your original thoughts on my post.

Is that the talking point from KOS today?

Here is a thought that is not original, people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they please, for whatever reason they please, as long as the transaction is free of coercion, or fraud.

You seek to use coercion, the threat of violence, to force people to engage in business against their religious views. This violates the 1st Amendment and the 13th, but as an enemy of civil rights, you persist.

Pense took a step to protect the civil rights of people - this angers you of the left, who seek to utterly crush civil liberty.

Only in what I'll call 'the mind' of a Conservative does eroding right amount to protecting rights. Only in that Conservative 'mind' does crushing civil liberties amount to expanding them.

How does discrimination equal a civil liberty?

The racists in the Jim Crow south made the exact same arguments. You're in company with your Conservative predecessors.

Except there is no civil liberty that requires one person to serve another against a person's will. Such is the very opposite of what civil liberties were intended to eliminate. The requirement can be written into the social contract, but it should never be confused with civil liberties.

There is no civil liberty that entitles somebody to have lunch provided to him/her. There is no civil liberty that requires me to open a restaurant in the first place. Where it does come down to civil liberties, there must be some provision for the business owner to be able to be who and what he is as much as the people he/she serves have that right.

 

[bodecea]

Already done....why won't they secede already?

Why won't San Francisco split of to it's own state? We can have Sane California and inSane Francisco....

San Francisco's not crying about how mean the U.S. is to them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

There is a very narrow group of merchants who must deliver their wares to an off site venue. Are you saying that such merchants should be exempt from discrimination charges simply because they deliver their wares off site?

And do they really "participate", or are they simply plying their trade?

I won't discuss this any further with you Nosmo until you address the off site venues I took some trouble to describe in a previous post. If you are at a somebody's event providing a service, you are participating in that event. Period. And nobody should be forced into participating in somebody's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible. And there should be no law that punishes somebody for refusing to participate in somebody else's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible.

 

[OKTexas]

Liberty is my right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason.

Liberty is my right to access the public market place. You want to refuse me business? Fine GTF out of my public market.

Public market place, another invention of the left. Your public market place consist of PRIVATE businesses.

ROFL the left did not exist when the commerce clause was drafted. Thx for playing.

Have you actually read the commerce clause lately, the feds were never intended to interfere with individual businesses unless they were dealing across state lines, with foreign countries or indian tribes. The left is the cause of it being expanded beyond all reason.

That was before the civil war. After the war the fed had the leverage to force the states to do their bidding wrt. taking away our life, liberty, and property.

That said, I'm a fan of civil rights. And I'm a fan of the idea that we should all have the liberty to partake in the public market. I'm also a fan of private businesses having the right to buy and sell privately, such as through barter, trade, and even monetary exchanges for access to private benefits. Just don't advertise for public sale. For example, if you are a church it's ok to charge for weddings to members of the church, but it's not ok to advertise to the public the sale of wedding services then deny because the couple is black or gay etc.

Nothing in the commerce clause has been changed, that would require an Amendment. The courts have bastardized it beyond all recognition. What you should have said is you're a fan of civil rights as long as they conform to your ideas. A business owner doesn't surrender his/her rights just by virtue of opening a business.

 

[rightwinger]

Admit it....you have lost
Gay Marriage will be the law of the land by June

An no, Americans do not support you

Most Republicans have given up on the issue and just wish it would go away. It makes them lose votes and credibility with younger voters

Nice projection there. So when the democrats changed their mind and began voting for gay marriage it was only because they were loosing votes and credibility? Or did the democrats vote against gay marriage in the past because otherwise they would loose votes and credibility?

I think most democrats looked at things like DADT and civil unions as a middle ground where the homosexual issue would settle and go away

It did not work out that way and thankfully so

Republicans realize this is a losing issue for them in 2016 and would like it to just go away. The Supreme Court deciding for them keeps them from having to state a position either way

But there is the radical Fag Haters who just can't drop it

So no fag haters that are democrats? Would you have a link to some statistics that back up your apparent claim that democrat fag haters were just kidding and/or being pragmatic, but now their true love of fags is coming out... where the republicans are mostly still fag haters that are hoping the issue disappears? Or is this just some bullshit you are pulling out of your ass?

You are welcome to show me any anti-gay legislation being passed at any level of government by Democrats.......otherwise STFU

Hey, nimrod. It was illegal in just about every state. But if you really want an example: DOMA, was anti-gay legislation signed by Bill Clinton, and supported by nearly every democrat.

DOMA was bad legislation demanded by Republicans

Thankfully, it was overturned by the courts.......most of it

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

Holy shit.

If the business routinely goes off premises to work events...then they need to do so for everyone. This equivocation is bullshit.

And.....we as a society have decided that it is not OK for a business to sell to "whites only". Liberty has nothing to do with it. It's not avoided because it alienates customers. It is avoided because it is fucking stupid and doesn't meet the standards that we have set for ourselves in this modern civilized nation.

We are not going back to the "good ol' days". Progress has been made.

 

[bodecea]

Another state added to the list I don't want to visit:

1. Alabama
2. Arizona
3. Oklahoma
4. Indiana

I would sooner visit Russia or Saudi Arabia, than those four states.

In fact, I would say that Russia is a tolerant utopia in comparison.
If they want to take a hit to their tourism and income they are welcome to it.

I hope they enjoy their illegal immigration problem too: Immigration in Arizona Fact Sheet 2012

ECONOMIC IMPACT

• There were an estimated 278,460 illegal aliens working in Arizona in 2011, approximately 9.3 percent of the total workforce.
• Unemployment in Arizona in January 2012 was 8.7 percent with 262,587 Arizonans officially unemployed.
• Over 10% of children enrolled in public schools (K-12) have parents who are in the U.S. illegally.
• Illegal aliens and their children were found to be 37 percent of the uninsured population in Arizona in 2008, and the cost of uncompensated care for illegal aliens in Arizona is $320 million annually.
• The total education, medical, and incarceration costs in Arizona due to illegal immigration are $2.6 billion a year.

Please add Texas to your list.

Already done....why won't they secede already?

Thank you and why don't you and your liberal bastions secede and save the majority of the US, that actually believes in the Constitution, the trouble.

So...is Texas going to secede or are they just going to keep whining?

 

[bripat9643]

Actually I have no problem with that, if they refuse too many they won't be in business will they? But the owner would determine his own fate, not the state.

Whites only businesses didn't go broke in the South did they?

Remind me, what century was that in again?

The 20th idiot. You either believe businesses should be able to be whites only or you don't.

Which is it ? Youi do or don't?

Private businesses should be allowed to make that choice for themselves.

So you support repealing Title II of the Civil Rights Act then? Have you called your congressman?


Did you know that Federal law prohibits discrimination based on race and religion but laws that protect gays are STATE laws? Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yes, I support repealing that. The federal government has no authority to regulate private business. None whatsoever.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

Holy shit.

If the business routinely goes off premises to work events...then they need to do so for everyone. This equivocation is bullshit.

And.....we as a society have decided that it is not OK for a business to sell to "whites only". Liberty has nothing to do with it. It's not avoided because it alienates customers. It is avoided because it is fucking stupid and doesn't meet the standards that we have set for ourselves in this modern civilized nation.

We are not going back to the "good ol' days". Progress has been made.

We're not discussing law here. We are discussing principle. Try to keep up.

 

[bripat9643]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

Holy shit.

If the business routinely goes off premises to work events...then they need to do so for everyone. This equivocation is bullshit.

Says who? Certainly the Constitution doesn't say that, and the federal government has no authority to regulate private business.

And.....we as a society have decided that it is not OK for a business to sell to "whites only". Liberty has nothing to do with it. It's not avoided because it alienates customers. It is avoided because it is fucking stupid and doesn't meet the standards that we have set for ourselves in this modern civilized nation.

We are not going back to the "good ol' days". Progress has been made.

It is now avoided because it's illegal. If it was legal, business owners would avoid it for both reasons. The bottom line is they wouldn't do it. Repealing Title II wouldn't bring back Jim Crow, which was government enforced discrimination.