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

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Roeder is a hero to the right to life crowd, he murdered Dr. Tiller in his church;


Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is responsible for a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured 111 others. TheFederal Bureau of Investigation considers him a terrorist.[1]
Eric Rudolph - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in OKC, the Crazy Right Wing detests our government and government employees. Of course many innocents were murdered by his act, but in truth I'm sure most of the Crazy Right Wing admired his efforts to tell Uncle Sam where to go.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's imagine that a married Lesbian couple walks into a car dealership. They tell the General Manager that they plan to adopt a baby and need to buy a mini van to accommodate their growing family.

Does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse to sell them a vehicle because he does not want to "participate" in their family plans?

If an African American couple comes to a dealership with the same circumstances, again, does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse them as well?

Suppose an elderly couple wanted to adopt a baby and needed a mini van. Could the dealer see this as 'deviant' and refuse the sale?

Where does an unusual misinterpretation of scripture begin to no longer be a factor in business?

A business has a right to refuse to do business with whomever it likes for whatever reason it likes. That's called "freedom of exchange."

 

[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.

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.

Check out Public Accompdation laws.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The commerce clause was meant only to allow the federal government to strike down state created obstacles to commerce like internal tariffs.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Are you going to keep blabbering incoherently like a senile old fool?

 

[Valerie]

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.

it's not about punishing anyone... the law, or social contract as you call it, requires public accommodations which you say you believe in but then seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth..? how is anyone punished, really?



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.

 

[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.

it's not about punishing anyone... the law, or social contract as you call it, requires public accommodations which you say you believe in but then seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth..? how is anyone punished, really?



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.

I explain it fully in the thread Valerie. I don't want to have to repeat all the nuances of the argument for those who haven't kept up. I have been very consistent on this subject for a very long time and you are free to think whatever you wish about what side of my mouth I talk out of.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

Laws, knucklehead. Laws. In the end....there will be justice.

Laws assclown?

Laws like this?

{Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.}

If only you leftist thugs would obey this law and stop trying to crush it.

Laws, knucklehead. Laws. In the end....there will be justice.

Laws assclown?

Laws like this?

{Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.}

If only you leftist thugs would obey this law and stop trying to crush it.

The left are the only ones trying to preserve that! Brainwashed much?

 

[bodecea]

Indiana... land of low wages and a state going backwards. How are they going to test? Ask if you are gay or not? What if someone says I don't know?

Maybe order something detailed and expensive...then go...oops! I'm gay. You don't sell to me. Oh well...bye.

 

[bripat9643]

[
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.

You have no right to be served by any business. No one does. The business owner has the right to associate with whomever he wishes, or to not associate with whomever he wishes. That's called "freedom of association." Somehow you feel that compelling him to associate with people he has no desire to associate with increases rights. It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that idea.

 

[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.

Check out Public Accompdation laws.

I am speaking of principle, not what the law says. The law can get it wrong and in this case often has. So I don't CARE what the law says because the law has absolutely nothing to do with the principle I am arguing. The original intent of the Constitution I believe does support that principle, however.

So I will keep bringing up my very carefully designed post describing certain venues that I think no business person should be required to serve if they choose not to. Until those of you hollering 'civil liberties!!!!' can address that honestly, I think your argument falls flat on its face.

 

[bodecea]

Let's imagine that a married Lesbian couple walks into a car dealership. They tell the General Manager that they plan to adopt a baby and need to buy a mini van to accommodate their growing family.

Does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse to sell them a vehicle because he does not want to "participate" in their family plans?

If an African American couple comes to a dealership with the same circumstances, again, does the General Manager have a prot Ted right to refuse them as well?

Where does an unusual misinterpretation of scripture begin to no longer be a factor in business?

Comrade.

Ted and Irene have an Astrovan that they put up for sale. A lesbian couple comes along and says they really need a mini-van for orgies. Ted and Irene are Muslim and see this as offensive to Allah.

Should the LGBT community:

1.) Burn down their house and the van
2.) Beat Ted and Irene
3.) Both
4.) Muslims are protected, they aren't filthy Christians!

Oh look! The Trifecta of Uncensored's fantasies.

 

[bodecea]

[
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.

You have no right to be served by any business. No one does. The business owner has the right to associate with whomever he wishes, or to not associate with whomever he wishes. That's called "freedom of association." Somehow you feel that compelling him to associate with people he has no desire to associate with increases rights. It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that idea.

So...why be a coward about putting a "I don't serve.........." in a prominent place at your business entrance?

 

[bodecea]

[
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.

Check out Public Accompdation laws.

I am speaking of principle, not what the law says. The law can get it wrong and in this case often has. So I don't CARE what the law says because the law has absolutely nothing to do with the principle I am arguing. The original intent of the Constitution I believe does support that principle, however.

So...why be a coward about putting a "I don't serve.........." in a prominent place at your business entrance?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's true. The U.S. is becoming more and more like San Francisco every day, much to our horror.

 

[bripat9643]

[
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.

You have no right to be served by any business. No one does. The business owner has the right to associate with whomever he wishes, or to not associate with whomever he wishes. That's called "freedom of association." Somehow you feel that compelling him to associate with people he has no desire to associate with increases rights. It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that idea.

So...why be a coward about putting a "I don't serve.........." in a prominent place at your business entrance?

You know why, you stupid slut. That's like putting a target on your business so sleazy operators like you can attack it.

 

[bodecea]

Let's imagine that a married Lesbian couple walks into a car dealership. They tell the General Manager that they plan to adopt a baby and need to buy a mini van to accommodate their growing family.

Does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse to sell them a vehicle because he does not want to "participate" in their family plans?

If an African American couple comes to a dealership with the same circumstances, again, does the General Manager have a prot Ted right to refuse them as well?

Where does an unusual misinterpretation of scripture begin to no longer be a factor in business?

Comrade.

Ted and Irene have an Astrovan that they put up for sale. A lesbian couple comes along and says they really need a mini-van for orgies. Ted and Irene are Muslim and see this as offensive to Allah.

Should the LGBT community:

1.) Burn down their house and the van
2.) Beat Ted and Irene
3.) Both
4.) Muslims are protected, they aren't filthy Christians!

Wow! Here's your Word of the Day: CONTEXT.

Here is a word you will never grasp: "liberty."

Honey...if you didn't have the liberty to be a bigoted douchbag, you would have locked up a long time ago.

 

[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.

That's true. The U.S. is becoming more and more like San Francisco every day, much to our horror.

Much better than being like a Texas. San Francisco has the decency to get rid of a wife-beating football player.....that Dallas is eager to hire.

 

[bripat9643]

Indiana... land of low wages and a state going backwards. How are they going to test? Ask if you are gay or not? What if someone says I don't know?

Maybe order something detailed and expensive...then go...oops! I'm gay. You don't sell to me. Oh well...bye.

You won't think it's so funny when you're looking through some iron bars.

 

[bodecea]

[
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.

You have no right to be served by any business. No one does. The business owner has the right to associate with whomever he wishes, or to not associate with whomever he wishes. That's called "freedom of association." Somehow you feel that compelling him to associate with people he has no desire to associate with increases rights. It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that idea.

So...why be a coward about putting a "I don't serve.........." in a prominent place at your business entrance?

You know why, you stupid slut. That's like putting a target on your business so sleazy operators like you can attack it.

Confirmation. You truely are a coward. So much for any convictions on your part.