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

[Uncensored2008]

[
Grow up, infant.

Rich irony indeed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[
Grow up, infant.

Rich irony indeed.

Not in the slightest. You are an ignorant child.

 

[RKMBrown]

How did you go from "this law will be ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the 14th amendment" to "The 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee you access to someone's property." I'm confused.

Can you point to the portion of the 14th that states that people shall be compelled through force of arms to provide service to you because you have chosen sexual conduct that pleases the party?

I can't seem to find it in my copy?

I asked the assclown, but she got distracted chewing on a cat turd, as assclowns tend to do...

The 14th states that the States may take your "life" and your "liberty" and your "property" by as long as they claim they did it through some state process called due process. Note: this due process is not the same due process that applies to legal proceedings to determine guilt of a crime. As no guilt or crime is necessary for the States to take your life, liberty, and property from you. The 14th amendment also states that the States may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So to your question, as inane it may be... you asked me to show you where it says "people shall be compelled through force of arms to provide service to you because you have chosen sexual conduct that pleases the party."

Force of arms to compel laws is understood for all criminal laws. The reason behind force of action is to compel the law not to compel the the basis for said law. Your because clause that states "because you have chosen sexual conduct that pleases the party" is not germane to the discussion at all it merely points out that you are probably referring to state laws regarding sexual orientation. If I'm guessing wrong please correct me. But I can't find any laws compelling people to choose sexual conduct that pleases a party. Note: while there are hiring laws for federal agencies that compel those federal agencies to no discriminate based on sexual orientation, the feds have not extended civil rights laws to cover sexual orientation. So right now that is only a State by State issue.

So I change your question to where does it say in the constitution that "people shall be compelled to provide service to you regardless of sexual orientation." It doesn't, but it does state that the States can if they apply some form of due process in doing so. That said there are State laws where sexual orientation can not be used to discriminate, for example where a cake baker who is selling to the public in that State can't discriminate based sexual orientation. Again that said, the States can't override federal laws, so the States have to allow private businesses the liberty of discriminating regarding private sales.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hey cry baby ...your party supports those that assassinate Doctors at women's clinics, your party wants women o undergo vaginal probes for political reasons...your party supports the bombing of women's clinics.......you wing nut...your party wing nut central

Idiocy and lies don't justify your quest to strip civil rights from American citizens.

You seek authoritarianism, where all are compelled by threat of violence to obey the party.

Liberty is the #1 enemy of leftism.

Signing a bill into law, one passed by a legislature, which deprives a segment of the population of the same right available to the majority of citizens defines Authoritarianism.

No, in most cases that defines common sense. According to you and your fellow turds, the law determines your rights. No law, not right. So the gays in Indiana have no right to be served by any business that chooses not to serve them.

I might call this ^^^ circular reasoning, but in truth word salad seems more likely.

I realize that anything above 6th grade reading level is incomprehensible to you. Sorry, but that's about as dumbed down as I can make it.

I suggest you read and have someone explains to you what you have read in the 9th Amendment to the COTUS and in Sec. I of the 14th Amendment and frame them with the judicial intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[rdean]

Right wingers are like locusts. They destroy every where they gain power. They let things fall apart. They are anti education and science. They want to abolish the EPA so they can live in filth. They call that "freedom".

 

[RKMBrown]

Signing a bill into law, one passed by a legislature, which deprives a segment of the population of the same right available to the majority of citizens defines Authoritarianism.

The 1st Amendment is already law, Comrade. You have no right to force others to serve you. Free people serve whom they choose, slave serve whom they are ordered to serve.

You leftists still demand slavery, 150 years after the Republicans kicked your ass on this issue the first time.

People are NOT your property to depose of as you please.

As a concrete thinker, and I use the word thinker in relation to you loosely, I understand how you compartmentalize the word Freedom. Freedom is not absolute, no matter how you have come to understand the language used in the First and Second Amendments to the COTUS.

No religion can engage in human sacrifice.
No citizen can utter they have a bomb as they board a plane.
No citizen can yell fire in a crowded theater.
The right to own a fully automatic weapon is highly restricted.

Technically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows what Indiana has done, because the GLBT community was not included in the protected class. That does not mean the Governor and legislature is not culpable. Though in the current iteration of the of the Republican Party, the Party of the small tent, such a law is fine and dandy - one more example of dishonesty and hypocrisy in their membership.

How so? The GOP has made it clear. They believe a business ought be able to refuse service to those they don't like. So how are they being dishonest or hypocritical when they pass a bill that does exactly that?

Link? I knew the republicans were bad but I had no idea they wanted to repeal the civil rights laws already on the books.

Oh I see, youre merely here to troll again. Bye Mike.

So I'll take that as you were using writer's license when you made claims about what the GOP believes.

 

[kaz]

Can Indiana afford to lose over $50 million in revenue from Gen Con?

Gen Con threatens to leave Indiana

This is why Republicans are so stupid

They know what the reaction will be with this "Indiana hates gays" legislation yet they just can't help themselves

Shame really...I could have got behind this law if the amendment requiring businesses to advertise that they don't want gays would have passed. Cowards.

I agree with that. That’s how PA laws should work. They should be required to have a policy and they should be required to post their policy. Then they should just be held to their policy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not in the slightest. You are an ignorant child.

Says the jerkoff who claimed that "leftists invented freedom."

I have very little respect for any of you mindless leftists, but you are Dana level stupid.

 

[hipeter924]

Meh. Indiana will take an economic hit, as international firms pull out and as events move out of the state. A few red state visitors or buyers won't change that.

I agree. It is my understanding that the majority of the businesses are pro LGBT there because they are after talent. Indiana has a brain drain already due to the quality of life issue. The best and brightest don't really dream of going to say.......Indiana.

Companies and events will relocate as they just don't want to deal with the issues that come with being a state out of step with the rest of their consumer base. Easier for them to be in a 'not rock the boat state' like Utah, or even Texas for that matter.

Yep. And most of their manufacturing is gone. They have steel and even that has hit a down cycle. So, for all their shit there are other states that have a better quality of life and low taxes. The other little five dollar an hour jobs? The money goes to another state and many will not go for that or they will only be able to do business with their congregations. Hope those people have enough cash.

Their poverty rate is above the national average, and probably made no better by the politicians they elect. That leaves corporate predators like Walmart or Monsanto to run their economy, which would suck wage wise.

Oh boy, and you talk about the laws they pass. sheesh

Not the only thing that sucks there. I wouldn't want to raise a family near Monsanto run farms, considering all the toxic stuff they put in the air and the water.

Much worse than fracking, as at least with fracking, byproducts are accidental rather than by design, and the companies compensate with water delivery trucks.

Monsanto doesn't give a shit about Americans, only its profit margins. I wouldn't want to live in a state they dominate.

 

[kaz]

It will quickly be thrown out by the court because it's unconstitutional to deny anyone their right to be treated equal under the law.

All it will do is cost Indiana a lot of money in court costs.

Everything is about money to liberals, isn't it?

And no one proposed treating anyone differently under the law, it's a transaction between citizens

 

[TheOldSchool]

Good. Will make sure I never buy from Indiana, which is desperately trying to one up Putin.

Whereas I WILL start trying to buy products from companies in Indiana and would consider it more highly as a potential travel destination.

Meh. Indiana will take an economic hit, as international firms pull out and as events move out of the state. A few red state visitors or buyers won't change that.

That's what the retards said about Chick fil A too....

Until Chick Fil A buckled, apologized, and stopped donating money to the groups in question.

 

[TheOldSchool]

This will never hold up in the Supreme Court if anyone bothers to take it there. But hey if it stands maybe republicans will finally get to see those "no go zones" they were wetting their pants over a few months ago! Scary Muslims finally have to right to block their businesses and neighborhoods from the rest of America!

Unintended consequences are a bitch, get ready Indiana.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 14th states that the States may take your "life" and your "liberty" and your "property" by as long as they claim they did it through some state process called due process.

No, that is not what it says, nor even close.

The equal protection clause states:

{
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.}

What you have done, as is so common among leftists, is twist the rights 180° from what is provided. This amendment protects from the arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

The state may not hang you without following due process, taking you to court and proving to a jury of your peers that you have committed a crime punishable by hanging. The state may not take your liberty and force you to bake cakes for homosexuals without taking you to court and proving to a jury of your peers that you have committed a crime punishable by loss of your freedom through imprisonment and forced labor.

You have done what so many leftists do, attempted to take a positive right, and twist it to a negative right.

Note: this due process is not the same due process that applies to legal proceedings to determine guilt of a crime. As no guilt or crime is necessary for the States to take your life, liberty, and property from you. The 14th amendment also states that the States may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So to your question, as inane it may be... you asked me to show you where it says "people shall be compelled through force of arms to provide service to you because you have chosen sexual conduct that pleases the party."

Force of arms to compel laws is understood for all criminal laws. The reason behind force of action is to compel the law not to compel the the basis for said law. Your because clause that states "because you have chosen sexual conduct that pleases the party" is not germane to the discussion at all it merely points out that you are probably referring to state laws regarding sexual orientation. If I'm guessing wrong please correct me. But I can't find any laws compelling people to choose sexual conduct that pleases a party. Note: while there are hiring laws for federal agencies that compel those federal agencies to no discriminate based on sexual orientation, the feds have not extended civil rights laws to cover sexual orientation. So right now that is only a State by State issue.

So I change your question to where does it say in the constitution that "people shall be compelled to provide service to you regardless of sexual orientation." It doesn't, but it does state that the States can if they apply some form of due process in doing so. That said there are State laws where sexual orientation can not be used to discriminate, for example where a cake baker who is selling to the public in that State can't discriminate based sexual orientation. Again that said, the States can't override federal laws, so the States have to allow private businesses the liberty of discriminating regarding private sales.

You are confused, as most leftists are.

{ the Constitution does not require “due process” for establishing laws; the provision applies when the state acts against individuals “in each case upon individual grounds” — when some characteristic unique to the citizen is involved. Of course there may be a lot of citizens affected; the issue is whether assessing the effect depends “in each case upon individual grounds.” Thus, the due process clause doesn't govern how Ohio sets the rules for student discipline in its high schools; but it does govern how Ohio applies those rules to individual students who are thought to have violated them — even if in some cases (say, cheating on a state-wide examination) a large number of students were allegedly involved.}
Due process Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

Due process always accrues to the individual case, it is your day in court.

 

[Dana7360]

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

It wasn't just demanded by the conservatives. The congress was controlled by the conservatives in 1996.

Conservatives wrote the legislation and passed it through the congress.

Clinton never should have signed it into law. He was very wrong and he now says he regrets signing it.

Meanwhile, I have yet to hear one conservative say that writing and passing that law through the congress was wrong and they regret doing it.

 

[kaz]

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

It wasn't just demanded by the conservatives. The congress was controlled by the conservatives in 1996.

Conservatives wrote the legislation and passed it through the congress.

Clinton never should have signed it into law. He was very wrong and he now says he regrets signing it.

Meanwhile, I have yet to hear one conservative say that writing and passing that law through the congress was wrong and they regret doing it.

Clinton flip flopped? Wow, that is news

 

[RKMBrown]

The 14th states that the States may take your "life" and your "liberty" and your "property" by as long as they claim they did it through some state process called due process.

No, that is not what it says, nor even close.

The equal protection clause states:

{
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.}

What you have done, as is so common among leftists, is twist the rights 180° from what is provided. This amendment protects from the arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

The state may not hang you without following due process, taking you to court and proving to a jury of your peers that you have committed a crime punishable by hanging. The state may not take your liberty and force you to bake cakes for homosexuals without taking you to court and proving to a jury of your peers that you have committed a crime punishable by loss of your freedom through imprisonment and forced labor.

You have done what so many leftists do, attempted to take a positive right, and twist it to a negative right.

Note: this due process is not the same due process that applies to legal proceedings to determine guilt of a crime. As no guilt or crime is necessary for the States to take your life, liberty, and property from you. The 14th amendment also states that the States may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So to your question, as inane it may be... you asked me to show you where it says "people shall be compelled through force of arms to provide service to you because you have chosen sexual conduct that pleases the party."

Force of arms to compel laws is understood for all criminal laws. The reason behind force of action is to compel the law not to compel the the basis for said law. Your because clause that states "because you have chosen sexual conduct that pleases the party" is not germane to the discussion at all it merely points out that you are probably referring to state laws regarding sexual orientation. If I'm guessing wrong please correct me. But I can't find any laws compelling people to choose sexual conduct that pleases a party. Note: while there are hiring laws for federal agencies that compel those federal agencies to no discriminate based on sexual orientation, the feds have not extended civil rights laws to cover sexual orientation. So right now that is only a State by State issue.

So I change your question to where does it say in the constitution that "people shall be compelled to provide service to you regardless of sexual orientation." It doesn't, but it does state that the States can if they apply some form of due process in doing so. That said there are State laws where sexual orientation can not be used to discriminate, for example where a cake baker who is selling to the public in that State can't discriminate based sexual orientation. Again that said, the States can't override federal laws, so the States have to allow private businesses the liberty of discriminating regarding private sales.

You are confused, as most leftists are.

{ the Constitution does not require “due process” for establishing laws; the provision applies when the state acts against individuals “in each case upon individual grounds” — when some characteristic unique to the citizen is involved. Of course there may be a lot of citizens affected; the issue is whether assessing the effect depends “in each case upon individual grounds.” Thus, the due process clause doesn't govern how Ohio sets the rules for student discipline in its high schools; but it does govern how Ohio applies those rules to individual students who are thought to have violated them — even if in some cases (say, cheating on a state-wide examination) a large number of students were allegedly involved.}
Due process Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

Due process always accrues to the individual case, it is your day in court.

First, I'm not leftist. Second, you are wrong about me stating that they need to use due process for establishing laws. You apparently have a reading disability.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.. " means That the states may with due process take your life, liberty, and property. Learn to read nimrod. FYI: An example of the use of that clause is the right of states to take your property for the common good, such as to build a public road.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If

It will quickly be thrown out by the court because it's unconstitutional to deny anyone their right to be treated equal under the law.

All it will do is cost Indiana a lot of money in court costs.

Everything is about money to liberals, isn't it?

And no one proposed treating anyone differently under the law, it's a transaction between citizens

No one is proposing that? That's the core purpose of the law, to treat some people differently.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Oregon bakery that refused to serve a same sex couple ended up losing so much business they effectively closed.

That is how the market is going to work in these cases.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First, I'm not leftist. Second, you are wrong about me stating that they need to use due process for establishing laws. You apparently have a reading disability.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.. " means That the states may with due process take your life, liberty, and property. Learn to read nimrod. FYI: An example of the use of that clause is the right of states to take your property for the common good, such as to build a public road.

You claimed that due process was fulfilled by the creation of statutes - it is not. If you or other lefties want to force bakers to labor against their will, the equal protection clause holds that you must take them to court on a case by case basis in order to deprive them of their civil liberties.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Oregon bakery that refused to serve a same sex couple ended up losing so much business they effectively closed.

That is how the market is going to work in these cases.

Then why do you totalitarian democrats not just back off and let the market deal with the issue?