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

[bripat9643]

Nosmo, you simply don't understand. People have convictions, beliefs, personal morals and values. And if they see simply being at your wedding, or playing an integral part in your wedding as an affront to those things, why should you force them to? They see their mere presence there as a violation of what they believe.

No, you simply don't understand.

Business exists to make money selling a product, not making judgments of their potential customers.

Fuck, you free marketeers are on the stupid train on this one.

A business exists for whatever purpose its owners started it. Who put you in charge of deciding why it exists?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

What is it about you people which precludes you from understanding that RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE. And that for there to be the potential for a right, first such must be recognized in and for EVERYONE and that right must correlate to sustaining responsibilities; not the least of which is to not exercise their right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

YOU; the cult of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, are the only one's who claim that RIGHTS are void of responsibility, thus lending the sense that YOUR RIGHTS are absolute; meaning that you're FREE to exercise them without regard to how it effects anyone else.

Yet here you are claiming that your opposition holds such a position.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Deviant Sexualities are NOT viable candidates for protected legal status, as human sexuality is about CHOSEN BEHAVIOR. There is no Homosexual Gender, or Transgender. There are only males and females.

And this entirely without regard to the idiots who claim otherwise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

But that's only because the US Constitution says that the US Federal Government can make no law whch prohibits one from freely exercising their religion.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What is it about you people which precludes you from understanding that RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE. And that for there to be the potential for a right, first such must be recognized in and for EVERYONE and that right must correlate to sustaining responsibilities; not the least of which is to not exercise their right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

YOU; the cult of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, are the only one's who claim that RIGHTS are void of responsibility, thus lending the sense that YOUR RIGHTS are absolute; meaning that you're FREE to exercise them without regard to how it effects anyone else.

Yet here you are claiming that your opposition holds such a position.

Liberal rights come with responsibilities, alright, but they are responsiblities for other people. Liberals have a right to an education, but others have to pay for it. Liberals have a right to healthcare, but others have to pay for it.

 

[bodecea]

Let's assume it's not cake bakers who refuse to serve members of the GLBT community, but Doctors, Lawyers, Cops, Dentists, EMT and Firefighters. And how about roofers, gas and electric workers, public transportation workers and the local medical marijuana dispenser. And let's not forget hotels, motels and airlines.

Now, I'm aware that the Slippery Slope Argument is a logical fallacy, but what is good for the Conservatives is good for the rest. And let's consider, our military has evolved from don't ask, don't tell into a modern model and it took only 60 years for it to allow integration.

So, my point is this, the current defenders of Pence are typical of those who feel an affinity for the good old days, when separate but equal was good enough for our grandparents, they believe it should be good enough for us today.

I also know that the use of the term Reactionary is often used as a pejorative, but sometimes the use of the word is warranted, and in this case and on this thread it is.

Why do gay people feel the need to tell everyone they're gay? All they have to do is keep their mouths shut and they will get served.

Not only are gays a royal pain in the neck, they're just plain stupid.

Why do straight people feel the need to tell everyone they're straight? All they have to do is keep their mouths shut and they will get served.

Not only are straights a royal pain in the neck, they're just plain stupid.




Now it makes more sense.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's assume it's not cake bakers who refuse to serve members of the GLBT community, but Doctors, Lawyers, Cops, Dentists, EMT and Firefighters. And how about roofers, gas and electric workers, public transportation workers and the local medical marijuana dispenser. And let's not forget hotels, motels and airlines.

Now, I'm aware that the Slippery Slope Argument is a logical fallacy, but what is good for the Conservatives is good for the rest. And let's consider, our military has evolved from don't ask, don't tell into a modern model and it took only 60 years for it to allow integration.

So, my point is this, the current defenders of Pence are typical of those who feel an affinity for the good old days, when separate but equal was good enough for our grandparents, they believe it should be good enough for us today.

I also know that the use of the term Reactionary is often used as a pejorative, but sometimes the use of the word is warranted, and in this case and on this thread it is.

Why do gay people feel the need to tell everyone they're gay? All they have to do is keep their mouths shut and they will get served.

Not only are gays a royal pain in the neck, they're just plain stupid.

Why do straight people feel the need to tell everyone they're straight? All they have to do is keep their mouths shut and they will get served.

Not only are straights a royal pain in the neck, they're just plain stupid.

Now it makes more sense.

Straight people don't go around telling anyone they are straight.

How do lies "make sense?"

You make the mistake of thinking that straights behave just like queers. They don't.

 

[rdean]

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.

gop repeal civil rights law - Google Search

We don't need to guess what the GOP believes. They tell us.

 

[rightwinger]

In other words, you want them to be able to keep their dirty little secrets and humiliate unknowing patrons publically. Sweet.

Where do you get the idea that you're entitled to know everything you want to know about a business? Should we put everyone on a polygraph and force them to testify about their sexual orientation?

You homosexual lovers act exactly like goose stepping Nazis.

Sounds like a strawman you're building.

If a restaurant doesn't allow small children say - they post a sign. If they insist patrons must wear a shirt and shoes - they post a sign. If a place does not allow dogs - they post a sign.

But if they don't serve gays - they don't post a sign.

Go figure

How about just a sign that says, no signs please. If you're gay, straight, black, white, religious, Atheist, white supremacist, opera singer, anti-defamation league, accordian player, etc., leave your sign at home please and come in and have lunch.

So a member of the KKK can come in and have lunch. But if he wants me to cater the KKK convention next month, no. I'm not going to do it and I don't want my government forcing me to do so. I won't interfere in any way with his right to have his convention. And he won't interfere in any way with my right not to participate in it.

I really like this as this is exactly what I think also.
In a perfect world which this is not so your example would never apply.
If 2 women come in and say they want something for their wedding, they should be able to say "their" and not "a" wedding and doing so does not constitute "wearing a sign."
If everyone was like you and accepting none of these things would w.

If two women came into my store to buy something for their wedding and I had it for sale they would get it. If those guys running the KKK convention came in to buy something I had for sale they would get it too. However I would choose to provide services at the gay wedding while I would not provide services for the KKK convention. But if I want the right to live by my convictions, then I also have to concede that that next person might provide services for the KKK convention but choose not to provide services for the gay wedding.

It's a two way street. If one person wants tolerance of his/her views, then the next person has the right to the same tolerance.

And according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you could also decline to serve darkies or Jews because you personally find them repulsive?

 

[jillian]

Let's assume it's not cake bakers who refuse to serve members of the GLBT community, but Doctors, Lawyers, Cops, Dentists, EMT and Firefighters. And how about roofers, gas and electric workers, public transportation workers and the local medical marijuana dispenser. And let's not forget hotels, motels and airlines.

Now, I'm aware that the Slippery Slope Argument is a logical fallacy, but what is good for the Conservatives is good for the rest. And let's consider, our military has evolved from don't ask, don't tell into a modern model and it took only 60 years for it to allow integration.

So, my point is this, the current defenders of Pence are typical of those who feel an affinity for the good old days, when separate but equal was good enough for our grandparents, they believe it should be good enough for us today.

I also know that the use of the term Reactionary is often used as a pejorative, but sometimes the use of the word is warranted, and in this case and on this thread it is.

Why do gay people feel the need to tell everyone they're gay? All they have to do is keep their mouths shut and they will get served.

Not only are gays a royal pain in the neck, they're just plain stupid.

Why do straight people feel the need to tell everyone they're straight? All they have to do is keep their mouths shut and they will get served.

Not only are straights a royal pain in the neck, they're just plain stupid.

Now it makes more sense.

Straight people don't go around telling anyone they are straight.

How do lies "make sense?"

You make the mistake of thinking that straights behave just like queers. They don't.

really? you don't hold hands with your significant other?

you don't say "hello, this is my _______ (fill in the blank).

no one cares what you wackos want.

 

[zeke]

You make the mistake of thinking that straights behave just like queers. They don't.

You are correct for once you briarpatty. Gays don't act like some straigthts.
I haven't met a gay person yet who is as bigoted, hateful and racist as you are briar. I haven't met a gay person who was as uneducated, as poor or as poorly raised as you are briar.

I could go on but one thing I will say for certain; not all straights are like you briar. Thank god. And the gays are glad we (straights) all aren't as fucked up as you briar.

Usually when I see a grown man go on and on about how much he hates gays, the opposite is what is happening.
You are actually attracted to men and hate yourself for it. It's ok dude. Come on out.

 

[Seawytch]

People have a right to ban muslims and child molesters from their business.

Yeah? Try it. Try banning Muslims from your establishment, bigot.

 

[Seawytch]

If I was gay I would want to know where I am not wanted.Only a fool would run their business that way but world is full of dumbasses. We are in a shooting war where folks are chopping heads for sport because their book tells them to and clowns over here want to treat gay folks as scum and 2nd class citizens because their book tells them to.

Except their book doesn't say anything about not serving gays. In fact, if they read the same book, they'd know that Jesus would not only have asked that the gays be served, but that you give them the shirt off your back as well.

 

[Seawytch]

Wonderful. The no Jews or Christians gas station is in business. Have fun kiddos.

BTW, if you don't serve faggots and others, expect to have your business tagged, because it soon will be.

Indiana General Assembly 2015 Session

Religion is protected. So are women, and races......but not gays.......yet.

Here's the issue I have:

I see how gay people want more than just the right to marry, some of them insist on having more rights than everyone else. I support treating them equally, not preferentially.

What "more rights"? Can you name a right that gays have that nobody elese does?

 

[Seawytch]

No one is telling you faggots that you can't discriminate against Christians.

Except Federal and state laws...

 

[bripat9643]

You make the mistake of thinking that straights behave just like queers. They don't.

You are correct for once you briarpatty. Gays don't act like some straigthts.
I haven't met a gay person yet who is as bigoted, hateful and racist as you are briar. I haven't met a gay person who was as uneducated, as poor or as poorly raised as you are briar.

I've encountered plenty of gay bigots right here on this forum. The libturds who apologize for them are even more bigoted.

I could go on but one thing I will say for certain; not all straights are like you briar. Thank god. And the gays are glad we (straights) all aren't as fucked up as you briar.

Usually when I see a grown man go on and on about how much he hates gays, the opposite is what is happening.
You are actually attracted to men and hate yourself for it. It's ok dude. Come on out.

Yeah, most straights are intimidated by gay Nazis like you and afraid to say what they think. No normal male believes that homosexuality is normal. They all think it's perverted and sick. The surest sign of that is the way morons like you accuse people of being homosexual if they disagree with you.

 

[bripat9643]

No one is telling you faggots that you can't discriminate against Christians.

Except Federal and state laws...

I didn't write those laws. Government cannot discriminate against anyone, but private people should be able to associate with who they wish.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

"No fundamentalist Christians or Dogs allowed in this establishment"

 

[Seawytch]

No one is telling you faggots that you can't discriminate against Christians.

Except Federal and state laws...

I didn't write those laws. Government cannot discriminate against anyone, but private people should be able to associate with who they wish.

Whether you wrote them or not, as a US citizen you abide by them or suffer the consequences. You're silly "I don't believe in the government" isn't worth entertaining the time it took to type about it.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. Liberty is not the liberty to harm others.

And refusing people the service your business provides others is HARM.

Not very often that you and I agree. But yes. Refusing the service your business provides others based on race, creed, sexual orientation etc. is harm. Refusing service for non payment... that's not harm, that's a consequence.

This law will allow businesses to be whites only if they choose to be.

They already can if they are private businesses that do not sell to the public.

The whole "public business/private business" meme is utterly meaningless. What about selling to stuff to people makes it "the public?" How does that give the federal government the authority to regulate? Does the federal government own the public? If it does, then it owns me since I'm part of the public.

Define own.

It was established with the 16th amendment that the government may take any percentage of our labor that is wants to take. While we allow the federal government to take a percentage of our labor they own that percentage of our labor.

Wrt public sales it has been long established that the federal government has the power to regulate public sales.

That said if you do things the Indian, Mormon, or Church way you can avoid federal government regulation to a large extent. IOW if you create a private group, you can avoid in large part many federal taxes, and most regulation on sales within your private group.

Wrt to your question what constitutes a public sale vs. a private sale: There exist standards but for the most part the legal definition of private is that which affects, characterizes, or belongs to an individual person, as opposed to the general public. Thus if you have a relationship with an individual, such as your neighbor, or a member of your church, or a member of your club, then that relationship is a private relationship. Now, if you barter or sell some good that you made for that person in that private relationship, that would be a private sale. If however you open your doors to the general public to sell food, and sell to anyone that walks in, except blacks, then the feds say you can't do that because they are regulating said sales of food to the public.

Make sense?