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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

no one cares what you wackos want.

ROFL!

I SO adore the sweeter Ironies... .

 

[Stephanie]

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

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

you're the biggest bigot on this board. so stop with the chest thumping

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Then why are we allowed to judge, or even set aside, the beliefs of the business owners?

Did you really just ask why we are allowed to think?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The right to equal treatment from a business regardless of your sexual orientation is clearly a right that needs to be protected.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

We have a "reaction shot" to the signing of the bigot act in Indiana

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not at all, some people believe in ghosts, others in fairy god mothers. What you believe makes no matter to me. I simply point out the flaws and inconsistencies in their thinking.

You are entitled to do so. But my way of thinking does not in fact have to meld with yours. Sorry.

I'm pragmatic and reality based, my ideology is simple to understand and easy to apply to most situations: "Do onto others as they would do onto you".

That's ironic coming from you. Do you really "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" As evidenced with the commentary of this thread, I think not. You are neither pragmatic nor reality based, you are a hypocrite.

No, I'm honest. Yes, your thinking, though I find it framed in biases, doesn't have to meld with mine. You have every right to remain one of the willfully ignorant, fixed in a little box of ideas and unwilling to escape.

Yes you are culpable for editing by omission my post, and as we both know lying by omission is still lying. Next time quote the entire passage, otherwise you will find me less tolerant and one of those I point out in the following paragraph which you chose to eliminate:

"It even applies when I'm frustrated by some people I consider fools, If I believed in ghosts and fairy god mothers I'd like to be challenged; when the challenge is thought provoking and creates questions I cannot answer, I thank the person who opened my brain to a new idea. When they don't and continue to beat the poor dead horse, I respond with emotion and sometimes treat them poorly. The real stupid ones, I name and stalk with vigor."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We know for a fact that this inane measure was indeed a backlash against gay Americans realizing their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law in Indiana because Indiana public accommodations laws do not include sexual orientation as a protected condition – business owners were already at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay patrons with impunity, rendering this new law unnecessary.

 

[bodecea]

This is satire, folks (need to point that out for SassyIrishLass, aka LadyGunSlinger, because twice she's posted satire as the real deal)

Indiana anti-gay law snags Bachmann s husband LGBT Weekly

Too funny! On so many levels.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

you're the biggest bigot on this board. so stop with the chest thumping

How many of your "right-thinking" friends did you manage to get to Washington D.C. last Spring? Gonna try again this year?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is satire, folks (need to point that out for SassyIrishLass, aka LadyGunSlinger, because twice she's posted satire as the real deal)

Indiana anti-gay law snags Bachmann s husband LGBT Weekly

Too funny! On so many levels.

Could happen. He's so gay Richard Simmons tells him to tone it down a bit.

He's very likely an XX or XXX male. He has the right traits.

 

[charwin95]

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.

Republicans are so stupid. I'm a republican but ashamed to be one and I will never vote for any republican candidates in any future elections till they prove or show some kind of responsibility. Enjoy your last term rubbish Pence. How in the world you can differentiate between a gay or straight? Stay front of door. are you gay? yes, you can't come in. no, come in.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

If the "darkies" or "Jews" want me to cater an EVENT that I find repulsive or wrong or immoral or for whatever reason I do not want to participate I should be able to not participate in that event. And that would not violate the spirit of the Civil Rights Act in any way. I would not be discriminating against them because they are Jews or darkies. I would be choosing not to participate in an event in which I do not want to participate.

Remember I would cater the gay wedding. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I would not cater the KKK convention because I would have a problem with that. I would not be discriminating against any person. Only an activity or event in which I choose not to participate.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

If the "darkies" or "Jews" want me to cater an EVENT that I find repulsive or wrong or immoral or for whatever reason I do not want to participate I should be able to not participate in that event. And that would not violate the spirit of the Civil Rights Act in any way. I would not be discriminating against them because they are Jews or darkies. I would be choosing not to participate in an event in which I do not want to participate.

Remember I would cater the gay wedding. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I would not cater the KKK convention because I would have a problem with that. I would not be discriminating against any person. Only an activity or event in which I choose not to participate.

You forgot to add....

Some of my best friends are gay

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

If the "darkies" or "Jews" want me to cater an EVENT that I find repulsive or wrong or immoral or for whatever reason I do not want to participate I should be able to not participate in that event. And that would not violate the spirit of the Civil Rights Act in any way. I would not be discriminating against them because they are Jews or darkies. I would be choosing not to participate in an event in which I do not want to participate.

Remember I would cater the gay wedding. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I would not cater the KKK convention because I would have a problem with that. I would not be discriminating against any person. Only an activity or event in which I choose not to participate.

You forgot to add....

Some of my best friends are gay

If it had been important to make my point, I would have. I do have good friends who are gay.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

No American should be concerned with patronizing a business that accommodates the general public simply because of who he is, particularly given the fact that nowhere in Christian dogma does the act of accommodating a homosexual in the context of a business transaction constitutes a 'violation' of that dogma.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Nonsense.

No American should be concerned with patronizing a business that accommodates the general public simply because of who he is, particularly given the fact that nowhere in Christian dogma does the act of accommodating a homosexual in the context of a business transaction constitutes a 'violation' of that dogma.

We shouldn't have to play these games where we accommodate the hatred of others in the name of religion

Want to bar them from your church? You have the right

Want to bar them from your business? Take your business elsewhere

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

We now have a statement from Governor Pence

Even though large tracts of California and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the GayGestapo and all the odious apparatus of FemNazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in Indianapolis , we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our paranoia, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“So, your concept of liberty trumps that of the liberty of this merchant to serve who he pleases.”

Incorrect.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, as authorized by the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

States and local jurisdictions with public accommodations laws that prohibit the discrimination of gay Americans in no way 'violate' the liberty of private business owners.

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“And you my friend have no place dictating the morals of others. Isn't that the argument you liberals use?”

No one is 'dictating' the morals of others.

Public accommodations laws concern market regulation and ensuring the integrity of the markets and all other interrelated markets; where for businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation would in fact be disruptive to the markets, a condition government is authorized by the Constitution to prevent. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“Should religious freedom be weighed against the lifestyle choices of someone else?”

This issue has nothing to do with 'religious freedom.'

Requiring businesses to accommodate the general public in no way infringes upon 'religious freedom.' The business owner remains at liberty to practice his religion however he sees fit, any time he wishes, in any venue he so desires, free from interference by government. Just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, enacted in good faith to address a legitimate government concern, such as the integrity of the markets, does not violate 'religious liberty' provided the primary intent of the law is not to interfere with religious practice. Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Nonsense.

No American should be concerned with patronizing a business that accommodates the general public simply because of who he is, particularly given the fact that nowhere in Christian dogma does the act of accommodating a homosexual in the context of a business transaction constitutes a 'violation' of that dogma.

We shouldn't have to play these games where we accommodate the hatred of others in the name of religion

Want to bar them from your church? You have the right

Want to bar them from your business? Take your business elsewhere

Or how about acknowledging the argument that is actually being made here which has absolutely nothing to do with barring anybody at all from our church or our business.

Hatred takes all kinds of forms including those who insist on demonizing, accusing and blaming people in dishonest ways because the honest argument just doesn't fit the politically correct culture.

 

[Dot Com]

We shouldn't have to play these games where we accommodate the hatred of others in the name of religion

Want to bar them from your church? You have the right

Want to bar them from your business? Take your business elsewhere

^that