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

[TemplarKormac]

"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."

How arrogant. There's nothing to be gleaned from this post, except that you like to bully others with different opinions than yours, with your threat to me being the evidence.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

So, yet again, you are ignoring the real world. Got it.

 

[bripat9643]

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

So, yet again, you are ignoring the real world. Got it.

No, I ignore all the phoney baloney laws our Government has created the ignore the Constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

So, yet again, you are ignoring the real world. Got it.

No, I ignore all the phoney baloney laws our Government has created the ignore the Constitution.

No, what you ignore is reality.

 

[Disir]

And the Open for Service Campaign is now working right alongside businesses in Indianapolis and other regions to make sure that the rest of the universe understands.
Open For Service

The political outrage over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act will inevitably fade, as attention spans wane and another controversial issue supplants it in the news cycle.

But Indianapolis business leaders and at least one economist expect Indiana and its capital city to face "long-lasting" economic repercussions from the divisive law, which has stoked widespread fears of discrimination.

"People may not remember why it is that they have a negative perception of Indiana — but that perception could still linger," said Kyle Anderson, an economist with the Indiana University Kelley School of Business.

Factor in the possible loss of conventions, tourism and reduced investment from major employers like Salesforce, Anderson said, and "it doesn't take you long to get into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of those decisions can really be long lasting."
Economist Effects of religious freedom outrage could be long-lasting

 

[bripat9643]

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

So, yet again, you are ignoring the real world. Got it.

No, I ignore all the phoney baloney laws our Government has created the ignore the Constitution.

No, what you ignore is reality.

There is no reality where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate private businesses. That was pure fantasy conceived by the court FDR threatened to pack.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FOXFYRE SAID:

"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."

That is exactly the 'argument' being made: that the 'religious liberty' of private business owners is being 'violated' when state and local public accommodations laws prohibit business owners from denying services to patrons who are gay, where the owners should be allowed to bar gay patrons from their businesses for 'religious reasons.'

And those 'arguments' fail because public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause - such laws in no way 'violate' religious practice.

FOXFYRE SAID:

"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."

Nonsense.

The issue has nothing to do with the myth of 'political correctness,' it has to do with appropriate regulatory policy, where the only hatred on display is from those who wish to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than who they are.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

So, yet again, you are ignoring the real world. Got it.

No, I ignore all the phoney baloney laws our Government has created the ignore the Constitution.

No, what you ignore is reality.

There is no reality where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate private businesses. That was pure fantasy conceived by the court FDR threatened to pack.

The reality is it's a done deal. The fact that you can't deal with that appropriately is what makes you such a child. And answer my "Who should this girl marry" question: San Francisco mayor bans publicly-funded travel to Indiana in response to religious freedom law Page 14 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Or don't you know the difference between a boy and a girl?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And the Open for Service Campaign is now working right alongside businesses in Indianapolis and other regions to make sure that the rest of the universe understands.
Open For Service

The political outrage over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act will inevitably fade, as attention spans wane and another controversial issue supplants it in the news cycle.

But Indianapolis business leaders and at least one economist expect Indiana and its capital city to face "long-lasting" economic repercussions from the divisive law, which has stoked widespread fears of discrimination.

"People may not remember why it is that they have a negative perception of Indiana — but that perception could still linger," said Kyle Anderson, an economist with the Indiana University Kelley School of Business.

Factor in the possible loss of conventions, tourism and reduced investment from major employers like Salesforce, Anderson said, and "it doesn't take you long to get into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of those decisions can really be long lasting."
Economist Effects of religious freedom outrage could be long-lasting

The loss of business that is completely unnecessary, the consequence of a ridiculous, unnecessary law.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Your argument, no matter how many times you make it is invalid

The members of the KKK are there by choice. They are not born KKK members

KKK is a terrorist organization, you equating them to gays is offensive

It would be offensive if I had equated them to gays. I didn't. I have said and will say it again, a whole bunch of folks on the left definitely have a reading comprehension problem and have no sense of context at all.

The context I used by the way had absolutely nothing to do with what somebody is when they are born. It has everything to do with what activities they choose to engage in after they are born.

Your context and comparison to the KKK is offensive

No.......it is not the same thing

Fine. Then please scroll over my posts or put me on ignore. Because I am not going to worry about who I offend in the politically correct world that cannot address the actual issue involved but insists on making it into something entirely different that they can attack.

 

[Borillar]

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 could get behind a law like that too. Good to know where people and businesses stand. Of course, with modern social media, the word can get out pretty quickly that a certain business is not friendly to gays or blacks or whatever else.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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 could get behind a law like that too. Good to know where people and businesses stand. Of course, with modern social media, the word can get out pretty quickly that a certain business is not friendly to gays or blacks or whatever else.

They will be tagged in no time, for better or worse.

 

[Disir]

And the Open for Service Campaign is now working right alongside businesses in Indianapolis and other regions to make sure that the rest of the universe understands.
Open For Service

The political outrage over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act will inevitably fade, as attention spans wane and another controversial issue supplants it in the news cycle.

But Indianapolis business leaders and at least one economist expect Indiana and its capital city to face "long-lasting" economic repercussions from the divisive law, which has stoked widespread fears of discrimination.

"People may not remember why it is that they have a negative perception of Indiana — but that perception could still linger," said Kyle Anderson, an economist with the Indiana University Kelley School of Business.

Factor in the possible loss of conventions, tourism and reduced investment from major employers like Salesforce, Anderson said, and "it doesn't take you long to get into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of those decisions can really be long lasting."
Economist Effects of religious freedom outrage could be long-lasting

The loss of business that is completely unnecessary, the consequence of a ridiculous, unnecessary law.

Yep. But, hey..............the folks on this thread that are pitchin' a bitch don't own businesses. They are reciting talking points.

 

[Foxfyre]

FOXFYRE SAID:

"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."

That is exactly the 'argument' being made: that the 'religious liberty' of private business owners is being 'violated' when state and local public accommodations laws prohibit business owners from denying services to patrons who are gay, where the owners should be allowed to bar gay patrons from their businesses for 'religious reasons.'

And those 'arguments' fail because public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause - such laws in no way 'violate' religious practice.

FOXFYRE SAID:

"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."

Nonsense.

The issue has nothing to do with the myth of 'political correctness,' it has to do with appropriate regulatory policy, where the only hatred on display is from those who wish to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than who they are.

I suggest you review what I have posted on the topic for the full argument.

 

[Lakhota]

It ain't looking good for Indiana.

Fierce Backlash Mounts Over Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law

 

[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?

What are you talking about? What part of that question made such a suggestion? Interpol spoke of making judgments of customers, I replied by asking, "so why do we judge the business owner?"

No you did not say why do we judge, you said why are we allowed to judge. But ok, switching to the new question...
Are you really asking why we judge people?

We judge people because that's what humans do... Humans, and other types of animals, analyze information and make judgments based on the analysis.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes you are culpable for editing by omission my post, and as we both know lying by omission is still lying.

Really? You calling me a liar? Hilarious.

If you don't want me honing in on parts of your post I wish to respond to, then don't make the post. Easy enough, right?

Sure, it's easy to lie by omission, and that's exactly what you did.

I spent a career putting people in jail who denied having their hand in the cookie jar, even when shown a picture of them with their hand in the cookie jar. Now, I'm not suggesting you're a criminal, but the evidence strongly suggests you have a character flaw very similar to one.

Have a nice day.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I seriously don't see the problem with this new law. It goes along the lines of "we have the right to refuse service to anyone", doesn't it? If businesses do not want to cater to homosexuals or muslims or green skinned aliens....then that is on the businesses' heads...and pocket book. Businesses should not be FORCED to do business with those that go against their own freedom of choice.

Wow! Food for thought: SELMA

Selma Reviews Ratings - IMDb

Google

 

[NYcarbineer]

What part of people already don't have that freedom do you not get?

Then what are you and the rest of the queers whining about?

They aren't fully included in the list of people, under reasonable conditions, you are required by law to serve. The "freedom" that you believe exists, doesn't, and hasn't for decades.

You said they didn't have the freedom to exclude gays. No you're claiming they do. Which is it?

You'd have to have reading comprehension to understand, but businesses haven't had the "freedom" to just refuse service for decades now.

You just said they did. Which is it?

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

If the Supreme Court supports it, it's constitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

For this reason: