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

[Gracie]

I am retired. Businesses (2) are closed and have been for years. Even if they were still going, I wouldn't tell it here. Are you crazy???

And, can not some read? Try reading my post again. I never denied service to blacks, hispanics, asian, etc any more than I denied service to middle easterners, gays, wiccans, baptists, muslims. I denied service to ASSHOLES disrupting my business.

And, I'm pretty damn sure Indiana businesses wouldn't carve the heart out of a customer or allow it to be done in their store or condone a customer that practices it. Jeez. Get real.

 

[Gracie]

GRACIE SAID:

"So, what about businesses who are having THEIR rights stomped in the ground being FORCED to do something against THEIR religious beliefs? This all seems pretty one sided to me."

That's because you're ignorant of the law.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper and Constitutional – no rights are being “stomped [into] the ground,” no business owner is being 'forced' to do something against his religious beliefs; laws, such as public accommodations laws, enacted in good faith, whose primary intent is that other than disadvantaging religion, are appropriate and valid, where religious belief cannot be used as an excuse to ignore or violate valid, appropriate laws.

Ignorant=not taught.
Stupid=incapable of teaching.
Thank you for using the right word.
Meanwhile, again, how does one KNOW someone is gay prior to doing business with them? Unless it is announced by the customer, of course. Like a cake with two grooms or two brides, for example. And if that were the case, why does the bakery HAVE to service that customer if it is against their faith to do so?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

Better than you

In other words, it's fallible. Thanks for admitting the Supreme Court makes wrong decisions. Now the only issue is which decisions are correct and which are wrong.

 

[Gracie]

And furthermore...why would the customer DEMAND to be served knowing the business does not want to serve? Is that not the same as the demander being as bad as the demandee?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

At least you're consistent in your ignorance.

And it's naïve and foolish to believe that 'market forces' will drive businesses that discriminate out of business.

It comes as no surprise, of course, that that's the kind of America most conservatives want to live in.

 

[Gracie]

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.

At least you're consistent in your ignorance.

And it's naïve and foolish to believe that 'market forces' will drive businesses that discriminate out of business.

It comes as no surprise, of course, that that's the kind of America most conservatives want to live in.

And at least you continue to be obnoxious in your replies.
And for the record, I am not a conservative. Or a liberal. I am a human being that doesn't get it where the government can stick its nose in my business I am paying rent on, overhead and selling goods to the public. If the public comes in and pisses on my persian rug, the public is going to get a boot out the front fucking door.

 

[rightwinger]

Thousands in Indy protest RFRA law
2 hrs ago - Thousands gathered in Downtown Indianapolis on Saturday to protest the passage this week of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The protesters chanted and held signs as they marched from Monument Circle to the Indiana Statehouse to express their ... (Indianapolis Star)

So, what about businesses who are having THEIR rights stomped in the ground being FORCED to do something against THEIR religious beliefs? This all seems pretty one sided to me.

How does treat all customers the same descriminated against business?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Seattle Mayor prohibits Indiana travel for city employees
March 28, 2015 Seattle Mayor Ed Murray on Saturday announced his decision to prohibit the use of city funds for travel by all city employees on city business to the State of Indiana after the passage of S.B. 101. The new law, which w ... (Associated Press)

 

[rightwinger]

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.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

Better than you

In other words, it's fallible. Thanks for admitting the Supreme Court makes wrong decisions. Now the only issue is which decisions are correct and which are wrong.

Supreme Court is not infallible

But history has shown, over the long run......they get it right

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

lets say the Bakery gets a request for a Jewish wedding and says oh no I am anti Semitic ....

 

[Disir]

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

 

[bodecea]

lets say the Bakery gets a request for a Jewish wedding and says oh no I am anti Semitic ....

No big deal...Jews only make up about 2% of our population.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I do not want Blacks to be seated at my lunch counter....its against my Religion ...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

At least you're consistent in your ignorance.

And it's naïve and foolish to believe that 'market forces' will drive businesses that discriminate out of business.

It comes as no surprise, of course, that that's the kind of America most conservatives want to live in.

There's nothing at all naive or foolish about it because that is what the historical record shows. If you want to learn the facts read "The Strange Career of Jim Crow."

You're the one who is foolish or naive. Your beliefs are all based on liberal myths, not facts.

It comes as no surprise that your an idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

lets say the Bakery gets a request for a Jewish wedding and says oh no I am anti Semitic ....

No big deal...Jews only make up about 2% of our population.

No, it's not a big deal. For one thing, there are Jewish bakeries.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

Better than you

In other words, it's fallible. Thanks for admitting the Supreme Court makes wrong decisions. Now the only issue is which decisions are correct and which are wrong.

Supreme Court is not infallible

But history has shown, over the long run......they get it right

Wrong. It shows precisely the opposite. The history of the court is the history of hand picked political stooges ruling the way their benefactors expected them to rule, and that was almost always against the people and in favor of the state. If it were impartial, it would have ruled precisely in the opposite direction.

 

[Gracie]

lets say the Bakery gets a request for a Jewish wedding and says oh no I am anti Semitic ....

The the Jewish couple should go to a Jewish Baker that wants their business.
When the government starts saying who can do what with their business, then the government can pay the overhead, the electricity, the water, the internet, the bags, the register tape, the employees wages, the building insurance and the taxes of all goods sold....in my opinion.
I, myself, would love to have their (the Jews) business and would bust ass to put up signs that if they are denied somewhere else....COME HERE! And Blacks can sit at my counter IF I had one at the time. I am there to sell. I don't give a rats ass about the customers beliefs. I just want to make a profit on goods I sell. Period.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

lets say the Bakery gets a request for a Jewish wedding and says oh no I am anti Semitic ....

The the Jewish couple should go to a Jewish Baker that wants their business.
When the government starts saying who can do what with their business, then the government can pay the overhead, the electricity, the water, the internet, the bags, the register tape, the employees wages, the building insurance and the taxes of all goods sold....in my opinion.
I, myself, would love to have their business. And Blacks can sit at my counter IF I had one at the time. I am there to sell. I don't give a rats ass about the customers beliefs. I just want to make a profit on goods I sell. Period.

The Government provided the infrastructure the roads , the Banking system the internet and all else that supports business activities ....no one should be free to discriminate ....unless they announce they discriminate ...

Stickers touting "This business serves everyone" have been appearing on business windows in many Indiana cities.

 

[Disir]

I think that's totally awesome. Perhaps the better law should demand that store owners put exactly who they will and will not sell to or do business with right on their windows and in any and all advertisements.

Wouldn't want to pop into a bakery and accidentally buy a cookie from a dirtbag.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Balkanization and fragmentation and social alienation are the fruits of Right wing fanaticism about fundamentalist Religion ....