Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They're morons if they didn't expect the backlash. You take on a racial issue or a sexual lifestyle issue and not expect backlash, you're not worthy of being an elected official.Originally posted by BillyL:
Now they're gonna write a law that clarifies another law.
Yeah, I am curious about the motivation of coming down hard on Indiana. Why did this particular instance raise the hackles of the ACLU and company? There are other similar laws in place and heck, Clinton even signed one in 1993. Why all the hullabaloo over Indiana in particular?Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
They're morons if they didn't expect the backlash. You take on a racial issue or a sexual lifestyle issue and not expect backlash, you're not worthy of being an elected official.Originally posted by BillyL:
Now they're gonna write a law that clarifies another law.
But I am curious to see how this pans out. I haven't read the law, but I've heard plenty about it and if you use a little common sense, I think the law is fine. But this is a political strategy move - trying to appease those on both sides.
It's because Indiana's law is pretty clearly aimed at justifying disparate treatment of gays. Most other states that have these laws also have laws that classify homosexuals as a protected class, prohibiting any discrimination against them. But Indiana shows no intention of doing that. And the federal law that Clinton signed was intended to allow native tribes to use peyote in religious rituals. Gay rights was not even a blip on anyone's radar in 1993.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
Yeah, I am curious about the motivation of coming down hard on Indiana. Why did this particular instance raise the hackles of the ACLU and company? There are other similar laws in place and heck, Clinton even signed one in 1993. Why all the hullabaloo over Indiana in particular?
Where do gay Christians fit in, in this example?Originally posted by Heels in Space:
Under this law, it's legal for Christians to refuse service to gays but illegal for gays to refuse service to Christians. Doesn't seem right.
Originally posted by prlyles:
Where do gay Christians fit in, in this example?Originally posted by Heels in Space:
Under this law, it's legal for Christians to refuse service to gays but illegal for gays to refuse service to Christians. Doesn't seem right.
Good question. And here is my most honest answer.Originally posted by T-Square:
How are businesses supposed to know who is gay and who isn't?
If they are using US currency in their transactions, isn't every business deal public? I disagree with your view on this.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I personally feel that any privately owned, non subsidized business or person should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
I don't think that they should discriminate, but it should be their right to do so if private.
Show me on the doll where he touched you.Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Just having the same rights isn't enough. The LGBT movement wants you to change your beliefs. And so, they often feel the need to make grand statements of their homosexuality. It's almost a challenge - they throw down the gauntlet. "I'm gay and I want to see how you react to me being this way." Maybe it's just their way of figuring out who's a friendly and who's not.
Agree. I doubt I'd choose to do it, but on principal that should be the right of a private business owner.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I personally feel that any privately owned, non subsidized business or person should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
I don't think that they should discriminate, but it should be their right to do so if private.
Well, oil is traded in US dollars and last time I checked, being gay in the Middle East was pretty hazardous.Originally posted by T-Square:
If they are using US currency in their transactions, isn't every business deal public? I disagree with your view on this.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I personally feel that any privately owned, non subsidized business or person should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
I don't think that they should discriminate, but it should be their right to do so if private.
I agree with this in principle, but in reality it would not be feasible in some cases. What if the only gas station in a small town wanted to discriminate ? That puts an unreasonable, and potentially life-threatening, burden upon those against whom it is discriminating.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I personally feel that any privately owned, non subsidized business or person should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
I don't think that they should discriminate, but it should be their right to do so if private.
Ok, but the State would then refuse to authorize that the pumps have been properly calibrated and the station would be required to post a sign saying that pumps have not been tested.Originally posted by st8grad93:
I agree with this in principle, but in reality it would not be feasible in some cases. What if the only gas station in a small town wanted to discriminate ? That puts an unreasonable, and potentially life-threatening, burden upon those against whom it is discriminating.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I personally feel that any privately owned, non subsidized business or person should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
I don't think that they should discriminate, but it should be their right to do so if private.
A sign requesting no religious solicitations would be best. We can't control what they do in the Middle East, they are independent countries. We could cut back on their foreign aid packages. If a business was to discriminate, the word would get out pretty quickly and that business would likely find their bottom line affected in a negative way.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
Well, oil is traded in US dollars and last time I checked, being gay in the Middle East was pretty hazardous.Originally posted by T-Square:
If they are using US currency in their transactions, isn't every business deal public? I disagree with your view on this.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I personally feel that any privately owned, non subsidized business or person should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
I don't think that they should discriminate, but it should be their right to do so if private.
Would it be ok with you if I put a sign at the end of my driveway which said " No Mormons or Jehovhas Witnesses Allowed, Everyone else please ring bell"?
Right. And aren't natural consequences the best consequences? So why the need to force a private business to do anything?If a business was to discriminate, the word would get out pretty quickly and that business would likely find their bottom line affected in a negative way.Originally posted by T-Square:
Here are the natural consequences to an Indiana pizzeria's Yelp page (NSFW) after they announced they would not provide pizza for gay weddings.Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
And aren't natural consequences the best consequences?
I looked through some of the pictures and I think you should have probably warned people that there is some seriously graphic material in there. It is absolutely NSFW.Originally posted by Heels in Space:
Here are the natural consequences to an Indiana pizzeria's Yelp page after they announced they would not provide pizza for gay weddings.Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
And aren't natural consequences the best consequences?
I mean, who the hell has pizza at a wedding anyway? They're really going out of their way to make sure everyone knows they don't like gays.
Yes, natural consequences are the best. But why give bigoted people legal justification for practicing bigotry?Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Right. And aren't natural consequences the best consequences? So why the need to force a private business to do anything?If a business was to discriminate, the word would get out pretty quickly and that business would likely find their bottom line affected in a negative way.Originally posted by T-Square:
Because you cannot legislate beliefs. If they force those businesses to serve gays, do you really think the gays will get good service? They cannot win. Sure, they might force the govt's hand and all businesses will have to serve gays. And then you go in and ask for a cake for your gay wedding? Let me assure you, I wouldn't eat that cake. Who knows what's in it.Originally posted by T-Square:
Yes, natural consequences are the best. But why give bigoted people legal justification for practicing bigotry?Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Right. And aren't natural consequences the best consequences? So why the need to force a private business to do anything?If a business was to discriminate, the word would get out pretty quickly and that business would likely find their bottom line affected in a negative way.Originally posted by T-Square:
I just glanced at the thumbnails, so my apologies if some are graphic. The ones I saw seemed pretty tame.Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
I looked through some of the pictures and I think you should have probably warned people that there is some seriously graphic material in there. It is absolutely NSFW.
But I came across this picture...which I like. Instead of trying to tear down those that are not wanting to serve certain people, why don't we instead try to prop up businesses that have signs like this on their doors.
It goes back to my comment above that the LGBT movement is out for blood. They don't just want equal rights. They want to hurt those that don't agree with their lifestyle. They are being exactly what they claim to be against - intolerant. The LGBT shouldn't focus any efforts whatsoever on the negative side. Instead, try to focus on the positives. Don't even mention those in opposition to homosexuality. Don't rail against Christians that use the bible as their reasoning. Instead, point to businesses that are accepting. Promote those businesses. If you're gay and you own a radio station, give them free commercials. Have parties at those places. By doing that, you will squeeze the others out.
This post was edited on 4/1 12:26 PM by gunslingerdick
I agree that such a sign would be better, but my question remains: would you be ok if I put up a sign in my driveway that said "No Mormons Allowed"?Originally posted by T-Square:
A sign requesting no religious solicitations would be best. We can't control what they do in the Middle East, they are independent countries. We could cut back on their foreign aid packages. If a business was to discriminate, the word would get out pretty quickly and that business would likely find their bottom line affected in a negative way.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
Well, oil is traded in US dollars and last time I checked, being gay in the Middle East was pretty hazardous.Originally posted by T-Square:
If they are using US currency in their transactions, isn't every business deal public? I disagree with your view on this.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I personally feel that any privately owned, non subsidized business or person should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
I don't think that they should discriminate, but it should be their right to do so if private.
Would it be ok with you if I put a sign at the end of my driveway which said " No Mormons or Jehovhas Witnesses Allowed, Everyone else please ring bell"?
No sweat. I was just letting others know.Originally posted by Heels in Space:
I just glanced at the thumbnails, so my apologies if some are graphic. The ones I saw seemed pretty tame.
By promoting all inclusive businesses, you're sending people away from those that aren't inclusive. I'm just saying that the tactics used by the LGBT movement (and many other movements) are of the aggressive nature. And that turns people off. I'm proof of it. Because like I said, I generally don't have a problem with the homosexual lifestyle. But when I see an angry mob of LGBT supporters using aggressive tactics, it makes me not want to accommodate them even if at my core, I believe in them. So instead of going after the non-inclusive, do what you can to support and promote the inclusive. That will eventually drive out the non-inclusive. It's simple. But I have a hunch that won't appease many on the side of said movement. Because as I stated earlier, I feel like those backing a movement aren't happy with having their needs met. They want those that refuse to meet their needs change their way of thinking. That's an exercise in futility.Originally posted by Heels in Space:
As to your second point though, I thought the point of allowing businesses to discriminate was that they would get called out for it and the market would decide whether they survived. Now you're saying that those being discriminated against should just ignore the businesses doing the discriminating. Isn't that trying to have it both ways?
You're not being intolerant if that's all that you're doing. If you simply let people know that Business X won't serve you because you're gay, then fine. But if you publically challenge Business X for their Christian beliefs that are in opposition to your homosexual lifestyle, then yes, you are being intolerant.Originally posted by Heels in Space:
There's a difference between not agreeing with someone's lifestyle (setting aside the dubious notion that homosexuality is a "lifestyle") and refusing them service. If a business refuses to serve me because of who I am and I publicize that fact, am I the one being intolerant?
Well, take a different example: housing. As someone who recently moved, I know it can be a real pain in the a$$ to find an affordable and desirable house or apartment. If you're a gay couple looking for a place, you can't really hide the fact that you'll be gay people living together unless you want to outright lie during the application process (which is likely against the law). If landlords could refuse to rent to you because you're a gay couple, it could seriously impact your ability to find a place and could result in you paying significantly more than you otherwise would.Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Also, no one has even addressed how the supposed legalized discrimination will even be enforced. And again, I'll cite the nature of gays (as I know them to be). Many have a desire for everyone around them to know they are gay. I can't understand why a gay person would want to do business with a company that doesn't want to serve them. But let's overlook that right now. A gay man walks into a sandwich shop. He goes and places his order. He gets his food. He eats it. He leaves. Where does the gay thing even enter the equation? If there was a sign on the door that said "Christian business - we do not serve homosexuals.", who would know if the gay guy that just went in and ordered was gay? No one...until the gay guy made a point to make it known - a challenge, if you will. But I suspect the gay person that patronized the store only did so for the purpose of a challenge. Because it would blow my mind to think that a gay person would want to give money and receive service from someone that doesn't want to serve them.
IMHO, when you single out a specific group and deny them access to something, you are doing the same thing people did when blacks were treated as second class citizens and that has been ruled illegal. By saying no solicitations to everyone, you are giving them all equal treatment and that's what this whole uproar over the Indiana law is all about.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I agree that such a sign would be better, but my question remains: would you be ok if I put up a sign in my driveway that said "No Mormons Allowed"?Originally posted by T-Square:
A sign requesting no religious solicitations would be best. We can't control what they do in the Middle East, they are independent countries. We could cut back on their foreign aid packages. If a business was to discriminate, the word would get out pretty quickly and that business would likely find their bottom line affected in a negative way.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
Well, oil is traded in US dollars and last time I checked, being gay in the Middle East was pretty hazardous.Originally posted by T-Square:
If they are using US currency in their transactions, isn't every business deal public? I disagree with your view on this.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I personally feel that any privately owned, non subsidized business or person should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
I don't think that they should discriminate, but it should be their right to do so if private.
Would it be ok with you if I put a sign at the end of my driveway which said " No Mormons or Jehovhas Witnesses Allowed, Everyone else please ring bell"?
If we quit trading with the companies that commit human rights violations, many of them would be crushed. For instance, what if the US made it illegal for companies to sell products made in countries that discriminate against Buddhists? No doubt prices on just about everything would go through the roof and there would be a tono of other negative impacts on our economy, but China would be crushed if they didn't have us as a trading partner.
Might sound like a "bigot" but WTH is a gay christian?Originally posted by prlyles:
Where do gay Christians fit in, in this example?Originally posted by Heels in Space:
Under this law, it's legal for Christians to refuse service to gays but illegal for gays to refuse service to Christians. Doesn't seem right.
I understand that would be what I would be doing. I'm just asking you if you are ok with me banning Mormons from my property, yet allowing Jehovah's Witnesses, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts and guys wanting to clean my gutters?Originally posted by T-Square:
IMHO, when you single out a specific group and deny them access to something, you are doing the same thing people did when blacks were treated as second class citizens and that has been ruled illegal. By saying no solicitations to everyone, you are giving them all equal treatment and that's what this whole uproar over the Indiana law is all about.
If you prohibit one group but yet allow other religious groups, then I would feel like you are being discriminatory. The part about Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and gutter cleaners is misleading since all they want you to do is buy cookies, popcorn or pay them to do something you probably don't want to do yourself, not convert you to their religious beliefs.Originally posted by UNC71-00:
I understand that would be what I would be doing. I'm just asking you if you are ok with me banning Mormons from my property, yet allowing Jehovah's Witnesses, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts and guys wanting to clean my gutters?Originally posted by T-Square:
IMHO, when you single out a specific group and deny them access to something, you are doing the same thing people did when blacks were treated as second class citizens and that has been ruled illegal. By saying no solicitations to everyone, you are giving them all equal treatment and that's what this whole uproar over the Indiana law is all about.
Are you saying a person can't be gay and Christian? If so, I beg to differ....Originally posted by Deezheelz:
Might sound like a "bigot" but WTH is a gay christian?Originally posted by prlyles:
Where do gay Christians fit in, in this example?Originally posted by Heels in Space:
Under this law, it's legal for Christians to refuse service to gays but illegal for gays to refuse service to Christians. Doesn't seem right.
Yeah,...but that's not what the law intends. This link provides some clarity and also shines a light on the hypocrisy of the left. Entertaining too.Originally posted by T-Square:
But why give bigoted people legal justification for practicing bigotry?
This guy totally misses the point. A baker can absolutely refuse to write a particular message on a cake, as long as he or she would refuse to do so for all customers. But if the baker would make a wedding cake for a straight couple while refusing to make the same cake for a gay couple, that's discriminatory because the refusal is based solely on the fact that the customer is gay. It would be the same if a landlord held a religious belief that two gay men living together was immoral and refused to rent to a gay couple.Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Yeah,...but that's not what the law intends. This link provides some clarity and also shines a light on the hypocrisy of the left. Entertaining too.