• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed[W:1581]

Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

sangha said:
He knows that but he has consistently (and dishonestly) tried to conflate expressive organizations with purely commercial ones.
Click to expand...

It would be dishonest to claim any clear line could be drawn between the two. That is exactly what the Court discussed in Roberts v. Jaycees, particularly in Justice O'Connors' concurring opinion. It would also be dishonest to claim that the freedom of association is the only First Amendment freedom these public accommodations cases may involve. There is also a line of cases involving government-compelled speech that may form a strong basis for challenges by some businesses to public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I haven't seen the claims the Hitching Post made against the Coeur d'Alene ordinance in federal court that caused the town to back down so quickly and ignominiously. But knowing what the Court has said about compelled speech in Barnette, Wooley, Hurley, and Prune Yard Shopping Center, I have a hunch that had something to do with it. To require the owners of a for-profit wedding chapel to let it be used to celebrate same-sex marriages would compel them to let their property be used to propound a point of view they disagree with. The fact the Hitching Post is a commercial business and a public accommodation did not make the city ordinance any less an unconstitutional infringement of the Knapps' freedom of speech.

The Court in Barnette, which upheld the right of students who were Jehovah's Witnesses not to salute the flag against their beliefs, saw the inconsistency in saying the same First Amendment "which guards the individual's right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind."
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Hatuey said:
The same protected status afforded to choices like what religion you'll be a member of and traits you can't do anything about like race. That's not too much to ask.
Click to expand...

Did I say it was? With the exception of the fact that nothing happened, you'd have a point. Nothing happened.



Lol, we talking about the pizza thing? Saying the law was changed because of that is absolutely ridiculous. This law was going to be changed whether a pizza parlor spoke on it or not. Or did the mass demonstrations suggest something else?
Click to expand...

The demonstrations suggested something else. The entire presumption of the demonstrations was that because a reporter decided that perhaps there might be people who might exploit this law because of their religious beliefs would compel them to do so was outrageous. That was the cause of the demonstrations. There was no act other than speech that caused it. And speech, as I am forced to reiterate in this instance, is protected. As I said before, this is all hysterical hyperbole, and rather than offerring substance, you continue the hyperbole.



That's great, don't get in a homosexual union then. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You're assuming I care one way or the other. I don't.



Nobody is giving anybody the title of thought police. What is being established is that a business doesn't get the benefits afforded to it through federal laws, and taxes and then discriminate against the populace that makes that possible.
Click to expand...

BS. The entire exercise, from the moment that reported decided this was a good thing to do until it's completion, was precisely about condemning someone for spoken thought. You can condemn if you like, but that person still retains the right to say it, whether you like it or not.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Grant said:
We do that almost every day in our lives.
Click to expand...
Just so we are clear, such as?

If we cannot exercise our personal discretion then we lose a basic freedom.
Click to expand...
Of course we can, when not in violation of an obligation we freely take on, such as opening a business to the public as opposed to select clientele.

I'm in the tourism industry and have refused service perhaps five times over 25 years to people because of their attitudes.
Click to expand...
Good for you. I am sure you did it for the safety or well being of your clients and or staff or property. Say, much like not giving any more drinks to a drunk.

They could have sued me and may have succeeded, but I felt they were being rude either to me or staff and told them they were not welcome. I used my discretion and each time I was correct and was more than willing to face the financial loss.
Click to expand...
But not because you disliked a particular group or type of people.

It is a small town where there are few gays getting married or asking Memories pizza to cater. It was a hypothetical question.
Click to expand...
Through hypotheticals are principles tested.

I would pleased to cater a Gay wedding were I in the business but may have refused some other type of function where I felt me or my employees felt uncomfortable. It's discretion.
Click to expand...
No it is not longer discretion.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed




I just did.

So I will keep this to really short words.


You said "the one group..."

I pointed out that here were more than one group that have served notice they will NOT do business with GBLT

You were wrong. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.

So now we have two posts in a row where your wrongness has been exposed.

Do not admit it.

have a good day. I am done here.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Fearandloathing said:
I just did.

So I will keep this to really short words.
Click to expand...

Lol, good. Then quit your complaining. You have reading comprehension issues and it's obvious to anybody who notices just how badly you miss your mark when addressing 90% of my posts. The best part is that you actually think I said something about a specific group of religious people. :lol:

You said "the one group..."
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be the religious.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

humbolt said:
Did I say it was? With the exception of the fact that nothing happened, you'd have a point. Nothing happened.
Click to expand...

And yet, a law was corrected, and it was made clear that it could not be use to discriminate against gays. Continuing to claim that nothing happened just makes you look like sour grapes at this point. Sort of like the people who claim nothing was accomplished by changing the law.


Continuing to infer that this was based on a reporter and a religious belief makes you it look like that's what the calls for repeal were about. They weren't. :shrug:

You're assuming I care one way or the other. I don't.
Click to expand...

25 posts in this thread alone. Something tells me you do care. :shrug:


Still under the belief that this was all started because of a reporter? Hmm. It really wasn't.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed


There was no crime. Therefore, there was nothing worth talking about.



Continuing to infer that this was based on a reporter and a religious belief makes you it look like that's what the calls for repeal were about. They weren't. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And you're claiming that absent national attention, something would've happened. That's funny.



25 posts in this thread alone. Something tells me you do care. :shrug:
Click to expand...

About the perception and the attempted twisting of it - not the event itself.



Still under the belief that this was all started because of a reporter? Hmm. It really wasn't.
Click to expand...

Sure it was. If not for the reporter, nothing would've happened. Tell me, exactly what gay 'would be' couple was soliciting that restaurant for catering services?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

prometeus said:
But you did not have a point. You aired a desire for penis cake.
Click to expand...

I asked a hypothetical with an expectation that no one would be able to come up with a reasoned argument to rebut it. I wasn't disappointed. You get one final shot, then you go on my ignore list.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

sangha said:
Many bus services are private businesses. the buses that MLKJr started a boycott over were privately owned
Click to expand...

Name for me how many metro bus lines operating routes in our cities today are private...
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Ahlevah said:
I asked a hypothetical
Click to expand...
Yes, a really stupid one and irrelevant to boot.

with an expectation that no one would be able to come up with a reasoned argument to rebut it.
Click to expand...
Such stupid questions are best left unreasoned.

I wasn't disappointed.
Click to expand...
Well at least you have that.

You get one final shot
Click to expand...
At what making a penis cake for you? I am no baker.

then you go on my ignore list.
Click to expand...
Oh no, what will I do?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

humbolt said:
There was no crime. Therefore, there was nothing worth talking about.
Click to expand...

The bill was literally made into law 2 weeks ago. It received criticism from the minute it was passed because it allowed people to discriminate based on another person's sexual orientation. Continuing to claim that some imaginary crime needed to happen for it to be discussed is absurd.

And you're claiming that absent national attention, something would've happened. That's funny.
Click to expand...

Laws don't get changed unless people pay attention to them. What I have argued (though not explicitly) is that people would have noticed in the same way they notice discrimination that goes on in countries they don't live in. They research and then discuss topics. Believing the attention paid was the product of a reporter and not the law itself is absurd. Welcome to Politics 101.

About the perception and the attempted twisting of it - not the event itself.
Click to expand...

And yet, it wasn't the "perception and attempted twisting of it" that got it changed. You can't twist a law that wouldn't have allowed for discrimination in the first place.

Sure it was. If not for the reporter, nothing would've happened. Tell me, exactly what gay 'would be' couple was soliciting that restaurant for catering services?
Click to expand...

What reporter? Continuing to assert that nothing would have happened is saying that there was nothing wrong with the law and one person convinced mega-corporations, multinationals, and millions of people that there was something wrong with this law. That is patently absurd.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed


Although they could have been theoretically sued by anyone, it would not be likely that such a case would go anywhere and would be pretty much dropped immediately since just saying they wouldn't provide pizza for a same sex marriage really doesn't mean that they would have actually done it. There generally has to be an actual person who is turned away, not just the "threat" of doing so.

But what she said is not protected from boycotts or even people talking about it, her, her business, or how they feel that she is wrong. There is also a fine line between illegal threats or slander and making fun of them or calling them names, even if I don't really agree with doing any of those things. People have a right to speak "bad" about others without punishment from the government as well, at least to a point (and in this case, it would be quite difficult to determine if anything that was said about them or even their place of business caused any actual damage to it other than possibly the "threats"). You can't use the government to punish someone for saying things like "their pizza sucks", even lying about the pizza (whether obvious or not that the comments were meant to be satirical for the most part). Lying is not against the law (except for in very specific incidents), particularly not if it cannot be shown that the individual lie actually caused in itself some financial damage.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed


Thanks for a good discussion. I think it's clear that my position respects liberty and allows each individual to pursue happiness. While your position respects equality, however it compels behavior and denies pursuit of happiness to some.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed


I've already provided a link showing how the cutting of a wedding cake is a religious symbolic gesture in this very thread. You stating the opposite does nothing to disprove that link.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Kal'Stang said:
I've already provided a link showing how the cutting of a wedding cake is a religious symbolic gesture in this very thread. You stating the opposite does nothing to disprove that link.
Click to expand...

I missed thew link. Could you repost it?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

sloumeau said:
I see. So no one should be forced to serve anyone else, eh? So, if they don't want to serve African Americans, Mexican-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Irish or Italian customers, that is fine with you, right?
Click to expand...

You should have added whites to that list. Though I do realize that you can't possibly put every single race or group in one full post so I don't mind. But yes, I fully believe in a persons right to freedom of association. That does not mean that I would support such a business. In fact I would never give such a business my money. But just because I don't like something does not give me the Right to remove someone else's Rights. Indeed that is exactly what Rights are about. Protecting something that is disagreed with or frowned upon by the general society.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed


That's the lie alright...Congratulations, you have, as usual the narrative to the letter....And it's only been repeated by every liberal hack with a keyboard, or a mic for the past week and a half....Bravo.


What reporter? why the 'bubble headed bleach blonde' whom went in search of a small town business with any glimmer of faith inside that she could blindside with such a stupid question, as to whether or not this po dunk town in where ever Indiana would have a gay couple asking the local pizza joint to cater their wedding...It was always a set up, and typical of snarky, small, petty liberals that want to make a name for themselves.

So, now you'll attack me, instead of just ceasing with the tripe I can read on any liberal rag out there...And written better I might add.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed


I suppose it's possible to make any argument, but I think that's a weak one. A state law can only violate a right guaranteed by the First Amendment if the state can show the law is necessary to achieve some compelling government purpose--i.e. that the purpose cannot be achieved in some less burdensome way. It is extremely hard to show that.

There is no basis in the Supreme Court's decisions on government-compelled speech for what you are asserting. What subjects an artist normally portrays in the paintings he sells is irrelevant to his constitutionally protected freedom to express himself in those paintings. They are symbolic speech, and he has the freedom not to say certain things in them. He could paint and sell nothing but portraits of weddings, and it would not diminish his right to refuse to paint a portrait of a same-sex wedding one iota.

The strength of the freedom of association depends on whether the association is mainly expressive or mainly commercial, as the Court discussed in Roberts. But I don't know of anything the Court has said in any of its compelled-speech decisions that implies government is any more free to tell people what they must say--or allow others to say--when those people operate businesses that serve the public.


No offense but the accommodation laws do not have to do with government discrimination . . . Private social clubs may indulge in discrimination because they are not "public" but are inherently exclusionary and are based on the freedom of association.
Click to expand...

If you thought I was suggesting they did, you misunderstood what I wrote. The post I was responding to suggested that private clubs are free to discriminate because they do not serve the public. I pointed out that was not the only reason--that sometimes they have been free to discriminate because they were not closely enough connected to state government for what they did to be considered action by the state. If the Moose Lodge in the case I discussed had been closely enough connected to the state for its discrimination against the black guest to constitute state action, the guest would have had a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. But that amendment does not apply to discrimination by private persons, whether they serve the public or not.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

winston53660 said:
I missed thew link. Could you repost it?
Click to expand...

Christian Wedding Customs and Traditions

 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed


Good grief, continuing this lie doesn't change the truth j-mac. The law itself was flawed and the fact that it was changed to ensure no discrimination of gays was allowed reflects that. Continuing this narrative that it was the fault of a reporter is absurd. Did you think the law allowed no discrimination before it entered public discussion? Wait, what exact difference does it make if the law entered discussion because of a reporter? Does that make the law less flawed? Sour grapes all around.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

I find it interesting that religious persecution has reached political favor.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed


And it would be dishonest to claim that anyone made such claims.

But I don't expect honesty in your posts.


Couer d'Alene didn't back down. The Hitching Post backed down by re-organizing as a religious organization and changed its' policy so it no longer performs non-christian marriages, which made it exempt from the anti-discrimination regulation
 
Last edited:
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

j-mac said:
Name for me how many metro bus lines operating routes in our cities today are private...
Click to expand...

NYC has several privately run bus companies. Most cities and counties have them. I know for certain that there are privately owned bus companies in the area I now live in.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Kal'Stang said:
I've already provided a link showing how the cutting of a wedding cake is a religious symbolic gesture in this very thread. You stating the opposite does nothing to disprove that link.
Click to expand...

winston53660 said:
I missed thew link. Could you repost it?
Click to expand...


The baker doesn't cut the cake. The newlyweds do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…