Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

maxparrish · Mar 27, 2015

JasperL said:
So you're repeal part or all of the CRA as well, especially Title II. Whites Only, etc.? Maybe it's just gays who shouldn't have any protection from discrimination?

Eventually, I would repeal any prohibition on the right of private association by individuals or groups - and keep clauses relevant to prohibition of government discrimination.. However, I would start with repealing the most onerous prohibitions. Initially I would:

Step One: Recognize that Constitutionally and historically the justification for 'equal protection' (at best) applies on to matters of race (or perhaps national origin). That was the intent of the 14th amendment. It did not apply to protection of other catagories.

Step Two: Protect the right of any privately owned or closely held corporation to refrain from acting in any manner to express support for any social, cultural, or personal opinion or practice should they choose.

Step Three: Protect the right of any privately owned or closely held corporation to hire, trade, sell to, or terminate whomever they please (unless they have a contract).

Blemonds · Mar 27, 2015

AGENT J said:
but thats to a fact at all. in fact I dont know one christian in real life affected NEGATIVELY by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws, they protect us. Based on Christianity ZERO Christians are affected.
so yes the facts i sated do win and the stuff you made up is simply false.
facts win again

Then you're ignoring the cases of the photographer who declined to photograph a homosexual wedding and the bakers who declined to provide cakes for homosexual weddings.

Taylor · Mar 27, 2015

AGENT J said:
I agree you havent posted one rational, honest, logical or factual thing to prove otherwise . . . not one. . .
if you disagree I directly challenge you right now to do so . . .please do so in your next post
your claim fails and facts win again

There's really no need to bother since you've provided no proof or argument for your claims. You're blowing smoke.

Henrin · Mar 27, 2015

WCH said:
Right....I disagree the Homosexual plight has anything to do with the civil rights movement. Guess I'm a bigot.

What of it?

Everyone is a bigot. It's why calling someone a bigot as an insult has never made any sense.

eohrnberger · Mar 27, 2015

AGENT J said:
1.) wow this further explains your confusion. How could you not know this fact? Are you from america, im guessing no now
2.) no because all else being equal both of those statements are the same based on legality.
3.) correct, the owners did the right thing, they stopped breaking the law, infringing on peoples rights and they fixed thier stupid choice to be criminals and changed thier business.
home based, by appointment only, and with a change of business description etc etc etc
4.) laws were broken and rights were infringed
if your daughter is raped and you kill her rapist to courts and lawyers get involved? i mean "you took care of it" right?

Not sure that I'd put discrimination, such as this instance, on the same level as rape.

Henrin · Mar 27, 2015

AGENT J said:
1.) sigh all you ant it was already done, lying and acting like it wasnt only cause your post to further fail.

No, you have answered nothing. All you have done is reference the law and pretend as if that is telling me the rights it protects.

WCH · Mar 27, 2015

Blemonds said:
Then you're ignoring the cases of the photographer who declined to photograph a homosexual wedding and the bakers who declined to provide cakes for homosexual weddings.

Or the case where the Lesbian Mayor of Houston wanted to subpoena the sermons of local pastors who spoke out from the pulpit.

WCH · Mar 27, 2015

Henrin said:
Everyone is a bigot. It's why calling someone a bigot as an insult has never made any sense.

It's meant to be shameful or hurtful. LOL!

But hey. it works on politicians.

JasperL · Mar 27, 2015

WCH said:
The catch is that if I disagree with your opinion or you with mine, then I'm a bigot and so are you.

Bigot: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Of course there is a vast moral and ethical difference between the "bigotry" of the KKK and the "bigotry" of those who condemn the KKK and all like them. This ludicrous exercise of somehow equating them is just intellectually absurd. If we're going to redefine the word to describe both groups of people, then the word no longer has any practical meaning.

Phys251 · Mar 27, 2015

AGENT J · Mar 27, 2015

Hicup said:
Translation: I had you pegged the moment I came upon your first posts on this forum. You dance like a Chinese panda and I believe you actually think the things you do, but you've spent literally 35 pages defending some inarticulate opinion on the context of this particular debate. It's been pointed out to you that anti-discrimination laws (Meaning laws that can be broken with non-compliance and punished for non-compliance) in some states include sexual orientation as a protected group, yet you ask for specific language that says those that do discriminate will be punished by law enforcement? It was provided to you several times. Your out (once you realized the error of your dance) was to say that if you want to discriminate, then simply don't go into business, BUT, and this is the really important part, you created that strawman in your mind. No one ever to my knowledge was arguing that individuals could not discriminate. The argument germane to this topic is whether Indiana's new law allowing businesses to discriminate based on religious conviction was correct, or whether it wasn't. Some even argued whether it was legal or could survive a constitutional challenge? Some argued the morality of it. Some argued whether it was good idea at all, and some like me question the long term efficacy of such a law.

When people have pinned you down to specific questions regarding your initial position, you divert asking them to provide more details, yet, anyone with one iota of honesty and English language reading comprehension understood full well what they were asking. This inability to comprehend what is being asked of you lends itself to credibility questions regarding your self-declared expert opinion on the subject matter.

I'm not convinced, nor are many that have followed along, but you will say something to the effect that, "Translation: blah blah" Or "I'm factually correct and you are wrong".. Again, blah, blah..

I wonder what you're like in real life, serious question. Most people type and speak colloquially online, pretty similar to how they talk in real life, but you, I just can't imagine that you actually talk the way you do?

Tim-

sooo you don't have anything to actually support your failed, destroyed and proven wrong claims? got it
its cute that you think i want to "convience" you of anything, with or without you being convinced facts remains the same. against you.
ill still be sticking with facts, reality, and rights but you keep up the good fight trying to push your opinions and feelings as facts
please let us know when you do, thanks!
fact win again

FACTS
there are no laws forcing or compelling anybody to do business with gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no right to service
there is no force to accept gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no force to serve gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no force to say yes
religious rights are not infringed
right to associate is not infringed
right to a contract is not infringed

WCH · Mar 27, 2015

JasperL said:
Of course there is a vast moral and ethical difference between the "bigotry" of the KKK and the "bigotry" of those who condemn the KKK and all like them. This ludicrous exercise of somehow equating them is just intellectually absurd. If we're going to redefine the word to describe both groups of people, then the word no longer has any practical meaning.

If it weren't toss about so much, it might still have practical meaning.

'Hater' OTOH... now that's got some punch.

maxparrish · Mar 27, 2015

Dragonfly said:
Oh noooooooooooooooooooeeeeessssssssssssssssssssss....the po, po whiiite folk, they be treated oh so baaaaaaad................. :roll: :2bigcry: :failpail:

And what grade are you in?

tres borrachos · Mar 27, 2015

Cardinal said:
I don't get from your posting history that you're especially old or even especially religious, which seem to be two of the three most compelling reasons to vote for something like prop 8. So simply being conservative wouldn't have been especially a lot all on its own. We have plenty of fiscal conservatives on this board who couldn't give a rat's ass about opposing ssm.

Of course. I'm still adapting to the fact that I can't say "retard." It appears each generation is cursed to be the next generation's bigots.

Well, yeah, but when you consider that 82% of Republicans, 85% of conservatives, 84% of church-going, 65% of white protestants, 60% of all catholics, 81% of white evangelicals, and 61% of those 65 and over voted for it, the black vote loses statistical relevance really fast.

And age (dying mindset) and conservatism, which figures into the whole idiotic culture war thing.

I'm 53 - I hope you don't consider that old. I'm not "even especially religious" - I'm not religious at all. Neither my husband nor I believe, and our sons weren't Christened, Baptized, or any of that. None of them have ever attended a church service. I'm conservative though, but I'm also one of those people who think consenting adults should marry whoever the hell they want - same sex, 19 wives, whatever. It isn't my business, just like it was nobody's business when I decided to marry my husband.

I know the black vote on Prop 8 wasn't the biggest in relevance. Then again, there is no truth to the statement "the Republican base hates gays".

JasperL · Mar 27, 2015

Henrin said:
Everyone is a bigot. It's why calling someone a bigot as an insult has never made any sense.

That's not true - it's only recently that the definition of bigotry has been turned on its head to include those who are intolerant of bigots, and so would include the civil rights workers killed in Alabama, AND those who killed them. Orwell is smiling somewhere....

AGENT J · Mar 27, 2015

Blemonds said:
Then you're ignoring the cases of the photographer who declined to photograph a homosexual wedding and the bakers who declined to provide cakes for homosexual weddings.

nope im full aware of both those case and the FACTS and REALITY of them. Not the dishonest conspiracy theory versions, the facts of them. in fact both those cases support my statements. SO again in fact I dont know one christian in real life affected NEGATIVELY by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws, they protect us. Based on Christianity ZERO Christians are affected.
facts win again

disneydude · Mar 27, 2015

WCH said:
The catch is that if I disagree with your opinion or you with mine, then I'm a bigot and so are you.

Bigot: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Actually....no you are wrong. You can hold a different opinion without being a "Bigot". I disagree with a lot of people's opinions who are not bigots. However, when you choose to dislike a group of individuals based on irrational beliefs....THAT makes you a bigot. The belief that others are not entitled to the same things that you are because you deem them below you, unworthy of those rights or plain and simply "icky".....THAT is what makes you you a bigot. Understand?

AGENT J · Mar 27, 2015

Taylor said:
There's really no need to bother since you've provided no proof or argument for your claims. You're blowing smoke.

translation: you are dodging the request, thats what i thought. i again i accept your concession.

AGENT J · Mar 27, 2015

Henrin said:
No, you have answered nothing. All you have done is reference the law and pretend as if that is telling me the rights it protects.

still dodging and posting lies i see. very telling you only quoted part of my post LMAO. You make it so easy
facts win aagain

disneydude · Mar 27, 2015

Blemonds said:
If you're intolerant to people with whom you disagree, you're intolerant period.

Not necessarily. Again you are engaging in circular reasoning. Your argument is that in order to be "tolerant" you have to be willing to be tolerant of people who are intolerant.

That is just a silly proposition. In many cases tolerance requires speaking out against those who reach intolerance.

AGENT J · Mar 27, 2015

eohrnberger said:
Not sure that I'd put discrimination, such as this instance, on the same level as rape.

it doesnt matter what level it is or you think it is.
the analogy was based on broken laws and infringed rights and when they are taken care of. SO the answer to your question is still the same. lawyers and courts got involved because laws were broken and rights were infringed on

WCH · Mar 27, 2015

disneydude said:
Actually....no you are wrong. You can hold a different opinion without being a "Bigot". I disagree with a lot of people's opinion who are not bigots. However, when you choose to dislike a group of individuals based on irrational beliefs....THAT makes you a bigot. The belief that others are not entitled to the same things that you are because you deem them below you, unworthy of those rights or plain and simply "icky".....THAT is what you you a bigot. Understand?

Bigot...redefined

Marriage...redefined

What's next?

Hicup · Mar 27, 2015

AGENT J said:
FACTS
there are no laws forcing or compelling anybody to do business with gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc

Yes there are, you are profoundly wrong.

there is no right to service

As a gay man living in a state that protects your right to service by the public, you do, well, in fact, have a right to it.

there is no force to accept gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc

Force as in SWAT teams raiding establishments. Probably not, but force comes in many different ways, some of which include punitive fines, and legal fees.

there is no force to serve gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc

A bit redundant, see above.

there is no force to say yes

No force to say yes I will serve you, but if you say no I won't serve you, you will be legally compelled, if you insist, you will be tried and if found guilty, you will be fined. If you persist, you will be fined even more to a point where you will not be able to continue business. But you know all this, don't you? I mean how could you not know this, it has only been pointed out to you about 15 million times already.

religious rights are not infringed

Round and round we go, eh?

right to associate is not infringed

And around, and around..

right to a contract is not Infringed

Not following? What does a contract have to do with anything?

Tim-

disneydude · Mar 27, 2015

WCH said:
Bigot...redefined

Marriage...redefined

What's next?

LOL....do you REALLY think what you wrote has ever been the definition of "Bigotry"? If so...I suggest a English course may be in order.

As for marriage...which of the vast definitions throughout the course of history are you referring to?

JasperL · Mar 27, 2015

WCH said:
If it weren't toss about so much, it might still have practical meaning.

That the term might be used when it's not appropriate doesn't change the "practical meaning." It's only recently that we've pretended that it can apply to both MLK, Jr. and Robert Byrd in his Klan days. When we pretend it does describe both men, we've just decided the word has no practical meaning and might as well be struck from everyday usage.

Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

maxparrish

Conservatarian

Blemonds

Taylor

Henrin

eohrnberger

Henrin

WCH

Believer

WCH

Believer

JasperL

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

WCH

Believer

maxparrish

Conservatarian

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

JasperL

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

disneydude

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

disneydude

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

WCH

Believer

Hicup

disneydude

JasperL

Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Conservatarian

Believer

Believer

Purge evil with Justice

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Believer

Conservatarian

HoHoHo

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Believer

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency