OT -

[qazplm]

couple of problems with your response

1. It's non-responsive. It doesn't address the merits of nuke's argument it just says well others do it too.

2. Illinois may be a blue state for presidential elections but it has plenty of red in it at the state level outside of Chicago.

3. His point is that effectively, because some folks hate gays and don't want to interact with them at all, they've passed legislation that, in theory, could be used against a much wider range of people based on race, religion, gender, nationality, hair color, what have you. What do you do when the only _____ in town "won't serve your kind?" Why would we want to legislate that system?

Free market is not the end all/be all of life. There are other values that come into play.

 

[GMM]

Re: couple of problems with your response

.....because some folks hate gays.....

Typical leftist playbook. Accuse your opponents of "hatred". Speaking of being non-responsive.

What do you do when the only _____ in town "won't serve your kind?"

What should a business do when everyone in town boycotts it? Simple: accuse the boycotters of "hatred" and get the government to force them to patronize the business.

Free market is not the end all/be all of life.

It was, according to you, when Mozilla fired Brendan Eich.

 

[qazplm]

can you point me to

any example of your hypo actually happening? Can you then point me to where a bakery was forced to make an abortion cake with dead babies and blood-red icing?

Because I'm fairly confident that's never happened.

I'm also fairly confident that no cake business would be forced to make said cake, nor is this bill designed to protect against such an occurrence. It's designed to allow folks to not serve gays at all. Period. The side effect is that a whole lot of other people could also not be served at all. A gay, atheist bakery owner could decide not to serve Christians.

So in your concern over name-calling, it feels like you should have greater concern for knowing what the bill potentially allows.
And while it's possible egregious violations could eventually end up being disallowed, in the meantime a whole lot discrimination for more than just gays is possible, if not probable.

 

[qazplm]

your position

was used by folks everywhere for "Whites Only" businesses for quite a long time in this country.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom in any area. When you enter into the social contract, you give up some element of freedom in nearly every area. That includes your right to discriminate in market not because of their actions, but because of who they are.

If Comcast says, we only will give cable/internet to Hispanics, and they are the only game in town, as they often are, that's not workable for society. If the local privately owned hospital says, we'll only treat blacks, that's a problem, and not workable for society.

There is a trade off, you get all the benefits of society, and you give up a small portion of your freedoms. The freedom not to serve gays is not high on the list of required freedoms.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by NukeLaloosh:
Sure, easy stance to take when you're in the majority. But you sure wouldn't be happy if you couldn't find anywhere to buy a car because all the salesmen are gay.

Pretty narrow view of the free market.

If all car salesmen were gay, and I didn't want to do business with a gay person, I have choices: buy used, don't buy a new car, suck it up and do business with a gay car salesman.

If you're trying to say all those gay car salesmen won't sell to straight folks, again, that's bad business and that's their choice. I guarantee I would find someone who would sell to me because my money spends like anyone else's.

If you're a cobbler and you refuse to do business with Christians in a majority Christian country, that's bad business and I support your right to fail as a business person just like I support the right of people to boycott and protest businesses who refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples.

In any event, this law isn't saying "you can refuse service to anyone you feel like on religious grounds" directly as you seem to be implying.

 

[Heller]

The fact 20 states already have this law just shows how stupid the average politician is regardless of location. Instead of badly needed tort reform we get this. It's why I refuse to be identified with either party.

 

[qazplm]

what?

The law doesn't remotely get down to that level of detail.

It's a VERY broad law. It is not in fact a law that says you can't not make the cake, but you can refuse to decorate it a certain way.

You are taking what was, allegedly, the impetus for the law, and saying because that was the impetus, that's what the law says...

that's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

 

[qazplm]

you "could" be sued

for almost anything. However, there is no way, someone would successfully win a lawsuit, because someone refused to put a dead fetus on a cake.

Not then, not now, not ever.

 

[qazplm]

couple of responses

1. Actually, GMM absolutely advocates what he is saying. Explicitly.

2. Yes, people do want exclusion of services.

3. No this law is not about "special services." Point me to the part of the bill that limits this to "special services."

4. The government tells you what you to do and restricts individual choice all the time. Wanna walk around public naked? Too bad. Want to masturbate on the public square? Not going to fly. Want to get absolutely hammered walking down main street? Nope. Want to jaywalk? Can't do it.

The proper analysis for when to restrict individual choice is when it infringes on others. This is one of those areas.

 

[qazplm]

except

1. Who says those business would fail? If I ran a whites only establishment in 1950s Georgia, my business would be hopping. If I ran a no gays business in 2015 Mississippi, my establishment might very well be just fine.

2. You seem to value the choice of the business owner over the choice of the consumer. And there is a big difference between a consumer not wanting to do business with gays, and a business not wanting to do business with straights. You conflate/reverse the two with your example.

3. What if you a Christian in a majority non-Christian county and no one will sell to you?

4. The law is pretty broad. It talks about religious freedom. It is not remotely as nuanced as you and others are presenting it as. You absolutely can refuse to serve anyone you feel like on religious grounds. You just have to frame it in a way that doesn't fall under one of the protected classes of the 1964 Civil Rights Law (and sexual orientation is NOT one of those protected classes so YES you can refuse to serve gays). So you could discriminate against blacks, but cast it as, he looked gay.

By the way the list of people opposed to this bill isn't just liberals:

Walmart
Chamber of Commerce
Eli Lily
Alcoa
Apple

Gays are the last remaining "it's ok to discriminate" against them class. Sooner or later, this is going away. Be better if folks dealt with that fact and spent their energies more productively elsewhere.

 

[Heller]

Re: except

If you ran a whites only business in Georgia today your business would be hopping. It would also be true in 47 other states including Indiana. If you think racism is dead you are dreaming and Indiana just proved it.

 

[qazplm]

I dont think racism is dead but

I think that kind of overt, in your face racism is more or less dead.

It's gone underground.

 

[kescwi]

Re: I dont think racism is dead but

One thing I think is happening is that AA, at least here, seem to be moving into the middle class at strong rate and at a time when others long entrenched in the middle class are feeling economically vulnerable. I could be wrong but this doesn't appear to be, and I wasn't around then so I wouldn't exactly know what it looked like, "whites only" racism but maybe more similar to reactions immigrant groups receive when moving up the economic ladder. I don't think there is any holding minorities, as a group, back today, it is becoming an overwhelming force and that is frightening to some who see their grip on power slipping.

 

[qazplm]

somewhat agree

across the board you see in the AA community:

Increasing entry into the middle class
Rising IQ/SAT scores
A lowering of the gap between blacks and whites in math and reading
Rising high school graduation rates


So I think yes you are right, slowly but surely it is happening, and as you break into a new group, new tensions arise, particularly as that group as a whole has their own tensions (tied to the fragility of staying in the middle class) particularly during the economic downturn.

OTOH, there are still gaps/delays, and I think you see with the flareup on the relationship between minorities and cops, there is an element of racism there for sure. But also it's about economics, and as the economy improves, I suspect you will see an improvement in race relations as well.

 

[kescwi]

Re: somewhat agree

No, I agree, it still exists and probably is hampering any type of real solution to inner city problems which tend it seems to be viewed racially and I doubt racism will ever be fully eradicated.

IMO the racial/ethnic/religious sexual.. issue behind bills like the one being discussed are not really about the same thing as seen in the shooting though and are more about the frictions developing with, it sounds crazy to use the word about a group who has been here since the founding of the nation, but, assimilation. Noting says they are assimilating more than an ethnic or racial group having a member elected POTUS.

And yes I think the gay issue today is simply a proxy battle for what
many of those backing these bills really want to be fighting, race, in the end it all comes down to
being able to discriminate.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: except

I think the law is a waste of time for the reason you put at the very end there. I agree about racism. I just think Nuke's post was kind of narrow in its view of the free market, that's all, assuming that if I couldn't find a car salesman with whom I would do business (as the consumer), that I'd be bothered by it. That's my choice (as the consumer). Perhaps he wasn't clear enough when he said "all car salesmen are gay" and he really meant "all car salesmen refuse to serve you."

FWIW, I think it's stupid and bad business to deny service to anyone, including a Catholic baker making a wedding cake for a gay couple. We don't need to legislate stupidity, nor should we necessarily legislate against it.

 

[qazplm]

I dont know about that last bit

I don't think anti-gay is a proxy for anti-race. It's its own special thing.

 

[qazplm]

in some cases

I think we DO need to legislate against it. I don't think businesses should be able to discriminate solely based on being gay.
I DO think a business can refuse to put abortion babies on a cake.

I'm pretty sure Nuke meant consumer's being limited by a business not selling to them, not the reverse. There's nothing that stops or should stop a consumer from not picking a business for whatever reason, including racial, or homophobic or doesn't like the cut of their gib.

Vice versa is where I think it gets more problematic.

 

[Jedifick]

Re: in some cases

It is NOT an anti-gay bill. read it, understand your legal precedence, and history before you spool mindless drivel out of your mouth. It was enacted at the federal level in 1993, voted for unanimously by a bipartisan congress. It was signed into law by a Democrat President (bill Clinton), Barak Obama, while a state senator voted IN FAVOR of the bill in his state legislature while he served. 29 other states already have that language. Get your facts straight. Quit believing the lefts inflammatory dialogue. The language even specifically states that the government will intervene in instances of compelling government interest...hey everyone, guess what a compelling government interest is? Civil Rights!
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[kescwi]

Re: I dont know about that last bit

Sure there are plenty out there who dislike gays but I just don't get how gay marriage has become such a big issue, it effects so few people that it simply doesn't warrant this much attention, except it offers a path to legal discrimination. And from there where do you stop? Do we readdress ACA and religion? Does someone need to give you an 'I'm gay" card before you can refuse service or more than likely can you simply say "I thought he was gay."

Politically right now you can't get far saying I want to legalize discrimination against AAs, Hispanics, Jews... or any number of people but you can say you want to discriminate against gays, and, once a bridge crossed...

 

[kescwi]

Re: in some cases

Okay, please give an example from Indiana where. before this bill, a Christian small business was forced to provide goods and/or services to a gay marriage against their will and then articulate how this bill corrects that.

 

[qazplm]

sigh

and guess who ISN'T part of the protected classes in civil rights law? It rhymes with rays. It absolutely is an anti-gay bill. It was sparked by an issue with gay rights. The entire reason for its being is to "protect" Christians from having to serve or deal with gay people as part of their business if it offends their religious sensibilities.

The "legal precedence" that matters is the 1964 Civil Rights Act which
is primarily what addresses "private" discrimination. It patently does
not apply to gays. So there won't be a "compelling government interest"
there.

There's a TON of wiggle room where the government won't be able to intervene. And there will be plenty of folks who might be able to get the law to intervene but won't know it, or who will just let it go or move away.

And I don't care if Obama voted for it. I'm sure there are several laws Obama voted for that I would have disagreed with, and his record on gay rights is certainly not perfect. Our views towards homosexuality today vice a generation ago are a wee bit different. So citing Clinton in 1993 isn't winning the argument either.

Either a law is wrong or it isn't. It does not become more or less so based on how many states have passed it.

That's not how it works.

 

[ecouch]

Re: in some cases

Why are religious convictions afforded elevated status over non-religiously derived convictions?

 

[ecouch]

Re: in some cases

Not the same thing at all.

The Federal RFRA is called the same thing, but it is a law to prevent government
laws and regulation to interfere with religious practices. It was
written to protect Native Americans because their rituals were getting
them thrown in jail. The government has to be a part of the suit. The
version of the RFRA going around expands that and protects individuals
for the sake of discrimination because of the "I won't bake a cake for
gays" affair.

 

[Heller]

Re: in some cases

The director,of Gen Con which is a huge annual convention that brings in 60 million in business annually has already put the State on notice. I suspect they won't be the only entity who refuses to return. Tell that baker to spend a couple of hundred dollars to buy a beer and wine license, then they can refuse service to anyone. This law just shows where we are mentally as a country.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: in some cases

Let them have their day in court. The court will rule in favor of the gay consumer as it consistently has, as it is in the government's best interest to prevent abject discrimination of groups of people based on just about anything. There is no law saying it is the business owner's right to run a business. If they choose to run a business, as you noted, you make sacrifices in order to do so. If they feel their religious freedom is being challenged by gay consumers coming in and asking them to make a wedding cake, they may close their doors.

Conversely, if they want to close for five minutes three times a day to pray towards Mecca or sacrifice a live chicken out back every afternoon, they can do that too. Point is, they have the freedom to practice their religious beliefs as well. The law protects that freedom, not their freedom to own a business.

Originally posted by qazplm:
...I don't think businesses should be able to discriminate solely based on being gay.
I DO think a business can refuse to put abortion babies on a cake.

I'm pretty sure Nuke meant consumer's being limited by a business not selling to them, not the reverse. There's nothing that stops or should stop a consumer from not picking a business for whatever reason, including racial, or homophobic or doesn't like the cut of their gib.

Vice versa is where I think it gets more problematic.

 

[indyogb]

It doesn't get any better than this.

Hehe... very true. We're being singled out for our stupidity... but, I guess that's kind of like the "keeping up with traffic" excuse. This is a stupid bill and should be vetoed, in my opinion. It's not the only one of its kind (something like 30 states, in total, have a bill or court decision somewhat parallel to this) - GenCon and George Takei are going to have limited choices... who am I kidding, they should stop trying to be different and just stick to California (speaking of stupid laws... ).

"This is the best we can do, folks" - George Carlin on politicians in America.

I'm also surprised at the attention this fluff gets. This is why Mitch Daniels always said he liked to stay away from the social issues, if possible (not that he didn't cause controversy anyway). Not a fan of Pence, but I guess a small part of me feels like he's a bit of a victim of circumstance here - someone was going to be mad (personally, I'd just tell the religious peeps to suck it up and just not put any little brides and grooms on any of their wedding cakes and avoid the controversy altogether ). At least this will kill any ideas he has about being President (what a thought).

Edited to add - What is the likelihood that this stands under scrutiny in the Indiana courts and or SC and SCOTUS? I would have thought not likely, but if 30 some other states have something like it, I guess it might pass muster, some how. God, why couldn't Hobby Lobby just have given people their d@mned birth control?

This post was edited on 3/26 11:22 AM by indyogb

 

[qazplm]

couple of problems with that

1. The law actually doesn't rule in favor of the gay consumer consistently. It's PART of the reason why this law is so unnecessary. It was already quite difficult for gay people to address prejudice in these areas.

2. The law actually makes it harder for a gay person to "have their day in court" because it gives another thing to deal with and cloaks anti-gay prejudice in religion.

3. Certainly, if a business wants to close their doors to all (permanently or for five minutes to pray to Mecca or sacrifice a chicken) they can, no one is questioning that. What they shouldn't be able to do is block out some folks simply because they are black, or white, or gay, or Christian or Muslim, or atheist, or have red hair.

 

[ecouch]

Optics, perception. Signed in private.

Yikes.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: couple of problems with that

Let's reverse this question: say someone goes to a t-shirt company and asks them to print a t-shirt that says, "Gay marriage is wrong" and that t-shirt company refuses. Should that person be able to sue the t-shirt company compelling them to create the t-shirt which goes against the views of the owners/proprietors?

This sort of business is declined with some frequency; there are various conservative blogs out there that have gone to cake companies, for example, asking for cakes with that slogan and get turned down on the basis of "hate" or "phobia." Is not what is good for the goose not also good for the gander?

That's the problem I have with this discussion of RFRA. While I can plainly read the language that allows one person to "discriminate" against another on the basis of religious beliefs in a private interaction, it also plainly says that the government will intervene in such cases as appropriate, indeed it has an obligation to do so, which provides the courts with the ability to decide.

Yet, the creation of a cake or a t-shirt that opposes gay marriage does not, indeed, infringe on the rights of gay couples since the law already allows them to be married. So, we'll allow people to turn down business on the basis of beliefs we view as "tolerant", but if it is "intolerant" then a second, more restrictive standard is applied even though that "intolerant view" doesn't actually do anything to the rights of those people - it just hurts their feelings.

I don't think we need to legislate hurt feelings.

In any event, if we're going to oppose laws that allow people to refuse to do business with someone on the basis of their religious beliefs, we must also oppose laws that allow people to refuse to do business on the basis of literally anything with the exception of public/employee safety. In theory, I should be able to go get a t-shirt printed that says "I don't approve of gay butt sex" by anyone anywhere, but you and I both know that won't happen because it's intolerant and some folks won't want to cross that line nor have their t-shirt company associated with that shirt.

Why is that acceptable? Should not every business be required, then, to do business with every other single person regardless of anything except public safety (i.e. wearing shoes...)?

 

[kescwi]

Re: I dont know about that last bit

I hate to belabor my thought, but Cainers post on KHC gives some evidence to my point. To many post that have nothing to do with gays, gay marriage... but rather business should be allowed to deny service to whoever they want. to me that has always been the undercurrent of this, for a good number it appears this is not about the right to gay marriage but the right to discriminate.

 

[PurdueFan1]

I'll add my two cents here, and it's about all it's worth.

I'm gay, and the biggest issue I have with the bill is that I just don't think it was necessary to start with. In my opinion, this bill was partly a result of gay marriage being legal in the state.

The bill really does nothing to either side of the argument. If someone refuses to serve me because I'm gay, have six fingers, or am wearing a blue shirt, okay. But be prepared to get a bad write up on angies list or yelp, and don't use religion as your reason. Just own it.

The problem with Pence is that he is just a self serving individual who has, again in my opinion, shown that he does not have the best interests of his constituents at heart. If the leaders of all types of businesses are telling you that it's a bad idea to sign it and you thumb your nose at them.... Then prepare for potential consequences.

Personally, I'm more pissed about the 6546883 potholes that are all over Indy than I am about the bill (and at the asshole who broke into my car in the gym parking lot yesterday afternoon) Don't get me wrong, the bill is stupid, but I think it is stupid because I just don't think it's necessary.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[kescwi]

Originally posted by PurdueFan1:
...(and at the asshole who broke into my car in the gym parking lot yesterday afternoon)...

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Maybe the god of that individual told him you deserved to be punished and he was simply fulfilling a religious obligation.

I'm not in Indiana but can't see how this protects people or businesses any better than they were before. Were there really businesses being "forced" to provided goods and services against their will? How did that work? Did the Sheriff come and stand over their shoulder, hand on gun, until they had adequately filled the order?

My issue with things like this, if it has any teeth or not isn't the issue it's worth is in ossifying beliefs, is that they are steps in a direction that, IMO, is not good and for me the fact that so many people seem to have jumped on it who probably really don't care one way or another about gay marriage shows that something deeper is going on and further step are probably in the not too distant future.

 

[PurdueFan1]

Originally posted by kescwi:

Originally posted by PurdueFan1:
...(and at the asshole who broke into my car in the gym parking lot yesterday afternoon)...

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Maybe the god of that individual told him you deserved to be punished and he was simply fulfilling a religious obligation.

I'm not in Indiana but can't see how this protects people or businesses any better than they were before. Were there really businesses being "forced" to provided goods and services against their will? How did that work? Did the Sheriff come and stand over their shoulder, hand on gun, until they had adequately filled the order?

My issue with things like this, if it has any teeth or not isn't the issue it's worth is in ossifying beliefs, is that they are steps in a direction that, IMO, is not good and for me the fact that so many people seem to have jumped on it who probably really don't care one way or another about gay marriage shows that something deeper is going on and further step are probably in the not too distant future.

I agree. And right now it's more about perception than anything else. I do think some of the reactions against the bill have gotten overblown, but the perception that it's a bad thing is there, and the reactions are coming from some heavy hitters.

It's why I don't think the bill was necessary to start with.
Posted from Rivals Mobile