Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)

[roadkill1292]

This seems to be the pattern among Republicans in the past few years: an outrageous law is passed or action is taken or statement is made, usually by the "Tea Party" elements. The Republican leadership establishment types rush to defend it. Everybody else denounces it. It gets real embarrassing. Then the Republican leadership says, "Oh that's not what we meant at all!" and then they quietly surrender.

This is pretty subtle. I like self-effacing Tim.

 

[squistion]

kim savage ‏@khsavage · 3m3 minutes ago

Pence: "weve been under an avalanche of intolerance." You can't WRITE irony like this. #indianabill

 

[Jackstraw]

Pence is demanding a fix to the law and also simultaneously insisting there is nothing wrong with it and it doesn't need fixed.

Dude got out a little over his ski tips on this one.

 

[flufhed]

Spent a week in Indiana way before any of this came up. And I was probably in one of the better spots - bedroom community outside of Louisville. Will never go back. Miserable place, weird people, depressing and ugly scenery, depressed economy.

 

[flufhed]

Kind of sad that "militant" now equals "wants to be treated equally"

That's what happens when you push the conversation so far right on so many issues over the last few decades. You'd swear anyone who wants to fund education reasonably these days was Karl Marx.

This is the biggest failing of Obama, IMO.

The narrative was from the beginning that everything he does is socialist and left of Karl Marx. But then he governed by constantly capitulating to Republican demands. But any action he ended up taking, even after all the capitulating, was dubbed totally leftist and socialist because it was coming from Obama. The Republicans played it brilliantly, and Obama kept stepping in the trap again and again. The healthcare law is a perfect example. Immediately took single payer off the table, and ended up presenting essentially a Republican bill. But that Centrist, market-driven approach was deemed ultra left and socialist, because duh its Obama.

The lurch to the right in this country can be laid totally at Obama's feet.

 

[The Commish]

This seems to be the pattern among Republicans in the past few years: an outrageous law is passed or action is taken or statement is made, usually by the "Tea Party" elements. The Republican leadership establishment types rush to defend it. Everybody else denounces it. It gets real embarrassing. Then the Republican leadership says, "Oh that's not what we meant at all!" and then they quietly surrender.

It's a pattern among politicians since forever....not new for either party.

 

[TobiasFunke]

kim savage ‏@khsavage · 3m3 minutes ago

Pence: "weve been under an avalanche of intolerance." You can't WRITE irony like this. #indianabill

"People are being intolerant of our intolerance" is my favorite conservative shtick. Like it's somehow bad that we don't tolerate certain things. There's lots of things that we don't tolerate in a civil society, with good reason.

 

[phatdawg]

Spent a week in Indiana way before any of this came up. And I was probably in one of the better spots - bedroom community outside of Louisville. Will never go back. Miserable place, weird people, depressing and ugly scenery, depressed economy.

I hope you don't post a review on Trip Advisor or the depressed Indiana economy may totally collapse for lack of tourist revenue for New Albany, Indiana (or whatever bedroom community you visited).

 

[The Commish]

Kind of sad that "militant" now equals "wants to be treated equally"

That's what happens when you push the conversation so far right on so many issues over the last few decades. You'd swear anyone who wants to fund education reasonably these days was Karl Marx.

This is the biggest failing of Obama, IMO.

The narrative was from the beginning that everything he does is socialist and left of Karl Marx. But then he governed by constantly capitulating to Republican demands. But any action he ended up taking, even after all the capitulating, was dubbed totally leftist and socialist because it was coming from Obama. The Republicans played it brilliantly, and Obama kept stepping in the trap again and again. The healthcare law is a perfect example. Immediately took single payer off the table, and ended up presenting essentially a Republican bill. But that Centrist, market-driven approach was deemed ultra left and socialist, because duh its Obama.

The lurch to the right in this country can be laid totally at Obama's feet.

To be clear...Obama's original ACA proposal was essentially the gov't entering the insurance game and providing insurance plans. It wasn't a single payer proposal and it was the democrats that screwed it up after getting their hands on it. They were afraid to lose their jobs so it got watered down into what it is today. Obama should have stood up to his own....the GOP was the least of his worries at that point in time.

 

[phatdawg]

kim savage ‏@khsavage · 3m3 minutes ago

Pence: "weve been under an avalanche of intolerance." You can't WRITE irony like this. #indianabill

"People are being intolerant of our intolerance" is my favorite conservative shtick. Like it's somehow bad that we don't tolerate certain things. There's lots of things that we don't tolerate in a civil society, with good reason.

This is not the first example of Mike Pence not being able to determine the difference between his ### and a hole in the ground.

 

[RUSF18]

Spent a week in Indiana way before any of this came up. And I was probably in one of the better spots - bedroom community outside of Louisville. Will never go back. Miserable place, weird people, depressing and ugly scenery, depressed economy.

I hope you don't post a review on Trip Advisor or the depressed Indiana economy may totally collapse for lack of tourist revenue for New Albany, Indiana (or whatever bedroom community you visited).

Not for nothing but my sister in law's family moved to Zionsville, Indiana virtually overnight about six months ago when an awesome job opportunity came up for my BIL. Their original plan was to be back within 3-4 years and they love it so much I doubt they ever live on the east coast again.

 

[dhockster]

Kind of sad that "militant" now equals "wants to be treated equally"

That's what happens when you push the conversation so far right on so many issues over the last few decades. You'd swear anyone who wants to fund education reasonably these days was Karl Marx.

This is the biggest failing of Obama, IMO.

The narrative was from the beginning that everything he does is socialist and left of Karl Marx. But then he governed by constantly capitulating to Republican demands. But any action he ended up taking, even after all the capitulating, was dubbed totally leftist and socialist because it was coming from Obama. The Republicans played it brilliantly, and Obama kept stepping in the trap again and again. The healthcare law is a perfect example. Immediately took single payer off the table, and ended up presenting essentially a Republican bill. But that Centrist, market-driven approach was deemed ultra left and socialist, because duh its Obama.

The lurch to the right in this country can be laid totally at Obama's feet.

The ACA passed with no Republican votes. Please give me an example of how Obama has one time capitulated to the Republican demands. Also, give me one example of when he has even talked to the Republicans during his tenure in office. TIA

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The ACA passed with no Republican votes. Please give me an example of how Obama has one time capitulated to the Republican demands. Also, give me one example of when he has even talked to the Republicans during his tenure in office. TIA

The ACA was based on ideas that originated from Republicans. It only became Marxist when Obama supported it. Same with cap and trade.

 

[timschochet]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

 

[Parrothead]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

that's good- but we're here for the chicken

 

[timschochet]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

that's good- but we're here for the chicken

IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!

 

[Psychopav]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.

Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:



EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.



EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.



Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

This makes sense. Now how do they word the law to reflect these nuances? Because as it stands I don't think the law is clear on the gray areas.

 

[timschochet]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.

Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

All right, but where do you draw the line? Let's say the bakery owner does not approve of interracial couples, Should the bakery owner be able to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding?

And if your answer is a consistent yes, he should be allowed to refuse, then my question is the same one I asked Ivan: considering the fact that it is now illegal for the baker to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding, and that law is not going to be changed, isn't it unfair to gays that we separate them out as a class based on some larger principle which is not being applied in other cases?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.

Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

What if it's two black people and the baker says that he doesn't support black people getting married?

What if it's two muslims and the baker says that he doesn't support the muslim religion?

Now, what if it's two christians and the baker says that he doesn't support Christianity?

 

[mr roboto]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:



EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.



EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.



Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

What if it's two black people and the baker says that he doesn't support black people getting married?

What if it's two muslims and the baker says that he doesn't support the muslim religion?

Now, what if it's two christians and the baker says that he doesn't support Christianity?

Ok. Ok. Ok.

 

[timschochet]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.



EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.



Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

What if it's two black people and the baker says that he doesn't support black people getting married?

What if it's two muslims and the baker says that he doesn't support the muslim religion?

Now, what if it's two christians and the baker says that he doesn't support Christianity?

Ok. Ok. Ok.

Then I'd like you also to answer my second question: since currently it's illegal for the baker to refuse based on the conditions listed, are you ok with gays being discriminated against in this fashion, but the other groups not being discriminated against at this time?

 

[Psychopav]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.

Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

What if it's two black people and the baker says that he doesn't support black people getting married?

What if it's two muslims and the baker says that he doesn't support the muslim religion?

Now, what if it's two christians and the baker says that he doesn't support Christianity?

I stand by my answer.

 

[Psychopav]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.

Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

What if it's two black people and the baker says that he doesn't support black people getting married?

What if it's two muslims and the baker says that he doesn't support the muslim religion?

Now, what if it's two christians and the baker says that he doesn't support Christianity?

I stand by my answer.

Here's the thing. I think that if the baker wants to sell cakes, he can't discriminate. He has to sell cakes to individual people, and if he is willing to sell to one he ought to be required to sell to all.

The baker should not be forced to support an ideological position in violation of his conscience in order to sell his cakes. He should not be forced to write "Congratulations to Adam and Steve" or "Blessed be the glorious name of Allah" if he doesn't want to. But if two brothers come in asking for a bundt cake, with no special inscriptions or decorations, and he's the leader of the local chapter of the Klan, he should still have to sell them the bundt cake. And they should be able to use that cake for whatever they want, even as after meeting refreshments for the next meeting of the local chapter of the LGBT Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[BigJohn]

Spent a week in Indiana way before any of this came up. And I was probably in one of the better spots - bedroom community outside of Louisville. Will never go back. Miserable place, weird people, depressing and ugly scenery, depressed economy.

Somewhat intolerant.

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.

Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

All right, but where do you draw the line? Let's say the bakery owner does not approve of interracial couples, Should the bakery owner be able to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding?

And if your answer is a consistent yes, he should be allowed to refuse, then my question is the same one I asked Ivan: considering the fact that it is now illegal for the baker to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding, and that law is not going to be changed, isn't it unfair to gays that we separate them out as a class based on some larger principle which is not being applied in other cases?

If it's a normal birthday cake, I see no reason he would be able to refuse. Now, if their picture is going to be on the cake, then that crosses into what I believe is a situation where he should be allowed to refuse.

The discrimination should be based on the service, not the customer.

IMO.

 

[mr roboto]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.



EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.



Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

What if it's two black people and the baker says that he doesn't support black people getting married?

What if it's two muslims and the baker says that he doesn't support the muslim religion?

Now, what if it's two christians and the baker says that he doesn't support Christianity?

Ok. Ok. Ok.

Then I'd like you also to answer my second question: since currently it's illegal for the baker to refuse based on the conditions listed, are you ok with gays being discriminated against in this fashion, but the other groups not being discriminated against at this time?

Maybe. I'm not sure. As it stands now the debate is around religious belief. It's clear that there are major religions who don't agree with homosexuality. I'm not sure how anyone could claim they are against interracial marriage or another faith's marriage based on their own religious beliefs. That's the issue here though. Once you start saying certain traits (race, gender etc) are protected classes then you have to determine why (from birth?). Then if another group is being considered for the protected class designation they have to meet the same standard. Then it gets messy.

That's why I honestly side with IKs position in here.

 

[dhockster]

The ACA passed with no Republican votes. Please give me an example of how Obama has one time capitulated to the Republican demands. Also, give me one example of when he has even talked to the Republicans during his tenure in office. TIA

The ACA was based on ideas that originated from Republicans. It only became Marxist when Obama supported it. Same with cap and trade.

I am not sure how this is capitulating to Republican demands. The ACA may have been based on ideas from Republicans, but there were certainly no Republicans clamoring for it when Obama passed it. The one thing Obama has not done in office is capitulate to Republicans. That was my point.

 

[BigJohn]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.

EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.

Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.

Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

What if it's two black people and the baker says that he doesn't support black people getting married?

What if it's two muslims and the baker says that he doesn't support the muslim religion?

Now, what if it's two christians and the baker says that he doesn't support Christianity?

I stand by my answer.

Here's the thing. I think that if the baker wants to sell cakes, he can't discriminate. He has to sell cakes to individual people, and if he is willing to sell to one he ought to be required to sell to all.

The baker should not be forced to support an ideological position in violation of his conscience in order to sell his cakes. He should not be forced to write "Congratulations to Adam and Steve" or "Blessed be the glorious name of Allah" if he doesn't want to. But if two brothers come in asking for a bundt cake, with no special inscriptions or decorations, and he's the leader of the local chapter of the Klan, he should still have to sell them the bundt cake. And they should be able to use that cake for whatever they want, even as after meeting refreshments for the next meeting of the local chapter of the LGBT Muslim Brotherhood.

What if a group of swingers comes in and wants a cake with a bunch of ##### and ####### on it? Should he be allowed to refuse?

It's silly that we are at a point where people are saying that I should be allowed to go into any business that provides a service and demand that said service be done in any manner that I want. The owner of the company has no choice but to do anything that I want. Does this really sound like what you want?

 

[timschochet]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

 

[mr roboto]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

Why is it 'discrimination' for a private business to select with whom they want to conduct business? I've asked this over and over - is it a basic right that and individual consumer should be free to do business with whomever they choose?

 

[The Commish]

I asked this in my own thread but I will ask it here as well:

EXAMPLE 1: A gay man walks into a restaurant and orders food. The owner of the restaurant says, "I'm sorry, but based on my religious beliefs, I don't serve gay people." According to Governor Pence, the law was never intended to make this sort of behavior legal and the new language will clarify that: the restaurant owner will not be allowed to refuse service to a gay person.



EXAMPLE 2: A gay man walks into a bakery and says, "I'm marrying my gay partner. We'd like a wedding cake with two men on the top." The bakery owner says, "I'm sorry but based on my religious beliefs, I will not bake a cake for a gay wedding." Governor Pence refused to answer whether this would or would not be prohibited.



Example #1 is clearly discrimination. Are there any people out there who regard example #2 as not discrimination?

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.Both are examples of discrimination. But I think that Example 2 should be allowed because the bakery owner's right to decide what message to place on his cakes should supercede the right of the gay man not to be discriminated against. The gay man can easily go to another bakery. The bakery owner doesn't want to use his talent to directly further a cause with which he is ideologically opposed. I get that.

In the first example, feeding people is his business' raison d' etre. He is not directly supporting the idea of gay marriage by simply serving the gay men waffles or whatever (note this answer might be different if, instead of a restaurant, this were a banquet hall).

What if it's two black people and the baker says that he doesn't support black people getting married?

What if it's two muslims and the baker says that he doesn't support the muslim religion?

Now, what if it's two christians and the baker says that he doesn't support Christianity?

Ok. Ok. Ok.

 

[IC FBGCav]

'Let go of your religious beliefs' isn't very tolerant. 'Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society' I'm perfectly fine with. But this conversation always devolves into 'I disagree with the belief therefore it shouldn't be allowed' which is just another kind of secular exclusionism.

disagree. Believe what ever you want. Don't care until it affects someone else.

Some people just can't be happy enough with the freedom to belief what they want. Thay have to believe their way is the only right way and force their views upon others.

 

[BigJohn]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

And I get that. I've been repeating, over and over. There can not be discrimination of regular services based on race or sexual orientation. If a gay couple wants a birthday cake that has flowers and says 'Happy Birthday Felicia', it is and absolutely should be illegal for the bakery to refuse service. Now, if that cake is requested to be rainbow colored with any kind of pro-gay message, I believe that in that scenario, the bakery should be allowed to refuse.

 

[IC FBGCav]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

Why is it 'discrimination' for a private business to select with whom they want to conduct business? I've asked this over and over - is it a basic right that and individual consumer should be free to do business with whomever they choose?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

 

[timschochet]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

Why is it 'discrimination' for a private business to select with whom they want to conduct business? I've asked this over and over - is it a basic right that an individual consumer should be free to do business with whomever they choose?

No. We don't have that right. That was the point of my whole response to Ivan. We do not live in some theoretical libertarian society. In the society that we live in, I am not allowed to discriminate against blacks, or Jews, or Asians, etc. There are all sorts of protected classes. You want to get rid of that, fine. Pass some legislation that gets rid of all of it. See if you can.

But as long as we already have these laws in place, why should it be OK to discriminate against same sex couples ONLY based on some libertarian principle that is not being equally applied? Personally, I can't accept that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

Why is it 'discrimination' for a private business to select with whom they want to conduct business? I've asked this over and over - is it a basic right that and individual consumer should be free to do business with whomever they choose?

It's discrimination because that's literally what the word "discrimination" means.

The question isn't whether we're OK with discrimination. The question is what sort of discrimination do we wish to prohibit. For example, most people are not OK with allowing discrimination based on race. I assume most people are fine with allowing discrimination based on odor. Question is whether we're OK with allowing discrimination based on sexuality.

 

[timschochet]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

And I get that. I've been repeating, over and over. There can not be discrimination of regular services based on race or sexual orientation. If a gay couple wants a birthday cake that has flowers and says 'Happy Birthday Felicia', it is and absolutely should be illegal for the bakery to refuse service. Now, if that cake is requested to be rainbow colored with any kind of pro-gay message, I believe that in that scenario, the bakery should be allowed to refuse.

Most bakeries offer wedding cakes as a regular service. Most florists offer wedding flowers as a regular service. The point of this law, as best I understand it, is to allow vendors such as these to refuse to offer these services for same-sex weddings. I don't think your distinction for "regular services" will hold here.

 

[BigJohn]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

And I get that. I've been repeating, over and over. There can not be discrimination of regular services based on race or sexual orientation. If a gay couple wants a birthday cake that has flowers and says 'Happy Birthday Felicia', it is and absolutely should be illegal for the bakery to refuse service. Now, if that cake is requested to be rainbow colored with any kind of pro-gay message, I believe that in that scenario, the bakery should be allowed to refuse.

Most bakeries offer wedding cakes as a regular service. Most florists offer wedding flowers as a regular service. The point of this law, as best I understand it, is to allow vendors such as these to refuse to offer these services for same-sex weddings. I don't think your distinction for "regular services" will hold here.

Sure it does. If a florist intends to provide services for traditional weddings only, then same sex marriages don't fit into the definition of their 'regular services'. If an LGBT owned florist is approached to do flowers for a traditional service, I believe they should also have the right to refuse. If a Jewish-owned florist is asked to do flowers for the wedding of a KKK member, they should absolutely have the right to refuse.

If a businesses 'regular services' are outlined up front, I don't see how this can be an argument.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

Why is it 'discrimination' for a private business to select with whom they want to conduct business? I've asked this over and over - is it a basic right that and individual consumer should be free to do business with whomever they choose?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

Why is it 'discrimination' for a private business to select with whom they want to conduct business? I've asked this over and over - is it a basic right that an individual consumer should be free to do business with whomever they choose?

No. We don't have that right. That was the point of my whole response to Ivan. We do not live in some theoretical libertarian society. In the society that we live in, I am not allowed to discriminate against blacks, or Jews, or Asians, etc. There are all sorts of protected classes. You want to get rid of that, fine. Pass some legislation that gets rid of all of it. See if you can.

But as long as we already have these laws in place, why should it be OK to discriminate against same sex couples ONLY based on some libertarian principle that is not being equally applied? Personally, I can't accept that.

Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

And I get that. I've been repeating, over and over. There can not be discrimination of regular services based on race or sexual orientation. If a gay couple wants a birthday cake that has flowers and says 'Happy Birthday Felicia', it is and absolutely should be illegal for the bakery to refuse service. Now, if that cake is requested to be rainbow colored with any kind of pro-gay message, I believe that in that scenario, the bakery should be allowed to refuse.

Most bakeries offer wedding cakes as a regular service. Most florists offer wedding flowers as a regular service. The point of this law, as best I understand it, is to allow vendors such as these to refuse to offer these services for same-sex weddings. I don't think your distinction for "regular services" will hold here.

Sure it does. If a florist intends to provide services for traditional weddings only, then same sex marriages don't fit into the definition of their 'regular services'. If an LGBT owned florist is approached to do flowers for a traditional service, I believe they should also have the right to refuse. If a Jewish-owned florist is asked to do flowers for the wedding of a KKK member, they should absolutely have the right to refuse.

If a businesses 'regular services' are outlined up front, I don't see how this can be an argument.

What is a KKK-owned florist is asked to do flowers of a black wedding?

You keep turning to hypotheticals of the sort of discrimination we're all OK with allowing to make this question harder than it needs to be. Not all types of discrimination are equal, some aren't even bad. The question is whether we're OK with allowing this particular sort of discrimination. It's a very simple question that people keep twisting around for some reason.

 

[General Malaise]

User Actions
Follow

Pat HadenVerified account‏@ADHadenUSC

I am the proud father of a gay son. In his honor, I will not be attending the CFP committee meeting in Indy this week. #EmbraceDiversity


Reply
Retweet
Favorite
More

 

[Bucky86]

This governor is a complete moron.

 

[Scoresman]

This governor is a complete moron.

and who the #### are the complete morons who voted him in? That's probably the better question.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

This governor is a complete moron.

How about Jeb Bush supporting this......Why would you attach your name to this crap.

 

[Bucky86]

This governor is a complete moron.

How about Jeb Bush supporting this......Why would you attach your name to this crap.

And Republicans wonder why they have a hard time winning national elections.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This governor is a complete moron.

How about Jeb Bush supporting this......Why would you attach your name to this crap.

Almost every prominent GOP presidential candidate for 2016 has come out in support: Bush, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Carson, frothy mixture ... they're all on board!

Time to dust off that Christie 2016 thread?

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm really tired of all these special exceptions for Christians.

 

[tonydead]

No, Big John, I don't. But on the other hand I don't want the law to allow for discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples, or same sex couples. So there you are.

And I get that. I've been repeating, over and over. There can not be discrimination of regular services based on race or sexual orientation. If a gay couple wants a birthday cake that has flowers and says 'Happy Birthday Felicia', it is and absolutely should be illegal for the bakery to refuse service. Now, if that cake is requested to be rainbow colored with any kind of pro-gay message, I believe that in that scenario, the bakery should be allowed to refuse.

Most bakeries offer wedding cakes as a regular service. Most florists offer wedding flowers as a regular service. The point of this law, as best I understand it, is to allow vendors such as these to refuse to offer these services for same-sex weddings. I don't think your distinction for "regular services" will hold here.

Sure it does. If a florist intends to provide services for traditional weddings only, then same sex marriages don't fit into the definition of their 'regular services'. If an LGBT owned florist is approached to do flowers for a traditional service, I believe they should also have the right to refuse. If a Jewish-owned florist is asked to do flowers for the wedding of a KKK member, they should absolutely have the right to refuse.

If a businesses 'regular services' are outlined up front, I don't see how this can be an argument.

Part of your regular services can't include refusing to serve a protected class. Religion and race are protected classes by federal law. LGBT is the only current debatable here, currently it varies by state.

 

[Scoresman]

If I order a rainbow cake (they can be quite tasty) from a homophobe baker, how would I prove I'm not gay?

 

[Parrothead]

If I order a rainbow cake (they can be quite tasty) from a homophobe baker, how would I prove I'm not gay?

have sex with his wife