What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)

TobiasFunke said:
BigJohn said:
timschochet said:
BigJohn said:
timschochet said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Every time an employer requires a college degree, or a particular major, that's discrimination. And that's 100% fine.

Everybody's hung up on what's discrimination and what's not. Not only are they usually wrong, but it's completely beside the point. Nobody thinks that all sorts of discrimination should be illegal. Just whether some should be illegal and if so what kinds.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
mr roboto said:
timschochet said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
Click to expand...
timschochet said:
mr roboto said:
timschochet said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Hey Cliff Clavin, is the relevance of my question from a few pages back becoming clearer now in the context of this conversation?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
TobiasFunke said:
BigJohn said:
timschochet said:
BigJohn said:
timschochet said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Every time an employer requires a college degree, or a particular major, that's discrimination. And that's 100% fine.

Everybody's hung up on what's discrimination and what's not. Not only are they usually wrong, but it's completely beside the point. Nobody thinks that all sorts of discrimination should be illegal. Just whether some should be illegal and if so what kinds.
Click to expand...
Which goes back to the question of who should be deciding.

 
squistion said:
Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew ·

Mike Pences 2000 campaign website on LGBT discrimination: http://web.archive.org/web/20010519165033fw_/http://cybertext.net/pence/issues.html

Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexuals as a "discreet and insular minority" entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.
Click to expand...
every single bullet i scrolled down to and read on that page made me want to vomit.

 
Those poor people of Indiana, if they didn't have enough on their plate, they now have to worry about "Big Gay". Trending on Twitter https://twitter.com/search?q="Big%20Gay"&src=

This was started following talk show host Bryan Fischer's tweets on RFRA:

Bryan Fischer @BryanJFischer

If Indiana surrenders to Big Gay on RFRA, they have no idea about the forces they are releasing into their state.

Bryan Fischer @BryanJFischer

If Indiana amends RFRA, will be saying to every Christian vendor: we will not defend you against Big Gay. Period.

Bryan Fischer @BryanJFischer

Indiana to Christian wedding vendors: in any conflict between you and Big Gay, we're coming down on the side of Big Gay.

Bryan Fischer @BryanJFischer

Big Gay is not about "marriage equality" but "homosexual supremacy" https://vimeo.com/123767467?ref=tw-share… #Vimeo

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew ·

Mike Pences 2000 campaign website on LGBT discrimination: http://web.archive.org/web/20010519165033fw_/http://cybertext.net/pence/issues.html

Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexuals as a "discreet and insular minority" entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.
Click to expand...
This is really what we're talking about here. If Pence and his supporters would simply accept the LBGT community, as have the majority of Americans, this law/thread/discussion would not be happening.

 
You can talk about the Clinton signing of a federal RFRA and talk about the other 19 states with similar laws all you want, the focus of two movements have met head on with Indiana; conservative christianity vs LGBT.

What no one will mention is the complete failure of evangelical christians. They so badly want a christian nation, but, as each day passes, more people accept the fact that the bible "might" be wrong. That's why they have to codify and indemnify their beliefs...it's their last chance.

And lastly: why would any entrepreneur focus their marketing plan to exclude any customer?

This little bit from SNL explains what should happen

 
squistion said:
Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew ·

Mike Pences 2000 campaign website on LGBT discrimination: http://web.archive.org/web/20010519165033fw_/http://cybertext.net/pence/issues.html

Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexuals as a "discreet and insular minority" entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.
Click to expand...
According to Mike Pence, the proper grammar is "homosexual's". Mike Pence hates both (1) homosexuals and (2) the English language.

 
Lutherman2112 said:
You can talk about the Clinton signing of a federal RFRA and talk about the other 19 states with similar laws all you want, the focus of two movements have met head on with Indiana; conservative christianity vs LGBT.

What no one will mention is the complete failure of evangelical christians. They so badly want a christian nation, but, as each day passes, more people accept the fact that the bible "might" be wrong. That's why they have to codify and indemnify their beliefs...it's their last chance.

And lastly: why would any entrepreneur focus their marketing plan to exclude any customer?

This little bit from SNL explains what should happen
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
jon_mx said:
squistion said:
jon_mx said:
The Nazis are winning! Fabulous!
Click to expand...
Carole R. ‏@clary264Once we've achieved our goal of homosexual supremacy, we will all break out into song -- all the time. @BryanJFischer Big Gay Agenda
Click to expand...
They just say that. Once supremacy is achieved they will just find something else to be offended by.
Click to expand...
Wait, who's offended here? If there wasn't a segment of people out there who are still offended by homosexuality, this wouldn't be an issue, right?

 
CowboysFromHell said:
jon_mx said:
squistion said:
jon_mx said:
The Nazis are winning! Fabulous!
Click to expand...
Carole R. ‏@clary264Once we've achieved our goal of homosexual supremacy, we will all break out into song -- all the time. @BryanJFischer Big Gay Agenda
Click to expand...
They just say that. Once supremacy is achieved they will just find something else to be offended by.
Click to expand...
Wait, who's offended here? If there wasn't a segment of people out there who are still offended by homosexuality, this wouldn't be an issue, right?
Click to expand...
Both sides are offended and have pricks. This forum is full of anti-chrstian pricks who for some reason are offended that people believe in God. And there are Self-righteous pricks who are offended that some guy sucks ####. Who care either way? They are both offended by crap that should not be of any concern to them..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lutherman2112 said:
You can talk about the Clinton signing of a federal RFRA and talk about the other 19 states with similar laws all you want, the focus of two movements have met head on with Indiana; conservative christianity vs LGBT.

What no one will mention is the complete failure of evangelical christians. They so badly want a christian nation, but, as each day passes, more people accept the fact that the bible "might" be wrong. That's why they have to codify and indemnify their beliefs...it's their last chance.

And lastly: why would any entrepreneur focus their marketing plan to exclude any customer?

This little bit from SNL explains what should happen
Click to expand...
Because some people - get this - believe that right and wrong is more important than making money.

 
jon_mx said:
CowboysFromHell said:
jon_mx said:
squistion said:
jon_mx said:
The Nazis are winning! Fabulous!
Click to expand...
Carole R. ‏@clary264Once we've achieved our goal of homosexual supremacy, we will all break out into song -- all the time. @BryanJFischer Big Gay Agenda
Click to expand...
They just say that. Once supremacy is achieved they will just find something else to be offended by.
Click to expand...
Wait, who's offended here? If there wasn't a segment of people out there who are still offended by homosexuality, this wouldn't be an issue, right?
Click to expand...
Both sides are offended and have pricks. This forum is full of anti-chrstian pricks who for some reason are offended that people believe in God. And there are Self-righteous pricks who are offended that some guy sucks ####. Who care either way? They are both offended by crap that should not be of any concern to them..
Click to expand...
hey everyone john mx really wants you to know that he is so above this hells bells this is like totally nothing to him and man are people dumb for caring which is why he has posted in this thread a hundred times brohans take that to the bank

 
Psychopav said:
Lutherman2112 said:
You can talk about the Clinton signing of a federal RFRA and talk about the other 19 states with similar laws all you want, the focus of two movements have met head on with Indiana; conservative christianity vs LGBT.

What no one will mention is the complete failure of evangelical christians. They so badly want a christian nation, but, as each day passes, more people accept the fact that the bible "might" be wrong. That's why they have to codify and indemnify their beliefs...it's their last chance.

And lastly: why would any entrepreneur focus their marketing plan to exclude any customer?

This little bit from SNL explains what should happen
Click to expand...
Because some people - get this - believe that right and wrong is more important than making money.
Click to expand...
Which is why they also refuse to provide service to heterosexual couples who have previously been divorced or who have had premarital sex. It's the principle, you see.

 
njherdfan said:
Psychopav said:
Lutherman2112 said:
You can talk about the Clinton signing of a federal RFRA and talk about the other 19 states with similar laws all you want, the focus of two movements have met head on with Indiana; conservative christianity vs LGBT.

What no one will mention is the complete failure of evangelical christians. They so badly want a christian nation, but, as each day passes, more people accept the fact that the bible "might" be wrong. That's why they have to codify and indemnify their beliefs...it's their last chance.

And lastly: why would any entrepreneur focus their marketing plan to exclude any customer?

This little bit from SNL explains what should happen
Click to expand...
Because some people - get this - believe that right and wrong is more important than making money.
Click to expand...
Which is why they also refuse to provide service to heterosexual couples who have previously been divorced or who have had premarital sex. It's the principle, you see.
Click to expand...
Maybe they just decline to sell signs saying "Congratulations on Your Premarital sex, Ted and Alice!"

 
SWC said:
jon_mx said:
CowboysFromHell said:
jon_mx said:
squistion said:
jon_mx said:
The Nazis are winning! Fabulous!
Click to expand...
Carole R. ‏@clary264Once we've achieved our goal of homosexual supremacy, we will all break out into song -- all the time. @BryanJFischer Big Gay Agenda
Click to expand...
They just say that. Once supremacy is achieved they will just find something else to be offended by.
Click to expand...
Wait, who's offended here? If there wasn't a segment of people out there who are still offended by homosexuality, this wouldn't be an issue, right?
Click to expand...
Both sides are offended and have pricks. This forum is full of anti-chrstian pricks who for some reason are offended that people believe in God. And there are Self-righteous pricks who are offended that some guy sucks ####. Who care either way? They are both offended by crap that should not be of any concern to them..
Click to expand...
hey everyone john mx really wants you to know that he is so above this hells bells this is like totally nothing to him and man are people dumb for caring which is why he has posted in this thread a hundred times brohans take that to the bank
Click to expand...
I had zero posts on the first four pages and a couple on page 5 and several on this page mostly joking. So yeah, almost 100 brohan.

 
God ‏@TheTweetOfGod · 2m2 minutes ago

If "Big Gay" really is a lobbying group, they must have one extremely well-decorated lobby.

 
- ̗̀new ̖́-Monkey XL ‏@ZenSaiyuki

I looked it up. Big Gay isn't a homosexual Godzilla stomping San Francisco and I am sad.

 
I am against the Indiana law, but the hypocrisy here is unreal. When do companies stop doing business in Muslim countries? Apple comes to mind since the CEO has voiced his opinion on Indiana.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
For those starting a Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program with family or friends
Replies
5
Views
286
Gatorade
Gatorade
El Floppo
New Zealand to ban smoking for anybody born after 2008
Replies
5
Views
585
Bracie Smathers
Bracie Smathers
Ministry of Pain
  • Locked
Ivermectin: What have you heard?
2 3 4
Replies
183
Views
9K
Nathan R. Jessep
Nathan R. Jessep

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top