quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

If some guy walks in with clearly different political viewpoints to yours, but behaves in a rational, legal manner; you have to serve them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
And the folks turned away because of their orientation....are you suggesting they suffer no inconvenience ?
edited to add a missing k

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan

I just want to chime in to say, a business owner should have the right to refuse whoever they like, for any reason at all. Or no reason.

This bill is the exact opposite of tyranny.

If a gay person has a problem with it, they can either:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it
or
2. shop elsewhere, free market in action

nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, nobodys freedoms are impinged.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

Wow. Just, wow...
So if I were the owner of a restaurant I could refuse to allow blacks in.
Or I could refuse to seat blondes. Or redheads. Or Catholics. Or lefties. Or men. Or women.

The answer is, of course, NO. When you open a business to the public you open it to the ENTIRE public, not just the part of the public of which you approve.
But you go right ahead and try. And get back to us all in 12 months and tell us how it worked out for you.

RTFC!
(Read The F'ing Constitution!)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oneechan

I just want to chime in to say, a business owner should have the right to refuse whoever they like, for any reason at all. Or no reason.

This bill is the exact opposite of tyranny.

If a gay person has a problem with it, they can either:

1. stop wearing the "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT" Tshirt and jockstrap everywhere, and dress like a normal person. if a store owner has reason to believe you're gay, you're probably being obnoxious about it
or
2. shop elsewhere, free market in action

nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, nobodys freedoms are impinged.

quote:

If the person if rude, for example (since you want to make this about the sanctity of homosexuality) if the person does a gay pride speach and berates them for not being pro gay enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

So, 'according' to all this bullshit your shoveling, its 'OK' for Christians to attack gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, knowing they are 'protected' by the law. I'm sorry, is the Holy Bible not enough protection when these 'sacks of shit' push their bigotry onto others anymore, that they need 'laws made by men' to protect them? this Indiana law has nothing to do with 'Good Government' and all to do with petty politics for a certain governor's 2016 presidential race.

You're making shit up again. I have never said it's okay for anyone to attack anybody, excepting self-defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yeah, this topic gets ugly, Kirata. But that is what you want. That is what your defending. You enjoy chaos and destruction. You laugh at the suffering, and mock the poor. You hate the US Government, and all Americans whom don't bow down to your religious viewpoints. This law will get struck down over violation of the 1st amendment. If you can't understand that, well...

You're making shit up again. I have not defended any of the RFR acts, state or federal, in any form or version.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Rather a psychosis than being the very concept that is opposite of my religious beliefs! Fortunately I have enough people that can state, medically, that I'm not insane (because unlike you, they ARE medical doctors). I've even asked them.

Although I passed over this when you first posted it earlier in the thread, at this point I think it merits response.

What do you mean you "asked" them? You just asked? Like, "Hi doc, am I nuts?" For that matter, what do you mean by "medical doctors"? Obviously not Clinical Psychologists. Were they Psychiatrists? If you were concerned enough to ask, and I think you should be, request an evaluation. It will include a full battery of tests and a diagnostic interview, which will require an investment of some time, but it could well be worth it, because you are either a liar, an illiterate idiot, or batshit crazy, and I wouldn't put money on it not being all three.

Good luck.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

i also wonder just slightly how such shopkeepers even have the nerve. I mean, many will shops that have big windows that'll be wide open to the street on dark nights .... Personally, if I were a shopkeeper, I'd tend not to want to offend a given individual too much, never mind an entire demographic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
And the folks turned away because of their orientation....are you suggesting they suffer no inconvenience ?
edited to add a missing k

An inconvenience, yes, but there are others who can, and, more importantly, will provide the desired services. In the end, there may be inconvenience, but the businessperson that turns a cold shoulder to a particular group of people really only hurts that his/her business. Plus, the negative attention will likely reduce the potential customers because there will be people not in that particular group that are, nevertheless, compassionate towards that group.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
And the folks turned away because of their orientation....are you suggesting they suffer no inconvenience ?
edited to add a missing k

An inconvenience, yes, but there are others who can, and, more importantly, will provide the desired services. In the end, there may be inconvenience, but the businessperson that turns a cold shoulder to a particular group of people really only hurts that his/her business. Plus, the negative attention will likely reduce the potential customers because there will be people not in that particular group that are, nevertheless, compassionate towards that group.

But you also have the possibility of like-minded people rallying behind the business. Remember the whole ChikFilA thing?

Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide where the line between religious freedom and discrimination will fall.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

i also wonder just slightly how such shopkeepers even have the nerve. I mean, many will shops that have big windows that'll be wide open to the street on dark nights .... Personally, if I were a shopkeeper, I'd tend not to want to offend a given individual too much, never mind an entire demographic.

You do know that this law is about a case by case basis, not a blanket refusal to serve an entire class of people, don't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

i also wonder just slightly how such shopkeepers even have the nerve. I mean, many will shops that have big windows that'll be wide open to the street on dark nights .... Personally, if I were a shopkeeper, I'd tend not to want to offend a given individual too much, never mind an entire demographic.

You do know that this law is about a case by case basis, not a blanket refusal to serve an entire class of people, don't you?

It's not me that matters. It's the people who are turned away from businesses and whether or not they feel that their demographic has been insulted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
And the folks turned away because of their orientation....are you suggesting they suffer no inconvenience ?
edited to add a missing k

An inconvenience, yes, but there are others who can, and, more importantly, will provide the desired services. In the end, there may be inconvenience, but the businessperson that turns a cold shoulder to a particular group of people really only hurts that his/her business. Plus, the negative attention will likely reduce the potential customers because there will be people not in that particular group that are, nevertheless, compassionate towards that group.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
And the folks turned away because of their orientation....are you suggesting they suffer no inconvenience ?
edited to add a missing k

An inconvenience, yes, but there are others who can, and, more importantly, will provide the desired services. In the end, there may be inconvenience, but the businessperson that turns a cold shoulder to a particular group of people really only hurts that his/her business. Plus, the negative attention will likely reduce the potential customers because there will be people not in that particular group that are, nevertheless, compassionate towards that group.

But you also have the possibility of like-minded people rallying behind the business. Remember the whole ChikFilA thing?
Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide where the line between religious freedom and discrimination will fall.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
And the folks turned away because of their orientation....are you suggesting they suffer no inconvenience ?
edited to add a missing k

An inconvenience, yes, but there are others who can, and, more importantly, will provide the desired services. In the end, there may be inconvenience, but the businessperson that turns a cold shoulder to a particular group of people really only hurts that his/her business. Plus, the negative attention will likely reduce the potential customers because there will be people not in that particular group that are, nevertheless, compassionate towards that group.

But you also have the possibility of like-minded people rallying behind the business. Remember the whole ChikFilA thing?
Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide where the line between religious freedom and discrimination will fall.

I certainly do. Chik-Fil-A was being attacked for having an opinion about same sex marriage. Chik-Fil-A didn't refuse service to anyone based on sexuality, gender, or gender identity. No laws had been broken; no discrimination had been committed. The owners of Chik-Fil-A were opposed to same sex marriage.

Definitely not the same situation I brought forth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
And the folks turned away because of their orientation....are you suggesting they suffer no inconvenience ?
edited to add a missing k

An inconvenience, yes, but there are others who can, and, more importantly, will provide the desired services. In the end, there may be inconvenience, but the businessperson that turns a cold shoulder to a particular group of people really only hurts that his/her business. Plus, the negative attention will likely reduce the potential customers because there will be people not in that particular group that are, nevertheless, compassionate towards that group.

I understand what you are saying DS but the minority should never have to depend on the compassion of the majority to receive their protection.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I've been trying (desperately) to come up with an analogy that the opposition to this law might understand.

I realize that there's a whole lot of anti-Semites around here, lately but this would be tantamount to me, walking into a kosher deli, demanding a ham sandwich, not getting it and deciding to either bring suit or get the government involved with me, claiming that I was discriminated (ETA: Oooops! On this thread, that should be "discriminanted") against because I'm a gentile.

It allows the deli to say: "It's not that he's a gentile. It's that what he is asking would force us to violate our religious tenet(s)"



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
And the folks turned away because of their orientation....are you suggesting they suffer no inconvenience ?
edited to add a missing k

An inconvenience, yes, but there are others who can, and, more importantly, will provide the desired services. In the end, there may be inconvenience, but the businessperson that turns a cold shoulder to a particular group of people really only hurts that his/her business. Plus, the negative attention will likely reduce the potential customers because there will be people not in that particular group that are, nevertheless, compassionate towards that group.

I understand what you are saying DS but the minority should never have to depend on the compassion of the majority to receive their protection.

Yet, a business owner who holds a particular religious belief can be forced to support something that is anathema to that belief? Where is the majority on that, certainly not in the corner of that business owner...