My city and now my state have decided to boycott Indiana.

[HumptyBrah]

Read Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. We dealt with this issue 50 years ago. It hasn't suddenly become an acceptable thing to do in the last 50 years.

Most people supporting this type of law are only doing so, because they don't care that its targeted at gays. Many don't even like gays, and those that don't care don't see it as affecting them. If laws were being passed allowing businesses to refuse Christians, Whites, or men in public establishments, conservatives would be throwing a fit. But since it's so called "Christian" white men who are passing these laws, we sure as heck know that will never happen. That's the perk of being the majority, other people can't treat you like crap through force of law.

Two questions:

1. Is there language in the law that specifies only homosexuals can be discriminated against, but not Christians, whites, or males? Or is the discrimination that is allegedly allowed, equally allowed against all people?
(optional: What about a gay white Christian male? Which takes precedent in deciding whether to discriminate against him, his homosexuality or his white Christian male-ness?)

2. Does the demography of the legislators responsible change the language at all? For example, if the same exact legislation were drafted, verbatim, by homosexual racial minorities, would the law be different?

[nutsy54]

Liberal logic: We support freedom of thought and actions, as long as you f*cking believe, think, and do exactly what we say you're allowed to!

[mydawgs]

Liberal logic: We support freedom of thought and actions, as long as you f*cking believe, think, and do exactly what we say you're allowed to!

Yup....and it works so well to boot!

[tk217]

Two questions:

1. Is there language in the law that specifies only homosexuals can be discriminated against, but not Christians, whites, or males? Or is the discrimination that is allegedly allowed, equally allowed against all people?
(optional: What about a gay white Christian male? Which takes precedent in deciding whether to discriminate against him, his homosexuality or his white Christian male-ness?)

2. Does the demography of the legislators responsible change the language at all? For example, if the same exact legislation were drafted, verbatim, by homosexual racial minorities, would the law be different?

Yes on two counts.

1) Gay isn't a religion it is a sexual orientation - unless there is a "church of gay"

2) Gay is a minority compared to heterosexual. The majority of religious communities are also _vast_ in society. The fact that Gay is a minority on basically _all scales_ makes them easily discriminated against. The follow up to this because the _vast_ is so _vast_ it is highly unlikely that a religious owner will deny their own clergy access. Just as if a minority party attempted to _deny_ a majority party access they would likely go out of business instantly.

Example to scale:

If 1 person had a business in a society of 100 people and they attempted to pass a law where the 99 other people suddenly no longer had access to that 1 person's business - the other 99 are probably not affected where as that 1 person can no longer serve _anyone_.

If the 99 people pass a law where they deny service to that 1 person _at all businesses_ that 1 person is suddenly a pariah.

[tk217]

Liberal logic: We support freedom of thought and actions, as long as you f*cking believe, think, and do exactly what we say you're allowed to!

You can't be serious on this one. It has nothing to do with liberals and everything to do with cowardly asinine authoritarians.

[WillJohnson1]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...38900830760842

Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent. This protection is disappearing in the U.S. As Mr. Silverglate writes, "Since the New Deal era, Congress has delegated to various administrative agencies the task of writing the regulations," even as "Congress has demonstrated a growing dysfunction in crafting legislation that can in fact be understood." Prosecutors identify defendants to go after instead of finding a law that was broken and figuring out who did it. Expect more such prosecutions as Washington adds regulations.

Invent more laws and everyone is bound to break one sooner or later. Then you got 'em!

WTH ever happened to freedom?

[Ge_Tech]

Liberal logic: We support freedom of thought and actions, as long as you f*cking believe, think, and do exactly what we say you're allowed to!

So you support laws like this one in Indiana?

[nutsy54]

So you support laws like this one in Indiana?

Of course I support a law that reflects the 1st Amendment.

Do you oppose religious freedom, forcing your views on anyone who dares to have different beliefs?

[Ge_Tech]

Of course I support a law that reflects the 1st Amendment.

Do you oppose religious freedom, forcing your views on anyone who dares to have different beliefs?

You didn't answer my question. Do you support this law?

[jafomofo]

Of course I support a law that reflects the 1st Amendment.

Do you oppose religious freedom, forcing your views on anyone who dares to have different beliefs?

But thats not what it does. What it does is give businesses an easy out anytime they want to discriminate against a class of citizen that is not covered by an an to - discrimination law which in the case of Indiana is... The lgbt community. Derp

[nutsy54]

You didn't answer my question. Do you support this law?

I directly and clearly answered your question.

[Ge_Tech]

I directly and clearly answered your question.

Fair enough. I'm just a little surprised.

[nutsy54]

But thats not what it does. What it does is give businesses an easy out anytime they want to discriminate against a class of citizen that is not covered by an an to - discrimination law which in the case of Indiana is... The lgbt community. Derp

Fictional, nonsensical claims don't prove anything. Stop falling for the rantings of an intolerant, hate-filled mainstream media.

Explain exactly how this law allows a company to discriminate against the lgbt community. (Then, maybe, explain why any company would intentionally reduce their customer base and income). If any company did actually commit such "discrimination", they'd only succeed in ending their own existence as a company.

[nutsy54]

Fair enough. I'm just a little surprised.

You're surprised I support personal freedom and the Constitution?

Wow.

[Ge_Tech]

You're surprised I support personal freedom and the Constitution?

Wow.

No, I'm surprised you support such a discriminatory law towards a whole class of people. Even the governor wants it rewritten.

[HumptyBrah]

No, I'm surprised you support such a discriminatory law towards a whole class of people. Even the governor wants it rewritten.

Please post the exact language from the law that specifically discriminates against homosexuals.

[nutsy54]

No, I'm surprised you support such a discriminatory law towards a whole class of people. Even the governor wants it rewritten.

No, the Governor doesn't want it "rewritten". Why are there so many lies needed to attack this law?

Please, cite exactly what "class of people" is defned in the law for discrimination.

[Mulyark]

No, the Governor doesn't want it "rewritten". Why are there so many lies needed to attack this law?

Please, cite exactly what "class of people" is defned in the law for discrimination.

Since when do they need facts? They just need whatever false narrative MSNBC is pimping tonite.




...And Christians should boycott Washington, California, and New York states. Let their pandering leftists cater to 10% of the population at the expense of 40%. Would serve those bloviating tools right.

[Ge_Tech]

Please post the exact language from the law that specifically discriminates against homosexuals.

While that isn't in the text, I think the intent of the law is clear. It is meant to shield religious people from serving Gay people, especially in the wedding area. While I feel certain businesses should be exempt, I think this law could be used to deny a whole range of services to Gay people and others under the guise of religious freedom. I guess we will have to take a wait and see approach.

[nutsy54]

While that isn't in the text...

So, if it's not actually in the law, you'll just make up a pack of bullsh*t lies as the only way to prove your claims

[Ge_Tech]

So, if it's not actually in the law, you'll just make up a pack of bullsh*t lies as the only way to prove your claims

So you are a 100% certain this law won't be used to deny services to Gay people?

[rocker1]

Private business owned by private citizens are different. Public entities should serve everyone because everyone's taxes are paying for it.


Of course liberals have always been in favor of coercing citizens and business into acting contrary to their wishes/beliefs/whatever. Your thoughts on this are nothing new.

Why are Conservatives so backward? I just don't get it. They seem to be backward not only towards anything that doesn't reflect their myopic view of the world, but also about the very same Constitution they harp about.

Read up on the Commerce Clause. Read up on WHY the Civil Rights Bill was upheld by the Supreme Court 50 years ago. Basically read up on anything relating to the establishment of business and the government's sovereignty on the issue.

You guys just want to waste time on arguments which have been settled by multiple Congress' led by Liberals as well as Conservatives and by ALL Supreme Court judgements on the issue presided over by both Liberals and Conservatives in a 150 years of ruling on that issue.

"Private business" is never "private unconditionally" is the verdict.

Sure the government cannot come and tell you what kind of menu to serve in your private restaurant or what day of the week to the be open, but if you are using public utilities, are relying on government protection in the case of security, are relying on the flow of transportation and commerce made possible by government investment, are relying on the paved streets, the garbage collection, the legal legitimacy of your enterprise and the insurance that comes with it even if not directly insured by government, etc etc etc YOUR PRIVATE BUSINESS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE COLLECTIVE RULES ENFORCED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO ORGANIZE AND MAKE POSSIBLE THE PUBLIC FLOW OF GOODS AND SERVICES ACROSS THE STATES.

Get the logic my backward friend???

Public entity (like a government building) =/= public place of accommodation (any place falling to US Government jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause).

So while a restaurant which is privately owned is NOT a public entity, it is a public place of accommodation which the Supreme Court has unanimously and consistently said the United States government can and should regulate for the PUBLIC GOOD.

Basic civics lesson here. Feel free to take what you have just learned, research, and never ask silly questions again.

In short, using that power, the United States government has said public places of accommodation cannot discriminate. Deal with it.

No body cares about what you guys think, or how it should be, bla bla bla. This argument closed over 50 years ago. And the mandate that gives the US government the power was first ruled on 150 years ago and consistently since, up to this day.

The issue here is unlike Race or Gender, which the United States government included in the protected classes from discrimination, sexuality is not one and what we see in Indiana and elsewhere is just a long continuation of the original conservative war against anyone who isn't a WASP.

You will lose this issue as spectacularly as you lost in all the ones before it.

[ONtop888]

No ones cares OP. "Progressive" heroin usage in your city is not cool to me.

[HumptyBrah]

While that isn't in the text, I think the intent of the law is clear. It is meant to shield religious people from serving Gay people, especially in the wedding area. While I feel certain businesses should be exempt, I think this law could be used to deny a whole range of services to Gay people and others under the guise of religious freedom. I guess we will have to take a wait and see approach.

If I dip my dick into a can of burnt sienna and smear it on a canvas, does it become a paintbrush?

[jafomofo]

Fictional, nonsensical claims don't prove anything. Stop falling for the rantings of an intolerant, hate-filled mainstream media.

Explain exactly how this law allows a company to discriminate against the lgbt community. (Then, maybe, explain why any company would intentionally reduce their customer base and income). If any company did actually commit such "discrimination", they'd only succeed in ending their own existence as a company.

Sure. Indiana has no anti-discrimination law that protects lgbt citizens except for ensuring them fair access to state jobs. The law in question details that businesses, churches, organizations and other institutions are to be considered individuals as it pertains to the law and then provides a very obtusely defined legal precedent by which entities who discriminate can do so without fear of the consequences even when those consequences come from another private entity or citizen.

If it was just protection against the government then you would be correct and this would be akin to the other similar laws but its not. Its also very purposely not because the bill came in answer to 2 very specific incidents, gay marriage in the state and supposedly the public accommodation case from another state. Additionally, if there was any doubt this is intended to permit businesses to discriminate the state legislature attempted to amend the bill to exclude businesses from this newly created protected class and the change was rebuffed.

You can't try and use 'religious freedom' to create a protected class of individuals/entities and then cry about how you are the victim because the bull**** law you passed is seen for what it is. Republicans are such silly people. If they were being honest they would just use the federal language or extend the anti-discrimination laws to include gays but they won't because thats exactly the opposite of what these petulant children are trying to do.

[jafomofo]

You're surprised I support personal freedom and the Constitution?

Wow.

By personal freedom I assume you mean an umbrella law that gives precedent to a broad and ill defined shield law permitting people to discriminate against unprotected minority groups without fear of legal recourse? Of course you do.

[jafomofo]

Please post the exact language from the law that specifically discriminates against homosexuals.

the anti-discrimination laws in indiana cover gender, race, religion, age, etc... but they don't cover anything to do with LGBT, this is why their community sees it as directed toward them and rightly so.

Be honest now, other than a headline on drudge and probably a ******** post or two, did you bother to read up on this issue on your own at all? Did you seek out non-partisan 3rd party legal analysis about the issue? No? I'm shocked. Truly.

So, if it's not actually in the law, you'll just make up a pack of bullsh*t lies as the only way to prove your claims

Sometimes things are more complicated than a headline on drudge and you might need to actually read up on them before rendering your typical ill formed opinions as fact. This is one of those times.

[HumptyBrah]

the anti-discrimination laws in indiana cover gender, race, religion, age, etc... but they don't cover anything to do with LGBT, this is why their community sees it as directed toward them and rightly so.

Be honest now, other than a headline on drudge and probably a ******** post or two, did you bother to read up on this issue on your own at all? Did you seek out non-partisan 3rd party legal analysis about the issue? No? I'm shocked. Truly.

This was a lot of words but nothing that came even remotely close to addressing what I said. So...do you have an excerpt of the law that specifically discriminates against homosexuals? I've asked this question in several threads, and have gotten several responses, none of which have been what I am asking for. Any idea why that is?

[Fiyero]

Liberal logic: We support freedom of thought and actions, as long as you f*cking believe, think, and do exactly what we say you're allowed to!

You can believe or think whatever you want. But as soon as you put those thoughts into action to treat me like a 2nd class citizen, that's when there is a problem.

[MuscleXtreme]

You can believe or think whatever you want. But as soon as you put those thoughts into action to treat me like a 2nd class citizen, that's when there is a problem.

If a white guy asks a black t-shirt designer to print a tshirt of a black man being lynched, is the business owner treating the white guy as a 2nd class citizen if the black t-shirt maker refuses?