Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you do not want to sell your product(s) to someone because to their religion, sex, color or all the rest of the discriminatory reasons then get out of business. The only legitimate consideration a business has about its customers is their ability to pay for what ever you are selling. That is all.
It would seem there are some who want to 'have their cake & eat it too.'
Does the 'right to be a jerk' include the expectation of receiving a service?
The 'right to be a jerk' is qualified, "as long as it you're not infringing on anyone else's rights". That's the part of this that those who support this law keep missing. They fail to understand the reality that people they don't like have rights, too, and that their rights may directly conflict with what they choose to presume are rights that they could claim, resulting in a situation where the conflict must be resolved through collaborative action rather than through tyranny of the majority or through blithe ignorance of the legitimacy of the conflict. This maniacal fixation on the self that reactionaries engage in precludes not only empathy but plain-ol' mature behavior.
I am still digesting what it says. Seems that the key words are 'substantially burden' (see Section 9), meaning that a person may claim that to provide services to someone would 'substantially burden' their ability to exercise their religious freedom.
It appears to be rather vague (it does not actually identify gays or such as those imposing the burden). I assume, from my first reading, that one may also use this statute as a defense if they wish to deny service to those who hold different religious beliefs. I shall read it again later.
Well! Looks like my initial impression was pretty correct: said law is vaguely worded. Governor Pence now wants new 'legal language' to clarify the law he just signed:
The 'right to be a jerk' is qualified, "as long as it you're not infringing on anyone else's rights". That's the part of this that those who support this law keep missing. They fail to understand the reality that people they don't like have rights, too, and that their rights may directly conflict with what they choose to presume are rights that they could claim, resulting in a situation where the conflict must be resolved through collaborative action rather than through tyranny of the majority or through blithe ignorance of the legitimacy of the conflict. This maniacal fixation on the self that reactionaries engage in precludes not only empathy but plain-ol' mature behavior.
I think part of the problem (in my understanding) is that, it seems, in order to apply the principles logically & consistently, as it has been explained to me, it seems necessary to consider people to be property.
This doesn’t make sense to me.
People are not property. A person cannot be owned, even by themselves or even when ownership is claimed by parents over children. Freedom is not being considered as property.
Unfortunately, the US has a checkered history when it comes to our understandings of 'property rights.' It allowed us US to take land & to call it our own & it allowed us to own people as property & to base an economy on irrational beliefs.
You mentioned blithe ignorance. I think it was Disraeli who said 'you cannot teach a person something it is in his best interests not to know.'
I really thought that Mike Pence was one of the more smarter Republicans. He had a reputation of being very competent and pragmatic as a congressman.
If he signs this abomination, he may as well forget those presidential ambitions. But for some reason, these right wingers just can't help themselves even when they know what they're about to do is dumb. Republicans in Indiana gain absolutely NOTHING by implementing this nonsense.
But whatever. They voted for him so...(shrug).
Maybe it's a measure of his character and integrity that he's willing to limit his own career path for what he feels is right? Not much of that happening in the Democratic party these days.
My problem with this is, how the hell do you recognize a gay person in a business and why would you want to?
If they start making out in from of everyone and people start vomiting on the floor I get it, throw them out. If they sit in large groups and try to offend everyone with their gayness, throw them out.
Throw them out for disorderly conduct, not being gay.
Well! Looks like my initial impression was pretty correct: said law is vaguely worded. Governor Pence now wants new 'legal language' to clarify the law he just signed:
Well! Looks like my initial impression was pretty correct: said law is vaguely worded. Governor Pence now wants new 'legal language' to clarify the law he just signed:
Maybe it's a measure of his character and integrity that he's willing to limit his own career path for what he feels is right? Not much of that happening in the Democratic party these days.
My problem with this is, how the hell do you recognize a gay person in a business and why would you want to?
If they start making out in from of everyone and people start vomiting on the floor I get it, throw them out. If they sit in large groups and try to offend everyone with their gayness, throw them out.
Throw them out for disorderly conduct, not being gay.
I'm not sure how one would go about recognizing another person's sexual orientation in a business or other type of settings.
Although, the crux of the matter here is, there are some folks who feel their right to religious expression is being infringed by the presence of those with same sex ... or sexual orientation which does not agree with their religion beliefs.
It seems they are ones who are most interested in recognizing orientation so they can act on their religious beliefs.
Personally, I don't get it either.
Maybe life would be easier if folks were required to wear an "A" for Adulterer (if the shoe fits), or "B" for BiSexual, or "C" ...
Then, & only then, the business owner would decide if they choose to provide a service.
There is no reason why a business that refuses to serve gays and lesbians shouldn't be required to post a sign. Then the public at large can decide whether they want to do business with them.
I'm not gay but I wouldn't do business with them. I want to know which businesses are like this. What's more, a gay or lesbian should not have to be told no, they can just avoid the businesses that post signs.
There's no reason why they should be required to post a sign. If a bakery refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, word will spread quickly, and those who wish to boycott said bakery will do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
