News, Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers (Congress, KKK)
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.
I think any business owner should have some measure of control over what services a prospective customer might ask him to perform.
A business owner is not a slave to the any whims and notions of any customer who walks in the door.
There must be a the line that a person as a business owner can refuse to cross.
There is. If you sell car parts, you sell to anyone with the money who walks in the door. If someone wants a car part that you don't stock, you can order it for them or not, no one can force you to special order it. And you can't be forced to special order ladies' socks either.
Private businesses should be allowed the FREEDOM to refuse service to anyone they choose.
Have to agree. I'm not comfortable with a rewrite of the bill that would force private sector business owners to violate their religious beliefs. That's very likely unconstitutional.
That said, if people wish to boycott a business that refuses to serve gays, have at it. That's a Constitutional right, too. I would boycott that business, but taking away the business owner's Constitutional right to exercise their religion is unacceptable.
First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Refusing someone service on the grounds that doing so violates the exercising of one's religion is in fact a Constitutional right.
Have to agree. I'm not comfortable with a rewrite of the bill that would force private sector business owners to violate their religious beliefs. That's very likely unconstitutional.
That said, if people wish to boycott a business that refuses to serve gays, have at it. That's a Constitutional right, too. I would boycott that business, but taking away the business owner's Constitutional right to exercise their religion is unacceptable.
First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Refusing someone service on the grounds that doing so violates the exercising of one's religion is in fact a Constitutional right.
Then it should put you at ease to find out that this bill does not do that. There are no religions that I am aware of that promote discriminating against people in the marketplace because of their sexual orientation, so this clarification really has no bearing on any persons legitimate exercise of their religion.
At the same time, the issue with the religious bakers was not discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation. These bakers would be happy to sell a birthday cake to these same homosexuals, so that establishes that the discrimination is not based on sexual orientation.
Rather, the bakers are unwilling to commemorate a ceremony that they find religiously offensive. That is not an issue that is addressed or restricted in the clarification of Indiana's law, nor would it pass constitutional muster if it was included.
So you can rest easy. This is going to be a big win for the Republicans once everyone comes to understand what has actually happened here.
You continue to ignore that a person's personal spiritual convictions don't justify marginalizing people they encounter in the public arena.
They're private enterprises
There is nothing private when you hang a sign saying "Open" on the door. To make something private, you have to post a sign "No Trespassers" or at the very least not invite the public in to do business with you.
You're talking about using a person's personal spiritual convictions to justify marginalizing people they encounter in the public arena. That's not only morally wrong (based on the most universal of ethics) but is also unconstitutional.
Then it should put you at ease to find out that this bill does not do that. There are no religions that I am aware of that promote discriminating against people in the marketplace because of their sexual orientation, so this clarification really has no bearing on any persons legitimate exercise of their religion.
At the same time, the issue with the religious bakers was not discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation. These bakers would be happy to sell a birthday cake to these same homosexuals, so that establishes that the discrimination is not based on sexual orientation.
Rather, the bakers are unwilling to commemorate a ceremony that they find religiously offensive. That is not an issue that is addressed or restricted in the clarification of Indiana's law, nor would it pass constitutional muster if it was included.
So you can rest easy. This is going to be a big win for the Republicans once everyone comes to understand what has actually happened here.
Actually it is addressed. The revision says the the RFRA can not be used as an excuse to deny GOODS, or SERVICES to anyone on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service;
Then it should put you at ease to find out that this bill does not do that. There are no religions that I am aware of that promote discriminating against people in the marketplace because of their sexual orientation
There definitely are religions that prohibit same-sex marriage:
A law that forces a private sector business owner to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding ceremony is a violation of one's First Amendment right to the freedom to exercise one's religion.
Actually it is addressed. The revision says the the RFRA can not be used as an excuse to deny GOODS, or SERVICES to anyone on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service;
Wedding cakes are goods.
Yep. The rewrite is unconstitutional in regards to goods or services for same-sex marriage ceremonies.
A law that forces a private sector business owner to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding ceremony is a violation of one's First Amendment right to the freedom to exercise one's religion.
And those same religions prohibit divorce, tattoos, eating shellfish and a myriad of other "sins". Why no refusal of service for those reasons?
Don't believe for a second that Pence has had a change of heart. He a had a strong anti-gay voting record in Congress and even voting again the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell in 2011(!) for God sake.
And those same religions prohibit divorce, tattoos, eating shellfish and a myriad of other "sins". Why no refusal of service for those reasons?
Fortunately the revisions to the law will still allow refusal of service to those who eat shellfish.
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.
