RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone

RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 5:02:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 last thing, and to put it in a way that maybe you haven't asked yourself---so if providing a service to someone is in violation of a business' religious conscience, that's okay? Its called 'people that cant behave professionally'. If you have a business that caters to weddings, you either 'go with the flow' or go out of business. Its really sad that some individuals are to immature to handle being adults. If one is so completely afraid of homosexuality, perhaps seeks therapy might be a good thing.

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 5:07:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata This seems to be a fact-free topic so far, with lots of talk and not a single link to the actual bill. The proposal is modeled on a 22-year-old federal law known as the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. That law played a key role in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that allowed Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations with religious objections to opt out of an Affordable Care Act requirement that they cover certain contraceptives for women. Nineteen other states have adopted similar "religious freedom" laws, and several others are considering legislation. ~IndyStar Oh noes, not a bill modeled on a federal statute that the Supreme Court has already upheld? Say it ain't so! Digest of Indiana Senate Bill 101 Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer. I haven't read it yet. But hey, what a concept, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: joether I'll give a source to show where the information is originating from. So you can look at it, and determine for yourself if things are true and correct. Covered that for ya. You're welcome. One giant metaphor for "beating people you don't like up; but the moment they start beating you up, you hide behind your bible and call out for mercy". One would think all Christians would not need such a law, being 'good people', right?

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 5:08:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: stef Where is Indiania? I suspect that's where joether got his college degree. K. It is also where your manhood is located. Chopped and fried. Not by me.....

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 5:14:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Sorry, missed the point in this brief description of the bill were it said they couldn't serve people because of sexual orientation. Making people do something is tyranny, allowing them to decide for themselves what they will do is not. No, making people do something is not tyranny. Maybe you should look up the word and be more informed.... What this bill allows is religious discrimination of others on the basis of something biological. To use a metaphor, it would be like creating a law that allows white Christians to disallow service to blacks. Because being gay and being black, are two biological issues. Being an asshole Christian is not biological.

hot4bondage -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 7:16:54 AM)
Governor Pence, always the jokester, said this law doesn't allow for discrimination and doesn't have anything to do with any contemporary issues. Hilarious, right? But seriously, doesn't this law also apply to politically correct discrimination? For example, there's a nice Jewish deli in downtown Indianapolis. This law seems to provide legal protection if they refuse service to a neo-nazi. Does anyone here think neo-nazis have an inherent right to dine at Jewish delis? I sure don't. And if Jewish delis should have the right to refuse service, shouldn't other businesses have the same right?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 7:29:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Sorry, missed the point in this brief description of the bill were it said they couldn't serve people because of sexual orientation. Making people do something is tyranny, allowing them to decide for themselves what they will do is not. No, making people do something is not tyranny. Maybe you should look up the word and be more informed.... What this bill allows is religious discrimination of others on the basis of something biological. To use a metaphor, it would be like creating a law that allows white Christians to disallow service to blacks. Because being gay and being black, are two biological issues. Being an asshole Christian is not biological. Joether, while there are studies providing bits of evidence of gay people being born gay, so far the scientific community has been loathe to say that it is proven. As a person in business, it's a law that I'd never take advantage of. I like the law that exists for me...the one that allows me to refuse to provide service to anyone based on a clash of personalities being an impedance to me providing good care.

tweakabelle -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 7:56:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Governor Pence, always the jokester, said this law doesn't allow for discrimination and doesn't have anything to do with any contemporary issues. Hilarious, right? But seriously, doesn't this law also apply to politically correct discrimination? For example, there's a nice Jewish deli in downtown Indianapolis. This law seems to provide legal protection if they refuse service to a neo-nazi. Does anyone here think neo-nazis have an inherent right to dine at Jewish delis? I sure don't. And if Jewish delis should have the right to refuse service, shouldn't other businesses have the same right? The only way to avoid dilemmas of the type you have outlined is that business that are open to the public must serve all the public without fear or favour. I hear lots of excuses about why these businesses shouldn't be forced to serve GLBTI people, but oddly I have never heard of one of these businesses refusing service to wife beaters rapists or pedophiles. I find it odd that such people are acceptable to our ever-so-sensitive Xian types but GLBTI people whose only crime is enjoy sex and love in non-het ways are seen as objectionable. It would appear that the religious sensibilities being 'protected' here are extremely selective ones and that these people have taken upon themselves the right to judge others, a right that their religion says is the sole prerogative of their Lord. If it isn't religious beliefs, I wonder what is really being protected here? The only viable candidate is bigotry.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 8:00:55 AM)
FR Xians of a certain (lack of) flavour who feel aggrieved by LGBTs: yet another one for Kirata's 'Permanently Offended' thread!

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 8:09:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Governor Pence, always the jokester, said this law doesn't allow for discrimination and doesn't have anything to do with any contemporary issues. Hilarious, right? But seriously, doesn't this law also apply to politically correct discrimination? For example, there's a nice Jewish deli in downtown Indianapolis. This law seems to provide legal protection if they refuse service to a neo-nazi. Does anyone here think neo-nazis have an inherent right to dine at Jewish delis? I sure don't. And if Jewish delis should have the right to refuse service, shouldn't other businesses have the same right? You're missing the point. People only have to be tolerant of things that are approved of by "the masses". Tolerance for the minority opinion was *never* the intent behind the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. It was ... what? Oh! It *was* the intent that the minority opinion (like those who don't believe in God, at the time) should never be shouted down? Never mind, then. Michael

eulero83 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 8:57:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Governor Pence, always the jokester, said this law doesn't allow for discrimination and doesn't have anything to do with any contemporary issues. Hilarious, right? But seriously, doesn't this law also apply to politically correct discrimination? For example, there's a nice Jewish deli in downtown Indianapolis. This law seems to provide legal protection if they refuse service to a neo-nazi. Does anyone here think neo-nazis have an inherent right to dine at Jewish delis? I sure don't. And if Jewish delis should have the right to refuse service, shouldn't other businesses have the same right? The example you make is not perfectly fitting as the bigoted prick is the customer and not the business owner. Untill the neo-nazi is not provocative, rude or has any disorderly behaviour I would say yes. Anty discrimination laws are in place to defend one important right that's personal dignity, that actually trumps religious freedom otherwise I could just piss on random people if my religion impose me to do it.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 11:37:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Anty discrimination laws are in place to defend one important right that's personal dignity, ... If your personal dignity is incumbent upon what others think about you, I would suggest it's not *personal* dignity. I will admit that what others think about you can damage your reputation, which could lead to an inability to get a job or housing or whatever, but what you (or anyone else) thinks about me has no affect on my *personal* dignity. Michael

mnottertail -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 11:42:54 AM)
is there a non-personal dignity that is recognized as real?

bounty44 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 11:49:28 AM)
this has been hinted at previously---solutions that lead towards marketplace driven ones as opposed to government legislation ones are probably the most effective, less contentious, and personally satisfying as well.

eulero83 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 11:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Anty discrimination laws are in place to defend one important right that's personal dignity, ... If your personal dignity is incumbent upon what others think about you, I would suggest it's not *personal* dignity. I will admit that what others think about you can damage your reputation, which could lead to an inability to get a job or housing or whatever, but what you (or anyone else) thinks about me has no affect on my *personal* dignity. Michael ok you don't even know what personal dignity is

UnholyBear -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 12:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr You're missing the point. People only have to be tolerant of things that are approved of by "the masses". Tolerance for the minority opinion was *never* the intent behind the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. It was ... what? Oh! It *was* the intent that the minority opinion (like those who don't believe in God, at the time) should never be shouted down? Never mind, then. Michael If that is the case then what about the minorities who are still part of the masses? Doesn't their concerns, rights also need to have some sort of protection? If the answer happens to be no, then where does all this stop? And once it does stop, who will be next to be designated as a "minority" As I see it, this is heading down a slippery slope that will not end with just legislating against one minority group but will move onto the next, then the next etc. The human race has a piss poor track record for maintaining the status quo for the majority based on the concept that the majority is best for the whole. All one needs to do is search throughout history and find prime examples of where more often than not, discrimination disguised under legislative laws resulted in civil strife and war.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 12:18:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr You're missing the point. People only have to be tolerant of things that are approved of by "the masses". Tolerance for the minority opinion was *never* the intent behind the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. It was ... what? Oh! It *was* the intent that the minority opinion (like those who don't believe in God, at the time) should never be shouted down? Never mind, then. Michael If that is the case then what about the minorities who are still part of the masses? Doesn't their concerns, rights also need to have some sort of protection? Read past my first sentence. You might realize that your sarcasm meter is broken. Also, to be very clear; I used the term "minority *opinion". That was not to be construed to mean: "the opinions of people who happen to belong to a minority group". "Minority opinion" as in: "An opinion that is not held by a majority of people". quote:* ORIGINAL: UnholyBear If the answer happens to be no, then where does all this stop? And once it does stop, who will be next to be designated as a "minority" As I see it, this is heading down a slippery slope that will not end with just legislating against one minority group but will move onto the next, then the next etc. The human race has a piss poor track record for maintaining the status quo for the majority based on the concept that the majority is best for the whole. All one needs to do is search throughout history and find prime examples of where more often than not, discrimination disguised under legislative laws resulted in civil strife and war. Michael

UnholyBear -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 12:20:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr You're missing the point. People only have to be tolerant of things that are approved of by "the masses". Tolerance for the minority opinion was *never* the intent behind the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. It was ... what? Oh! It *was* the intent that the minority opinion (like those who don't believe in God, at the time) should never be shouted down? Never mind, then. Michael If that is the case then what about the minorities who are still part of the masses? Doesn't their concerns, rights also need to have some sort of protection? Read past my first sentence. You might realize that your sarcasm meter is broken. Also, to be very clear; I used the term "minority *opinion". That was not to be construed to mean: "the opinions of people who happen to belong to a minority group". "Minority opinion" as in: "An opinion that is not held by a majority of people". quote:* ORIGINAL: UnholyBear If the answer happens to be no, then where does all this stop? And once it does stop, who will be next to be designated as a "minority" As I see it, this is heading down a slippery slope that will not end with just legislating against one minority group but will move onto the next, then the next etc. The human race has a piss poor track record for maintaining the status quo for the majority based on the concept that the majority is best for the whole. All one needs to do is search throughout history and find prime examples of where more often than not, discrimination disguised under legislative laws resulted in civil strife and war. Michael No sarcasm indicated but thanks and bless your heart.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 12:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UnholyBear No sarcasm indicated but thanks and bless your heart. I'd bless your'n right back, but I'll save it for someone who gives a damn. Michael

JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 12:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Governor Pence, always the jokester, said this law doesn't allow for discrimination and doesn't have anything to do with any contemporary issues. Hilarious, right? But seriously, doesn't this law also apply to politically correct discrimination? For example, there's a nice Jewish deli in downtown Indianapolis. This law seems to provide legal protection if they refuse service to a neo-nazi. Does anyone here think neo-nazis have an inherent right to dine at Jewish delis? I sure don't. And if Jewish delis should have the right to refuse service, shouldn't other businesses have the same right? The example you make is not perfectly fitting as the bigoted prick is the customer and not the business owner. Untill the neo-nazi is not provocative, rude or has any disorderly behaviour I would say yes. Anty discrimination laws are in place to defend one important right that's personal dignity, that actually trumps religious freedom otherwise I could just piss on random people if my religion impose me to do it. Most states provide businesses the right to refuse service for any reason, or no reason, except for protected groups. So a known or easily identifiable neoNazi can not only be refused service at a Jewish deli, but also trespassed from the premises by the police. The same holds true for gang members of any flavor.

thishereboi -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/27/2015 1:18:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV I would much rather see genuinely GLBT-friendly businesses flourish than deal with business owners that don't appreciate my almighty dollar. It always reminds me of that scene in Pretty Woman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu3x5SZrMHo If enough people agree with you, then those GLBT-friendly businesses will flourish, and those that aren't won't. Eventually, those businesses that won't serve the GLBT crowd will either go out of business because there aren't enough customers, change their stance to stay in business, or continue to do business with a smaller customer base. That's the way it works, and it will work, if you let it. Let the internet work it's wonders disseminating information at incredible speeds, and you'll get a real response from those who could be customers. That's my take on it.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

7.421875E-02