tweakabelle
Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
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.
I find it odd that you think because you haven't heard of places refusing wife beaters of pedos service that it means "such people are acceptable to our ever-so-sensitive Xian types " Now maybe you have some kind of special power that tells you everything you need to know when you look at someone but unless the asshole in question was on the news most business owners would have no fucking idea that his customer may be one. At least over here they don't wear signs stating "I beat my wife" maybe they do where you come from.
Steering this conversation back to the topic......(Hard to port!)
What your stating here really does come to the heart of the fallacy in the law: How do you tell someone is gay to refuse service to them?
Do they have the right to sue you civil court for damages if your wrong?
For years, those Xians opposed to granting queers equal status in the law argued that they didn't hate queers. Their slogan was: "we hate the sin, we love the sinner'.
This legislation seems to grant these people the right to deny service to queers solely on the basis of the discriminator's perception of the person. The discriminator has no knowledge of whether the perceived queer is sexually active or not, whether they really are queer or not, whether they sin or not. In other words it has nothing to do with the 'sin' but everything to do with the 'sinner'.
So by taking this stance, these Xians have exposed their history of lying on this issue. For them it really is a matter of hating the sinner, regardless of whether the alleged sinner actually sins or not. IOW bigotry plain, simple, unadorned, ugly and utterly repulsive to its very core.
< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 3/28/2015 4:13:52 AM >
_____________________________
|
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread