Political Thread: Non-obscene version

[CatsFanGG24]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by CatsFanGG24:

Hey, you own a business....don't want to allow a certain type to work or shop there? Good, that's your choice -

Mostly false. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full
and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,
without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
religion, or national origin."

Obviusly the issue of sexual orientation is not covered here which is why the Indiana law on the surface does not obviously violate the letter of the law (thou some would argue it does violate the spirit of the law).

The Indiana law is the same as the Arizona Bill that Governor Jan Brewer vetoed becasue of the blow back from businesses, including the Chamber of Commerce and the NFL's decision to move the SuperBowl out of Arizona if the bill was inacted.

The Indiana Law is simply bad for business. Sales Force, Angies List and other companies are cancelling expansion plan in the state and the NCAA may relocate if the law stands.

Mostly false? How can my opinion of how I think things should be - be mostly false?

I'd like to know the business owners who want to discriminate. In my perfect world, they would be allowed to discriminate - as long as it was publicly advertised on the front of their business clearly. Would love to see how it works out for them.

So take your mostly false and shove it.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by ukbob:
Funny...pretty much the same bill was passed this past week in KY and not a peep.

Couldn't find anything about a Kentucky bill passed this week - if there's a link please post.

Kentucky did pass a Religious Freedom bill into law 2 years ago, but it applied to disputes between citizens and the government - like the Hobby Lobby case. The Indiana law applies to disputes between citizens, and includes businesses, thus allowing businesses to deny service based on the alleged "religious freedom" of it's owners or principals.

19 other states have laws similar to Kentucky's

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by CatsFanGG24:
Mostly false? How can my opinion of how I think things should be - be mostly false?

I'd like to know the business owners who want to discriminate. In my perfect world, they would be allowed to discriminate - as long as it was publicly advertised on the front of their business clearly. Would love to see how it works out for them.

So take your mostly false and shove it.

Because we are a nation of laws, and "how you think things should be" isn't the law.
So go ahead and take the law and shove it based on your opinion of how you think things should be - but be prepared to pay the consequences.

 

[Tannerdad]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by ukbob:
Funny...pretty much the same bill was passed this past week in KY and not a peep.

Couldn't find anything about a Kentucky bill passed this week - if there's a link please post.

You are correct. Mis typed

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by CatsFanGG24:

Mostly false? How can my opinion of how I think things should be - be mostly false?

I'd like to know the business owners who want to discriminate. In my perfect world, they would be allowed to discriminate - as long as it was publicly advertised on the front of their business clearly. Would love to see how it works out for them.

So take your mostly false and shove it.

Because we are a nation of laws, and "how you think things should be" isn't the law.
So go ahead and take the law and shove it based on your opinion of how you think things should be - but be prepared to pay the consequences.

What the hell are you even talking about? I guess you should happily shut up about the Indiana law according to this last post you made then...

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by qwesley:
As Bill Maher refers to them, this is the "gay mafia" at work. A dog whistle for the simple-minded followers (see the three above who play this role impeccably).

The Salesforce and Angie's List CEOs are huge Dem party contributors, two of the largest.

And Apple preaching about integrity or anything is laughable....slave labor, tax evasion, and obscene gross profits...but yet wants to preach about the "possible" effect of this law.

All the while, you can go read about the far far reaches within the Obama admin that Google has so much influence. Their CEO worked the campaign HQ the night of the election. But let's manufacture outrage that a bakery in Pawnee IN could possibly, only with court approval, refuse to bake a GD cake for a same sex couple.

This post was edited on 3/31 10:28 AM by qwesley

You've got it bad!

When you go to piss in the toilet, do you stand there and think would my politically leanings want me to raise the seat or not?

You need help...I'm serious.

 

[qwesley]

Chuck, getting insulted by a senile old loser like you that is incapable of typing a rational thought is a badge of honor.

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by qwesley:


Angie's List CEOs are huge Dem party contributors, two of the largest.

pffft. Angie's List. The same Angie's List is who is having incredible financial troubles? (which their whole company is based on a huge ass marketing budget, because if they don't market, no one would even click on Angie's List). Angie's List made a deal with Indiana to place a new facility in Indiana. The problem, Angie List can't afford the move to Indiana, so what does this POS do. Well, she does just what any other Dem would do. She whores out her company by saying no to the move (which gives her good kudos nationwide), which allows her from making that investment disaster. She's karma whoring.

So, technically. Angie is using this issue as another marketing campaign rather than what it is. A business expansion she can't afford. That's the truth on Angie.



This post was edited on 3/31 2:39 PM by Willy4UK

 

[Deeeefense]

It's not just Angie's List. Anthem, Cummins, Dow AgroSciences, Eli Lilly and Co., Emmis
Communications, IU Health, Roche Diagnostics and Salesforce Marketing have all contacted the Governor and the State Legislature condemning the law.

Anyway it's a moot point now as Pence is backpedaling and is now promising to fix the law that he said yesterday wasn't broken.

 

[Teachable Moe]

Sure. By not getting rid of the filibuster when he had the chance.

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
It's not just Angie's List. Anthem, Cummins, Dow AgroSciences, Eli Lilly and Co., Emmis
Communications, IU Health, Roche Diagnostics and Salesforce Marketing have all contacted the Governor and the State Legislature condemning the law.

Anyway it's a moot point now as Pence is backpedaling and is now promising to fix the law that he said yesterday wasn't broken.

Deeee, you're missing the point on Angie. She attaching herself to a cause that she doesn't a flying eff about. You think Angie not coming into Ind is about gay stuff? hahaha No, it's not. She's finding a way to get out of a contract. Pure and simple and she is pulling a "social card" in order to renege on a contract. That's what she is about. Has nothing to do with this bill and she was having trouble with the financial to move a new building there before this bill was signed. Fact.

as for the other stuff, good I'm glad all these businesses have chosen not to do business. The only reason why Chik Fila won is because America is fat and addicted to greasy ass chicken. I say let them have the law and I will laugh when their state loses money because they are bigots. I will dance in their tears and laugh at their loss.

 

[WayneDougan]

I really liked this. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean it's not fun to make fun of millennials.

Federalist

 

[jamo0001]

Originally posted by qwesley:
The Salesforce and Angie's List CEOs are huge Dem party contributors, two of the largest.

That certainly explains Walmart's stance on the Arkansas version of the bill.

 

[Mashburned]

Cannot stand being labeled a "millenial". They are reason #1 for our lack of privacy, and they continue to beg for less in the name of Facebook likes and e-fame. F them all and the old people that follow their lead because they think they're hip and modern again.

Ooo that article is so right and so infuriating. Well done.

The really F'd up part for millenials in KY (in regards to Social Studies) was that we WERE the redneck South, we just didn't know it at the time.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Same thing with apple. They use basically slave labor, then take a stand on this social issue.

Don't forget the ncaa too. Hilarious to see them demanding change because of something unjust.

It's a bad law. But most the are complaining are guilty of far worse themselves.

 

[Tannerdad]

Doesn't Apple do work in Saudi Arabia? I know they have real tolerance for gays over there.

OT: Harry Reid is a POS and I hope he spends his retirement in misery and pain. That is all.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

They do. Which is hilarious considering I dont see them taking a stand over there.

This post was edited on 4/1 8:57 AM by bigblueinsanity

 

[CATS1945]

Those that call for tolerance are the ones that are least tolerant. I am sick and tired of the minority being the ones who impose their views on the majority. What has this country come to?

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by qwesley:
Chuck, getting insulted by a senile old loser like you that is incapable of typing a rational thought is a badge of honor.

 

[Mashburned]

Originally posted by CATS1945:
Those that call for tolerance are the ones that are least tolerant. I am sick and tired of the minority being the ones who impose their views on the majority. What has this country come to?

This

 

[From-the-stands]

Originally posted by jamo0001:

Originally posted by qwesley:
The Salesforce and Angie's List CEOs are huge Dem party contributors, two of the largest.

That certainly explains Walmart's stance on the Arkansas version of the bill.

Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle was director of Republican Mitch Daniels re-election campaign in 2004, so I have no idea how Qwesley can make that claim with a straight face. He is a regular contributor to Republican political candidates.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

Originally posted by CATS1945:
Those that call for tolerance are the ones that are least tolerant. I am sick and tired of the minority being the ones who impose their views on the majority. What has this country come to?

Hey, whatever makes you feel better about yourself. Those poor persecuted Christians who have tried to force their views on the rest of us for generations. Can't buy alcohol on Sundays. Can't open before church is over. Gotta have forced prayer in school. Gotta have those 10 commandments for all to see. Gotta be at every major sporting event with a megaphone spewing your hate. Yeah you guys would never do anything like that huh? Oh the irony

 

[UKaveman]

It's amazing to me the out and out demagoguery and ignorance that's being perpetrated by the media regarding this subject and the absolute lack of moral courage that we are demonstrating as a country. In fact, gays are not a protected class under current Indiana law so businesses could already deny service on this alone although there is not one instance of this happening. Secondly, the LGBT community is milking several instances of businesses that habitually provide marriage services where the vendor decided not to participate in a gay wedding. Marriage, a sacred institution in the eyes of most religions where those of faith do not believe in marriage in any other way than that between one man and one woman. Now I would agree if a vendor decided not to provide services to a gay person simply for being gay. It's quite another situation altogether for a vendor to say I will not participate in the marriage ceremony of a gay couple because of my absolute belief in the sanctity of marriage and the definition of such as described by my faith. Is there no room for accommodation of someone to not be forced to violate the deeply held convictions regarding marriage???

Common sense no longer applies and moral courage is certainly an anachronistic virtue. God forbid, that someone would rather face ridicule than to demonstrate a sense of conviction. Discrimination is a word that has been so bastardized that most wouldn't know what it truly is. For crying out loud, when will the absolute destruction of the moral fiber of our once great country stop. I hope all you parents are comfortable with your elementary school daughter being forced to share lavatory facilities with a boy who identifies as a girl and declares it his right to use the girls restroom because he feels like he's a girl. My local school board just had to backtrack on their misguided decision to allow this due to the backlash of hundreds of parents. The hysteria that the LGBT community generates leaves no room for compromise or accommodation for many, like me, who believe in live and let live but that it's not simply enough to "tolerate" but instead I must fully embrace the entire movement and ACCEPT stupidity such as I've just described about school bathroom policy.

 

[TransyCat09]

Framing this bill in religious terms shows that the authors of the bill are right for the wrong reason.

Business should have every legal right to do any form of exchange with whomever they choose. If it is because of their religion, fine. If it is because they don't like the color of your shoes, fine also. To me, this is a freedom of association issue that has been clouded by the religion aspects put into the law.

Thought experiment #1: Why couldn't a Klansman force an African- American baker to bake some cakes with inflammatory racists words on it?

Thought experiment #2: If you can be forced to provide services to people against your will, why couldn't you be "conscripted" to work for a business, as long as you were compensated. What is the difference between being forced to bake a cake you don't want to vs being forced to work at a factory you don't want to?

Final question; why do people want to force those that don't like them to work with them? If I walked into a business and they said they hated everything about me, etc. I really wouldn't want to make them. I would just go somewhere else and tell everyone I knew how awful the first place was.

 

[Mashburned]

Amen transy.

 

[UKaveman]

Originally posted by TransyCat09:
Framing this bill in religious terms shows that the authors of the bill are right for the wrong reason.

Business should have every legal right to do any form of exchange with whomever they choose. If it is because of their religion, fine. If it is because they don't like the color of your shoes, fine also. To me, this is a freedom of association issue that has been clouded by the religion aspects put into the law.

Thought experiment #1: Why couldn't a Klansman force an African- American baker to bake some cakes with inflammatory racists words on it?

Thought experiment #2: If you can be forced to provide services to people against your will, why couldn't you be "conscripted" to work for a business, as long as you were compensated. What is the difference between being forced to bake a cake you don't want to vs being forced to work at a factory you don't want to?

Final question; why do people want to force those that don't like them to work with them? If I walked into a business and they said they hated everything about me, etc. I really wouldn't want to make them. I would just go somewhere else and tell everyone I knew how awful the first place was.

Originally posted by TransyCat09:
Framing this bill in religious terms shows that the authors of the bill are right for the wrong reason.

Business should have every legal right to do any form of exchange with whomever they choose. If it is because of their religion, fine. If it is because they don't like the color of your shoes, fine also. To me, this is a freedom of association issue that has been clouded by the religion aspects put into the law.

Thought experiment #1: Why couldn't a Klansman force an African- American baker to bake some cakes with inflammatory racists words on it?

Thought experiment #2: If you can be forced to provide services to people against your will, why couldn't you be "conscripted" to work for a business, as long as you were compensated. What is the difference between being forced to bake a cake you don't want to vs being forced to work at a factory you don't want to?

Final question; why do people want to force those that don't like them to work with them? If I walked into a business and they said they hated everything about me, etc. I really wouldn't want to make them. I would just go somewhere else and tell everyone I knew how awful the first place was.

I'm mostly with you. Your last point is where I don't think I can agree wholeheartedly because I don't think in many instances liking somebody is the issue. The florist in Washington state who determined she didn't want to provide a floral arrangement for a wedding had in fact been selling floral arrangements to either man for years. It was only when they asked her to provide services to a wedding did she object due to religious convictions. The lady claimed she knew the men were gay and it never entered her mind to deny service to them UNTIL they asked her to participate in the wedding ceremony and then she objected. That doesn't sound like she disliked them but that she simply followed her moral conviction but was subsequently punished by the state if the form of a fine by the court. That's why the RFRA is necessary.

 

[jamo0001]

Wasn't she fined $1?

 

[TransyCat09]

Well, frankly, it doesn't matter. If she discriminated against them because she didn't like them or if she just objected to their wedding, her ability to do so should be the same.


And she had to pay $1,001, not $1. The state AG agreed to settle with her if she paid $2,000 in fines and $1 in "fees". She declined and the $1,001 figure came from the presiding judge in the case

 

[TransyCat09]

nm
This post was edited on 4/1 6:02 PM by TransyCat09

 

[jamo0001]

Ah OK, that's where that number came from.

I would assume the $1k wont be the end of it if the couple sues

 

[Deeeefense]

Walmart vetoes Arkansas Freedom of Religion Bill.

Hutchinson caught between the Rock (the religious right) and the Hard Spot (mega corporations). What a tough call for the Gov

Arkansas Freedom of Religion Bill

 

[Willy4UK]

That's why I say let the bill ride. The free market will determine the outcome. My only desire. Make sure businesses fail. No govt help.

 

[UKaveman]

Originally posted by TransyCat09:
Well, frankly, it doesn't matter. If she discriminated against them because she didn't like them or if she just objected to their wedding, her ability to do so should be the same.


And she had to pay $1,001, not $1. The state AG agreed to settle with her if she paid $2,000 in fines and $1 in "fees". She declined and the $1,001 figure came from the presiding judge in the case

From a purely libertarian perspective you are right. But IIRC, Rand Paul got into a significant amount of hot water early in his political career for articulating basically the same sort of thought. If a business determines that it will or will not provide services to individuals for whatever reason, then maybe we should have faith in the public at large to determine whether or not they support that business and its views. We've come a long way from the early 60's that w/o government intervention a business could openly discriminate w/o recrimination of the public at large but nobody seems to believe that we can regulate or punish open discrimination unless government intercedes. But I still have a hard time in saying that this law openly promotes discrimination. It simply provides standing to persons or a business in a court for an action they took based on religious grounds but does not guarantee an outcome. Even if RFRA were in place in Washington state, the aggrieved gay couple could still take the florist to court and it would be up to the court to decide if the florist had a case predicated on religious grounds.

 

[TransyCat09]

Yeah, should have clarified I was speaking from my POV as it relates to the 1st Amendment, not the legal environment as it stands today

 

[Lord_Crow]

No shirt, no shoes, no brown eye, no service.

 

[Willy4UK]

Z, you back as Lord Crow?


So what happens when some black rastafarians are refused services?

 

[AustinTXCat]

Originally posted by Willy4UK:

Z, you back as Lord Crow?

Apparently. Incredible, indeed.

e-Clyde
Ophiuchus
Ziusudra

and perhaps another user ID somewhere in between. Good grief! What the heck is it about this board which attracts these posters like flypaper?

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Originally posted by TransyCat09:
Framing this bill in religious terms shows that the authors of the bill are right for the wrong reason.

Business should have every legal right to do any form of exchange with whomever they choose. If it is because of their religion, fine. If it is because they don't like the color of your shoes, fine also. To me, this is a freedom of association issue that has been clouded by the religion aspects put into the law.

Thought experiment #1: Why couldn't a Klansman force an African- American baker to bake some cakes with inflammatory racists words on it?

Thought experiment #2: If you can be forced to provide services to people against your will, why couldn't you be "conscripted" to work for a business, as long as you were compensated. What is the difference between being forced to bake a cake you don't want to vs being forced to work at a factory you don't want to?

Final question; why do people want to force those that don't like them to work with them? If I walked into a business and they said they hated everything about me, etc. I really wouldn't want to make them. I would just go somewhere else and tell everyone I knew how awful the first place was.

RACK RACK RACK

 

[Lord_Crow]

Through A Glass, Darkly.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by UKaveman:

Now I would agree if a vendor decided not to provide services to a gay person simply for being gay. It's quite another situation altogether for a vendor to say I will not participate in the marriage ceremony of a gay couple because of my absolute belief in the sanctity of marriage and the definition of such as described by my faith. Is there no room for accommodation of someone to not be forced to violate the deeply held convictions regarding marriage???

I think this is the common sense view and it seems to me this could be resolved by amending these bills to state that it would be illegal to deny service or discriminate based on sexual orientation, however in the case of service businesses, if the service would involve participation in a religious activity or event, the owners and/or employees of the business could opt not to provide service at their own discretion.

That would seem to protect everyone.