Politics is usually disgusting but once in a while..

It is absurd, one is a clear-cut case of institutionalized, state created and sanctioned discriminatory actions, and the other is not.

To the topic, keep trying to make "gay rights versus religious rights" the foundational issue of modern American politics. Keep losing votes because reasonable people in the center and elsewhere know better.

 

All those goofy laws were meant to apply ONLY to government. They were never intended to apply to private business.

I have a small business. I don't discriminate. But I'll guarantee you if I wanted to, I would, and you would never know.

 

Interestingly, this is when my forebears began coming here, some involuntarily as debtors prison convicts, some as indentured servants, some as victims of religious persecution, some just came. Every American has similar various elements in their background, invalidating the rationale behind affirmative action of any type for any -chosen- group. Or where's MY affirmative action?

To the topic, walk into a glatt kosher butcher, or a sharia butcher, carrying a pork tenderloin. Demand that they process the loin into chops for you using the same equipment they use every day to process kosher meat. See what happens. Watch no one on Earth give a crap when you get booted out, laugh at you even. Same... exact... thing as Christian bakers declining to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings.

Walk into a Hispanic Catholic owned bakery. Bring small cake ornaments of the Pope being crucified upside down and of a priest with his hands on a child's ass. Demand a cake with the ornaments and the slogan, "The Catholic Church, 2000 years of Tyranny and Human Misery" in icing on top. See what happens, get back to us. Same exact thing.

Walk into your local Bible Book Store. Demand they special order 5 books on Wicca and Satanism from one of their distributors. Get back to us. Same exact thing.

Selective, irrational, overblown outrage and "perpetual offendedness," copyright 2015, American LW.

 

I like the way die hard anti-gay bigots don't even realize that they are now the minority... hilarious.

 

I like the way stuff like the above comes out on forums like PF, evidencing purely emotion-driven "thinking."

 

lets say the indiana law does not facilitate discrimination




what is the compelling problem that the Indiana law addresses?

 

Look, if you have a bar and your religion says that negros are the spawn of Satan and you should have NO dealings with them, then doesn't this law let you refuse to serve them? Conservatives please explain how this is not so, since you all say it doesn't allow discrimination

 

Those private businesses that are 'open to the public' are not allowed to discriminate. A few 'clubs' still get away with discrimination but not private businesses that are open to the public.

I also own a small business.

 

If you want me to regurgitate the legal opinions of lawyers in order to convince you then I would ask you to tell me why the same exact words written by an expert are not enough for you to understand this issue. In reality, your reply is about rhetorical one up man ship in a puerile attempt to attack me while completely disregarding the issue. I don't bite when folks try this type of argument. Try reading the piece, it might explain it to you.

 

'Equality'? You yourself admitted it "tried to change the balance", did it succeed? Not at all. It did not eliminate the tensions in the social sphere of the U.S. The only thing it accomplished was to get us to "hush hush" about it, and pretend that things were alright and peachy. It ended up alienating one minority(the Asians) while putting Whites in the precarious position of wanting to eliminate the law, but when told that they also "benefit" from it, they hesitate.

The Founders knew that you couldn't legislate social solutions and that's why they didn't try. That's why slavery lasted as long as it did, they wanted a true agreement with the South, not something that could be dictated. After the war, the failure of Reconstruction eternally damned the Southern States to economic mediocrity here in the US.

AA is an affront to humanity, it's an affront to African-Americans, it's an affront to what we supposedly believe in: In the equality of all men and women. There's a reason 90% of my generation hates AA. It's because we know that AA is hypocritical, unlawful and weakens our State for the long run.

Darwinism is the Natural way for all humans to live, it is the fairest and best way to grow human society and it enables us to be better in the long run.

 

More importantly, it is a law the contradicts the teachings of the religion upon which it is rationalized.

Either way, I don't care what happens in Indiana. Don't live there; never been there; and can say with about 99.99% certainty I never will go there with or without this law because it is, well Indiana.

 

I'm unaware of any business denying service to gay people merely due to their being gay, the above analogy is not apt. The utterly ignored analogies I proposed earlier in the thread are apt.

 

I asked for your opinion so sorry it offended you.. Then again you are the one that tried to insult me with the Rush Limbaugh comment and then you act offended... Funny (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

We aren't discriminating on the basis of any of those. Gay isn't a race a gender, a place of national origin, or a creed. It is behavior. You can't avoid being born black or in another country, you do not have to engage in homosexual behavior.

Oh and I think I will make that cake for that gay wedding after all. It will be covered in black Icing and covered in red lettering that reads, If you will not repent you will assuredly burn in hell, please turn back. That way you get your cake and I will have done my christian duty for God and to you as dictated in Ezekiel 33

 

`
`
I'm not too sure you know a darn thing about our Founding Fathers other than just to repeat that phrase. The Founding Fathers drew heavily upon English philosopher John Locke in establishing America’s First Principles, most notably the recognition of unalienable rights, the Social Compact, and limited government. To wit;

The constitution is NOT a bible. It does not nor ever was meant to proscribe laws, what it does is prescribe what free people should do to enact laws that allows them to solve their own problems. It is under this principle that the laws of Affirmative Action were enacted. You can argue all you want about their effectiveness but as far as being an "affront to humanity", you are so far off the democratic, constitutional scale, your comments should be given no value whatsoever. Many of the founding fathers were slave owners and considered them as "property" which left them out of any discussion of any supposed social problem that may or may not have existed at the time.

None of this however, has a thing to do with discrimination against homosexual other than being a dodge.
`

 

The only constitutionally protected behavior is political speech and that isn't iron clad these days

 

I gave it to you.

 

Civil rights legislation in the mid-60s and it's still an issue. If you want to be precise, take 50 years off my estimate. You happy now?

 

No actually you didnt. You linked something and ranted about Rush.

 

No one said AA would fix everything but it sure did fix some things. You should be happy it occurred, you got Clarence Thomas out of it. Your logic reminds me of the laws that went on the books in reconstruction that attempted to give slaves a break but were shoved aside to make sure freed slaves got persecuted instead. If you think a bakery can force themselves into a gay wedding by providing a cake, then you might want the limo driver to refuse to drive them to it as well. Or any of the following:

1. Florist asks where the flowers are going, refuse gay wedding but is fine with valentines day.
2. Printer refusing to print invitations.
3. Photographer refuses to take photos.
4. City clerk refuses to give license.
5. Maids refuse to clean up after reception.
6. Cooks refuse to cook.
7. Bar tenders refuse to pour.
8. Tailor refuses to make suit, seamstress refuses dress alterations, store refuses to sell shoes, underwear, socks, etc.
9. Fireman refuses to put out fire at gay wedding fiasco.
10. the list goes on and on and on.

In essence, if this stands, the gay couple could end up not finding a single vendor willing to help them get married. Why is this different than Jim Crow?

 

I do not understand it. 19 other states to include Connecticut, Illinois, Florida etc. have the same law. Yet no outrage. To me this is nothing more than a pick and choose outrage. A I or my state if I am one of the 19 who already have the law, it is good, but if another state does the same thing, it is bad.

Hypocrites one and all. This reminds me of the filibuster and Reid nuclear option, how the Democrats wanted to do away with it and tried time and again. Now in the minority, they think it is the best thing since sex and peanut butter.

Or the debt ceiling votes during Bush II, almost all Democrats voted against raising it only to be all for it during Obama. No core values to either party, each want to be a do what I say party, not what I do party.

Until I see outrage spread evenly across the board, people are just showing how pick and choose politics work. How I, my state, my party can do something and it is great and good. How someone else, state, party can do the same thing and it then I consider it evil.

I can only shake my head in awe and wonder.

 

Apparently, this law has wording that makes it overly broad and is unique. The AR law is similar which is why they are back tracking. It is plain to me that if the intent is not to discriminate then put the language in there. IN lawmakers were warned and they ignored the warnings, now they are paying the price. I find this to be encouraging. No longer can laws get passed in the shadows without it being revealed to the greater society. Since conservatives constantly talk about letting the markets decide, this is a wonderful example that markets can indeed decide. Today, states can no longer decide to discriminate and pass laws that are contrary to popular opinion without paying the price. States rights are now up for scrutiny. Say Texas wanted to do something like this as well. The pushback would be insane and before you knew it, businesses would leave the state and refuse to accept it. Conservatives are once again on the wrong side of history. I hate to tell you folks the truth but the nation is going right past you. You can hide in your churches but when you get out, you have to deal with the rest of us and we are much stronger than you think.

 

It may not be the exact wording, but it shows me the hypocritical part of nature and politics. What is good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander.

 

I think it reflects a growing awareness by the public of all these draconian tea party laws that have been passed. One by one, each of them will be in the cross hairs of public opinion and it appears that the only thing conservative politicians listen to is the power of money. Humanity means nothing to them, only money and the loss of business seems to affect them. Jesus would be proud of us and disgusted with them.

 

This is an example of where simple repeal is more appropriate than having nothing else to offer.