CCorps Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Good for him....and up yours, Gov. Pence. Case in point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Furthermore, this has brought out the entitlement mentality of this activity. Those who don't subscribe to the notion that everyone is entitled to everything have been severely cut down here. I don't know. Those who feel that businesses ought to be entitled to deny service to customers on the basis of sexual orientation haven't exactly had the easiest time in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCorps Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't know. Those who feel that businesses ought to be entitled to deny service to customers on the basis of sexual orientation haven't exactly had the easiest time in this thread. You're telling me that a business shouldn't be entitled to make decisions for itself? I think people are confused as to what a business is. There was a post above that summarized the issue very well; race is protected. At the moment, for better or worse, orientation is not. Someday, it will be. And should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't know. Those who feel that businesses ought to be entitled to deny service to customers on the basis of sexual orientation haven't exactly had the easiest time in this thread. I am for the liberty of an entity who chooses to discriminate based on religious beliefs having a basis to have a day in court to state their case under precedent. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean they win, it means they retain the same rights and liberties as the rest of us. Anything less is discrimination. Liberty and freedom from government intrusion is the same right among all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamMan Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 The lack of liberals to rationalize past name-calling and emotional appeals is crazy. I saw a Facebook status from an active participant in the activity in which someone presented a completely logical rebuttal and the thread was ended with name-calling and ridiculousness on this person's part. If that's the DCI representation on this issue...good luck. Less emotion, more logic. More realism. Yup. That is exactly what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't know. Those who feel that businesses ought to be entitled to deny service to customers on the basis of sexual orientation haven't exactly had the easiest time in this thread. Thank you. And to suffer or rejoice in the decision as any other group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamMan Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Having lived there, I agree. This is a complete and total non-issue to DCI. Period. Some people live their entire lives looking for & worrying about the boogeyman & spending way too much time worrying about everyone else. For God sakes...its 2015...no business, especially a small business is going to refuse to take customers money. Edited March 31, 2015 by FlamMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCorps Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Yup. That is exactly what they do. Every single argument against this law is couched in emotion, not logic. Period. This thread is no different. That's because there is no logical appeal against this law. Mostly because those with the loudest voices refuse to acknowledge reality and are much more content to live on buzzwords and media hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 You're telling me that a business shouldn't be entitled to make decisions for itself? I think people are confused as to what a business is. There was a post above that summarized the issue very well; race is protected. At the moment, for better or worse, orientation is not. Someday, it will be. And should be. Were the lunch-counter sit-in protesters of the late 1950s-early 1960s confused as to what a business is? Race was not a protected class before 1964. Would you have been on the side of the businesses' rights to make their own decisions then? "Someday, discrimination on the basis of race will be illegal, but for now, I have to side with a business' right to discriminate against Blacks"? Because for many of this thread's contributors, the same principles apply here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 It's funny how 'tolerance' can have such negative connotations for people in these discussions, when it's really such a low bar to expect. You don't have to love everyone. You don't even have to like everyone. You just need to tolerate them. That's it. Tolerate. "allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference." Negative connotations? Maybe that's because some (many?) refuse to see "tolerance" from both perspectives. You only see one side and refuse the other. That's perhaps why the tolerance idea is met with a negative response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts