GUARDLING 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. Youre right someday it will be and should be. THE TIME IS NOW ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 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. Really, the letter signed by 30 law professors (linked from this thread many pages ago) arguing against the law with multiple case citations was just emotion? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Am I missing something? I was assuming the baker was a private businessperson. As such he/she is not providing a public service. i WILL KEEP REPEATING IT...................Then the business should post their feeling on the subject and at least let their patrons know. seems fair 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 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. Your statement is unclear. Didn't these entities you mention have "the same rights and liberties as the rest of us" as regards their ability to discriminate before this law was passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Please tell me how that will fly if the baker was refusing to provide services to a black family just because of their race. G'head...in the end, it's the same thing. Because, as I have now stated three times in this thread, I don't see civil rights and gay rights as equivalent causes. Now excuse me as I go search for my fire retardant clothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I think you may be missing something. Even as a private entity, the bakery is a public accommodation. No matter how much the baker hates, say, people of Italian descent, she is not allowed to deny Italians or Italian-Americans service on that basis, because her bakery is a public accommodation and national origin is a protected class. However, both federally and in most states, including Indiana, sexual orientation is not a protected class (for purposes of public accommodations). Not yet. So she is legally allowed to discriminate against gays in Indiana. But until last week, not if her bakery was in Indianapolis, which has adopted its own non-discrimination laws. The new Indiana state law would trump any local ordinance, and many people feel it gives the baker a new excuse to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation: she is now able to refuse service to heterosexuals if she claims that serving them would infringe upon her fundamental religious beliefs. She still can't discriminate against Italian-Americans, though, because federal law trumps state law in that respect. Thank you. I learned something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 i WILL KEEP REPEATING IT...................Then the business should post their feeling on the subject and at least let their patrons know. seems fairWould a cross work? Never mind I was baiting you. Yours is an interesting idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrownBariDad Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Sigh -- Is it June yet? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Would a cross work? Never mind I was baiting you. Yours is an interesting idea. If a business can make this decision based on belief then a patron should have that same right. Wanna bet what wins out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Because, as I have now stated three times in this thread, I don't see civil rights and gay rights as equivalent causes. Now excuse me as I go search for my fire retardant clothing. wanna explain? Just curious. Unless you are among the few of misguided who still think this a choice. Not baiting or judging you in particular but as you said you have said this a few times but haven't explained why you think this. Come to think of it maybe this might be a bad can of worms...you can PM if you rather. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts