Remember that time when passing a law ended asshattery?

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

I didn't either. 

 

This business in Indiana is pretty interesting and a bit upsetting.  And the bill they drafted... Well, I can't exactly find a huge beef with it. 

 

https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf

 

A small business has the right to refuse  service based on sexual orientation.  That's fine.  It's privately owned and operated. 

 

Whether I agree with it is irrelevant. Personally, I find that by doing so, you lop off part of your revenue.  For a small business, that's silly.

 

But they aren't my values, so I wont judge.

 

So here's the speaking topic:

 

Would you rather the government step in on behalf of the homosexual community and force small businesses to open their doors? And in not doing so, would result in a broken law on the business's behalf?

 

Or rather, would you like to see small businesses given freedom to refuse service to whomever they choose?

 

[Priory_of_Sion]

I've always found this SC case relevant. 

[Belesarius]

All these religious protection laws are the last gasp of the bigots. The Supreme court is going to rule that gay marriage is legal and the religious right is trying to keep saying but we don't want to deal with teh gheys because they are icky.  I hope Indiana leaves the law as it is.  And then I hope they loose thousands of jobs to other states from it. And that other states boycott them.  Let them do what they want. Then reap the motherfucking consequences.

Also...  a business is not a person.  Refuse service to women?  Refuse service to blacks?  Chinese?  Gays? 

 

 

Edited to avoid word games.

[Donward]

I was supportive of gay marriage here in Washington state (no, seriously and I can explain why later) until the main gay marriage activists here (The Stranger, etc) started publicly declaring that it was payback time when it was passed.

I don't see the point in antagonizing a sizeable and law abiding portion of the community and making martyrs out of them (when being martyrs is their thing) when you can just allow a couple decades of societal evolution to take place.

[Xlucine]

On a semi-related topic, was racial segregation enforced by law or just by business preference? By semi-related, I admit that US race relations is a topic I know nothing about so they could be completely unrelated for all I know

[Priory_of_Sion]

On a semi-related topic, was racial segregation enforced by law or just by business preference? By semi-related, I admit that US race relations is a topic I know nothing about so they could be completely unrelated for all I know

Both. Most southern states had "Jim Crow" laws which enforced segregation while many businesses also had their own ways to enforce it. The Heart of Atlanta Motel trial pretty much put an end to businesses legally refusing to serve blacks. 

[Donward]

Both.

[Sturgeon]

The Indiana law is on the wrong side of history.

 

Boy does this sentence rub me the wrong way in a historiographical sense.

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

The Indiana law is on the wrong side of history. 

Which side, exactly? Which part of history are we comparing?

[Belesarius]

Boy does this sentence rub me the wrong way in a historiographical sense.

In deference to your historiographical sense I will change the wording.

 

Also:

 

 

 

 

 

And a summation of why the Indiana law is different that I stole from a FARK thread on the matter: " the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA-and most state RFRAs-do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina's; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: "A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has "free exercise" rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year's decision in  http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/" style="color: rgb(0, 89, 140); text-decoration: none;">Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court's five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees' statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business's "free exercise" right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there's a lot of evidence that the new wave of "religious freedom" legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision,  http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elane-photography-llc-v-willock/" style="color: rgb(0, 89, 140); text-decoration: none;">Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple's wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in "public accommodations" on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico's RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state's Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply "because the government is not a party." "

[xthetenth]

A small business has the right to refuse  service based on sexual orientation.  That's fine.  It's privately owned and operated.

 

I personally tend to feel that a legal protection of offering service publicly and then refusing that same service to some people based on who they are has little value besides protecting prejudice. A lot of arguments in favor of such laws seem to conflate that with having the right not to offer a service, but that's already covered. For example, it's not like in other states you can go into a delicatessen that keeps kosher and force them to make a ham and cheese. Then again I am of the opinion that a wedding is a wedding, and it really doesn't matter other than that who the consenting adults are.

[Sturgeon]

In deference to your historiographical sense I will change the wording.

 

Also:

 

 

 

This image cites GLAAD.org. What is GLAAD.org? From their website:

 

I feel it is bad form to cite these sorts of demagogic sources. If we are going to discuss topics like this in the future, I sincerely hope we do so without reaching for propaganda.

[Donward]

Just for the record guys. What the actual ramifications of all of this has been - so far - complaining about bad service delivered by florists and wedding cake designers. Which in all honesty... is kind of gay. Not exactly the stuff of Selma or Little Rock.

[xthetenth]

So what do you feel is an acceptable level of legally protected prejudice and bigotry?

[Donward]

I feel the accepted level is not siccing the Attorney General of the State of Washington to destroy a small business owner just because she happens to be a Christian. That's the level of bigotry that I'd like to see.

[Donward]

And for the record, all of these businesses as far as I knew were happy to do business with gays on literally every occasion save weddings. That's not enough of a "problem" to make a federal case out of this and to antagonize and criminalize the belief system of 50 -100 million law abiding Christians (or whatever the number is).

Win with your ideas. Leave the government out of this case just for once.

[Sturgeon]

So what do you feel is an acceptable level of legally protected prejudice and bigotry?

 

C'mon guys, don't make my job harder.

[Belesarius]

This image cites GLAAD.org. What is GLAAD.org? From their website:

 

But is the image wrong?  Is the information presented in the image factually incorrect? 

If the image is wrong and the people backing this bill are not flaming bigots who hate teh gheys, then fine.  If the people who basically wrote the bill are raving bigots, then I think that is relevant to the conversation.

 

I'm not religious.  I'll put that out there.  Not that anyone who knows me even a little should be surprised by that.  And I have about zero tolerence for anyone who spreads hatred in the name of their god.  Be that Fred Phelps, ISIS lunatics or any other manner of extremists.  I think religious extremism is a cancer in modern society that rational people should speak out against at almost every turn.

 

The laws in GA, TX and IN are all different from the various other similar religious protection laws in that they give those states the ability to use religion as a defense for refusal of service.  The protection of your beliefs end where they begin harming others.  And denying service can be very harmful.  What if a grocery store owner in a small town decided that his religious beliefs say he won't sell groceris toa poor gay couple in a town?  Stuff like that...  I know people who's financial situation precludes them going far from where they are to get groceries. Frankly, so do you Oliphant.  People that have in the past hung out on this very teamspeak.  I don't want them denied service in the pissant little town that they live in because the buisness decides that they won't serve them because they are one of those scary gay people who has an agenda.

 

Anyhow, YMMV.

 

Edit:  I may have to check out of this one...  I have a lot of friends who are gay, and who have hung out on this very teamspeak.  I absolutely loathe preachers who use their religion as an excuse to spread hate and fear.  Anyone who wants to deny them service because they are gay is below pond scum to me.  Also, this has been a settled issue here in Canada for a long time. 

[xthetenth]

I feel the accepted level is not siccing the Attorney General of the State of Washington to destroy a small business owner just because she happens to be a Christian. That's the level of bigotry that I'd like to see.

 

Because she decided that the offer of services would arbitrarily be declined to people because she disapproves of their personal lives, not because she is a Christian. I'd support her saying she'd bake a wedding cake but it's going to have a man and a woman on that because that's what she bakes. It'd be petty and obnoxious but doing that wouldn't open nearly as large a can of worms.

 

Why/do you feel that people should get rights to arbitrarily extend and retract services offered to people for who or what they are outside their interaction with the business owner? Would you still feel that way if the business owner held a regional monopoly, and if not, how do you propose dealing with the current precedent regarding closely held companies?

 

 

And for the record, all of these businesses as far as I knew were happy to do business with gays on literally every occasion save weddings. That's not enough of a "problem" to make a federal case out of this and to antagonize and criminalize the belief system of 50 -100 million law abiding Christians (or whatever the number is).

Win with your ideas. Leave the government out of this case just for once.

 

If a wedding is a wedding, a wedding cake is a wedding cake. If a wedding is not a wedding in that state, than that would be a good place to focus efforts, but once a wedding is a wedding a wedding cake is a wedding cake.

 

And last I checked, what a huge amount of Christianity represents itself is not the same as this. A great many people believe in a loving god and a messiah who encourage them to do good works for humanity, not one where people are encouraged to cast stones. If this were not the case I would be considerably less annoyed with smug self-righteous atheist types, and would likely agree with them more often.

 

C'mon guys, don't make my job harder.

 

Sorry, was trying to phrase it in a non-inflammatory manner. Probably failed, but I did want to see why he felt that way, and make a discussion of it.

[Sturgeon]

But is the image wrong?  Is the information presented in the image factually incorrect? 

If the image is wrong and the people backing this bill are not flaming bigots who hate teh gheys, then fine.  If the people who basically wrote the bill are raving bigots, then I think that is relevant to the conversation.

I don't know, Bele. I don't know, because what you cited is a clear piece of propaganda with no positive or negative correlation to reality. I'm not trying to be a hardass on this; don't you think it leaves a bit to be desired to represent your position with a piece of trite, poorly-source propaganda than something more substantial?

 

 

I'm not religious.  I'll put that out there.  Not that anyone who knows me even a little should be surprised by that.  And I have about zero tolerence for anyone who spreads hatred in the name of their god.  Be that Fred Phelps, ISIS lunatics or any other manner of extremists.  I think religious extremism is a cancer in modern society that rational people should speak out against at almost every turn.

Do you feel this forum is a good place for this kind of podium-thumping? Man, everybody's got different political views, that's why politics and religion aren't subjects for polite dinner conversation.

 

 

The laws in GA, TX and IN are all different from the various other similar religious protection laws in that they give those states the ability to use religion as a defense for refusal of service.  The protection of your beliefs end where they begin harming others.  And denying service can be very harmful.  What if a grocery store owner in a small town decided that his religious beliefs say he won't sell groceris toa poor gay couple in a town?  Stuff like that...  I know people who's financial situation precludes them going far from where they are to get groceries. Frankly, so do you Oliphant.  People that have in the past hung out on this very teamspeak.  I don't want them denied service in the pissant little town that they live in because the buisness decides that they won't serve them because they are one of those scary gay people who has an agenda.

 

You know this isn't a good argument to make, man.

 

Anyhow, YMMV.

 

Edit:  I may have to check out of this one...  I have a lot of friends who are gay, and who have hung out on this very teamspeak.  I absolutely loathe preachers who use their religion as an excuse to spread hate and fear.  Anyone who wants to deny them service because they are gay is below pond scum to me.  Also, this has been a settled issue here in Canada for a long time. 

You are getting too excited. Calm down, Bele.

[xthetenth]

I don't know, Bele. I don't know, because what you cited is a clear piece of propaganda with no positive or negative correlation to reality. I'm not trying to be a hardass on this; don't you think it leaves a bit to be desired to represent your position with a piece of trite, poorly-source propaganda than something more substantial?

 

Being a picture with names listed, it makes it pretty trivial to look up the claims made. There are probably better ways to put the information though, and in the process of due diligence they'd probably show up, although some of this seems to only be covered in bitterly partisan sources.

 

For example, I can find confirmation (phrased differently of course) from the other side of the aisle of Micah Clark getting involved against the horrors of a girl in a tuxedo: http://onenewsnow.com/education/2009/03/17/school-caves-to-tuxedo-clad-lesbian#.VRy2gJNdyao

 

If I can't find non-partisan coverage of this sort of thing, I'll try to cite sources whose spin doesn't agree with my post just so it's clear I'm arguing with the source and not the spin, and feel free to remind me of that.

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

I hope Bele gets as excited over every social injustice as this one. 

[xthetenth]

I hope Bele gets as excited over every social injustice as this one. 

 

I kind of do too, but that sort of thing really isn't good for the blood pressure.

[Sturgeon]

Being a picture with names listed, it makes it pretty trivial to look up the claims made. There are probably better ways to put the information though, and in the process of due diligence they'd probably show up, although some of this seems to only be covered in bitterly partisan sources.

 

But was the poasting gud? That is the question.

[Belesarius]

I realize the source of the image is ultra partisan, but we both know that the best propaganda is true.  I haven't found that imaged debunked anywhere I've seen it posted, and frankly, it is all over the place. I'm at work and my net is heavily filtered, so I'm limited in what I can do here.  That being said, I think the point that the image makes is germane to the discussion.

 

As for my blood pressure, it may be high, but frankly, it has nothing to do with the discussion here.  I suspect that most of the people on this board are not raving religious lunatics or uninformed on the issue. The issue may not be all that high on the radar of some people here, but whatever.

 

I'll take Oliphant's criticism of the source of the image as valid, and will endeavor to post better sources for information in the future, but I think that the information that the image conveys is still on point.