• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Indiana, the RFRA, and the backlash

Conservative logic is the worst. People should be able to discriminate in hiring but screw you if you can't get a job.
 
It's not about the cases where "good" people decide to help out, it's about the cases where bakers and florists decide not to help out. Under your logic the 14th Amendment is completely unnecessary.

Also what state in the deep south do you live in where gay people can get married?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
it's not a false premise unless someone can prove otherwise. why would a business need such a protection?
Click to expand...

ITC, if they don't want to serve gay people and the market supports that, then they will go out of business because capitalism.
 
The North Carolina bill waters it down even further by requiring only a "burden" on the person's right and not a "substantial burden" like required in Indiana.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
How is that any different than if on the day of the guy is like "oh, this is for a Wake fan? forget it, no cake, losers"? People already choose not to do business with other people for a million different reasons on a daily basis, usually personality conflicts.
Click to expand...

I don't. I'll sell an industrial air filter to anyone that wants to buy one. He/she can be gay, be a Dook fan, be a libertarian, be a [name redacted] fan or be all 4. I don't care one bit, I just want to sell as many of my product as possible.
 
From the article I already posted, this evidence as to the Indiana legislature's intent.

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, 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.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down.
Click to expand...
 
Somehow believe that was a much larger and actual problem that needed to be addressed rather than a few isolated instances of someone's feelngs being hurt because someone didn't want to help them on their special day.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
How is that any different than if on the day of the guy is like "oh, this is for a Wake fan? forget it, no cake, losers"? People already choose not to do business with other people for a million different reasons on a daily basis, usually personality conflicts.
Click to expand...

The difference is that people generally don't refuse business when they're open to the public on the grounds that someone has chosen to engage in some particular action. For instance, I seriously doubt anyone would do what you're proposing while people openly and proudly reject service to gay people.
 
Conservatives and Pence have badly mishandled gay issues and desperate late stands will leave them in much worse shape had they played their hand better earlier. If they had accepted civil unions earlier, they wouldn't have been dragged down by marriage equality. Don't ask don't tell was repealed with 65 votes in the Senate and 70% approval in 2010. Should have been a clue about where the country was headed. The Tea Party peaked at the same time, so they misread the signs.

Without the specific protections for gays, IN's version is extremely thinly veiled vehicle for marginalizing gays. ENDA passed the Senate with 64 votes (ie double digit GOP votes) in 2013. House won't flip in 2016, but Senate probably does. House will stonewall, but GOP would be hurt by a filibuster. No doubt there will be constitutional marriage ban and RFRA planks in 2016. Those won't exist in 2020.

Pence is a clown. He thought this law would give him street cred with social conservatives. Obviously didn't talk to any CEOs and didn't anticipate any backlash. AZ lost a Super Bowl because of failure to recognize MLK's birthday and NCAA won't allow South Carolina to host NCAA tournament games because of the stars and bars on the state flag. Arkansas can pass this law with no gay protections, but that has zero effect on Super Bowls, F4s, S16s, and conference championships in football or hoops. Pence needs to retreat or go into full Ben Carson prison sex mode.
 
Junebug said:
I'll take that as "I have nothing other than my assumptions about redneck Midwesterners."
Click to expand...

Sure and common sense. If it quacks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, and smells like a duck I'm going to say it's a duck even if the owner doesn't come out and tell me "oh this is Harry he's a duck."
 
Either way, thanks all for the civil discourse as I get to spend time considering the points you have made.
 
HowardDeanSux said:
I live in a small town in the "Deep South", several gay friends whom have married, and this has not been a problem. Good bakers and good florists provided services for their wedding. Amazingly, none were forced to do so.
Click to expand...
So the government should not protect its citizens from discrimination?

You realize that LGBTQ folks are not currently a protected class under Indiana state law, right?
 
HowardDeanSux said:
Somehow believe that was a much larger and actual problem that needed to be addressed rather than a few isolated instances of someone's feelngs being hurt because someone didn't want to help them on their special day.
Click to expand...

So what was the larger and actual problem? I'm serious, are there a lot of lawsuits pending in Indiana against small businesses by gay people? Is it clogging the courts and slowing judicial economy? What was the bigger issue?
 
DeacWatcher said:
I don't. I'll sell an industrial air filter to anyone that wants to buy one. He/she can be gay, be a Dook fan, be a libertarian, be a [name redacted] fan or be all 4. I don't care one bit, I just want to sell as many of my product as possible.
Click to expand...

Right, which is most business people's stance, hence why this is mostly a non-issue. Those without that mindset are usually not as successful in business, but they still do it nonetheless, which is their choice.
 
Junebug said:
I personally welcome that day. I think it will help Christians to take the promise of free exercise for all religions seriously.
Click to expand...

I do too if that's what will happen. I think it's probably unlikely though given the contempt the GOP has shown for many religions other than Christianity though. I hope I'm wrong.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The difference is that people generally don't refuse business when they're open to the public on the grounds that someone has chosen to engage in some particular action. For instance, I seriously doubt anyone would do what you're proposing while people openly and proudly reject service to gay people.
Click to expand...

So you never adjust your business habits based on customer service interactions? If an employee of a store or a waiter at a restaurant is an asshole to you, you never decide not to patronize that place again? People move business from one company to another a thousand times a day for a thousand different personalit-related reasons.

ETA: fuck, go on Google reviews or Yelp and look to see how many different people disparage a business because they thought the owner or employee was a jerk or something similar. Should that be outlawed as well?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
So you never adjust your business habits based on customer service interactions? If an employee of a store or a waiter at a restaurant is an asshole to you, you never decide not to patronize that place again? People move business from one company to another a thousand times a day for a thousand different personalit-related reasons.

ETA: fuck, go on Google reviews or Yelp and look to see how many different people disparage a business because they thought the owner or employee was a jerk or something similar. Should that be outlawed as well?
Click to expand...

Well in your hypothetical I have access to all businesses since they're all going to serve me since I'm a heterosexual male. If I like companies A and B and I want something and I'm gay this bill allows company A to remove itself as an option from my choices. These aren't really similarly situated positions at all. Nobody is saying gay people can't go somewhere else, people are saying that a business shouldn't be permitted to force gay people to go somewhere else because they disagree with something they're doing.

Your second paragraph doesn't really have anything to do with this so I'm not even going to address it.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Well in your hypothetical I have access to all businesses since they're all going to serve me since I'm a heterosexual male. If I like companies A and B and I want something and I'm gay this bill allows company A to remove itself as an option from my choices. These aren't really similarly situated positions at all. Nobody is saying gay people can't go somewhere else, people are saying that a business shouldn't be permitted to force gay people to go somewhere else because they disagree with something they're doing.

Your second paragraph doesn't really have anything to do with this so I'm not even going to address it.
Click to expand...

So, in your mind, not only does everyone have a right to healthcare, but now they have a right to all sorts of business as well? There is no obligation for the business to function. If there is no florist in a particular town, the consumer does not have a right to demand one be created.

And yes, my second paragraph has a lot to do with this. You are saying that a business should not able to remove itself from commerce with respect to potential customers because of the behavior of those customers. But, you are presumably okay with a customer removing itself from commerce with respect to a business because of the behavior of the business. So why should one be outlawed and not the other? You are allowed to boycott ChickFilA because they have different beliefs than you, so why shouldn't ChickFilA be allowed to boycott you because you have different beliefs than them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top