Gay/Lesbian people are treated pretty well in America, better than me. I don't get special treatment, i don't have groups of females wanting to be friends with my PTSD ass.
They have it so bad... Ever been to Iraq?
it's discrimination. I dont give a flying hell wether its the persons buisness or not, they shouldnt be allowed to turn away anyone unless its against the law to serve them. It makes the person feel unaccepted in our society and thats not something im going to support.
#FREE MARKET MOTHERFUCKERS
But seriously, it's the choice of the damned business owners who they provide services to and not to. I don't … morecare if they refuse people because they are clowns, lawyers, doctors, teachers, gays, whites, blacks, straights, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholic Priests, tall people, short people, men, women, poor people, rich people, people with mohawks, people with bowl cuts, people who enjoy dancing to Michael Jackson's "Thriller" while ordering their Subway sandwich, people under the age of 18, people over the age of 30, people with white hair, people in chicken costumes, or any other ridiculous reason they have. It is their business, and as a privately owned, funded, and organized company, it is well within their legal and economic rights to fuck themselves over and drive people away from their business. I know people don't like it because it lets people be discriminatory in their own private land und… [view original content]
There's all the difference in the world of physical distress and emotional distress. Physical distress, caused by actions such as murder, assault, and rape, have physical and health-oriented ramifications regarding that person's continued existence. Emotional distress does not directly cause physical, health-related harm to an individual. People may not like being turned away (and with good reason), but acting like a child and trying to get daddy (the government) to force them to give you your cake/sandwich/whatever it is you are want is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, it sucks that people will be turned away, but if they have a problem with it, get people to boycott the business with them.
Economic punishment from the public > corporal punishment from the goverment
it's discrimination. I dont give a flying hell wether its the persons buisness or not, they shouldnt be allowed to turn away anyone unless i… morets against the law to serve them. It makes the person feel unaccepted in our society and thats not something im going to support.
I'm a Christian but i believe that i have no right to judge someone by their sexual orientation, we should just treat homosexuals as what they are, people like everyone else
Someone correct me if i'm wrong but nowhere in the bible it says that you should hate and avoid homosexual people, it only says it's wrong, it's a sin, and everyone has sinned in their life, actually the bible states "Do to others as you would have them do to you" and since gays are people then you have to treat them as you'd like them to treat you, i'm just talking about the religions that believe in the bible here of course, i don't know which are the rules that other religions have about homosexuals.
100% against it. Personal morality should not decide if you can provide service to people. Next, we'll be hearing that pro-life business owners can kick people out if they have had an abortion.
Also, I believe that freedom of religion goes too far when it affects others.
I can smell a hate crime from a mile away. I'm all down for those wanting to express and uphold their thoughts, views and beliefs in this world. I'm a Catholic man and since the moment I was conceived, I was taught homosexuality was a sin and God would punish those that slept with the same sex. I believed that; I'm ashamed to say for years, these were my thoughts but because it was all I ever knew.
Seeing things like this angers me now because my brother and one of my dearest friends is gay and both are in wonderful relationships. It pains me to see them being discriminated against because of who they are. Religion is what makes people go so blind with hate and forget the REAL reason behind it. Being a 'Christian' is supposed to love your fellow man; lessons about God loving ALL his children and in the end, only he will judge you and make that final decision. Everyone wants to wave scriptures and quotes in my face. That's fine but is that REALLY going to solve this ongoing problem? If GOD made these individuals who are gay, then he loves them.
Yes, these owners have the right to deny homosexuals services. That's fine. But soon, you'll get others denying individuals for other reasons: because your black, your hispanic, disabled, a different religion, etc. History is repeating itself. Here in California, the state that I live in, is ACTUALLY thinking about passing a vote about killing anyone that is gay. Are you kidding me...genocide? Because of your orientation? We had segregation of blacks and whites not that long ago; the murder of millions of Jews and now this because you're gay?
This is ridiculous. Stupid, ignorant and silly. We should be focusing on OTHER issues here in America. The World. Anything but THIS again.
Truth. This is just enabled bigotry and cruelty. So a parent can sue a teacher who stops their kids from bullying a gay child? Bullying is the type of thing that leads to depression and suicide, especially among gay youth. Are the Indiana lawmakers that stupid or just heartless dickheads?
So, as above, the law has been limited a bit. But it's still pretty shitty.
Doctors should not have the right to refuse service to anyone based on religious grounds. Refusing to give someone HIV medication is simply horrific.
I can smell a hate crime from a mile away. I'm all down for those wanting to express and uphold their thoughts, views and beliefs in this wo… morerld. I'm a Catholic man and since the moment I was conceived, I was taught homosexuality was a sin and God would punish those that slept with the same sex. I believed that; I'm ashamed to say for years, these were my thoughts but because it was all I ever knew.
Seeing things like this angers me now because my brother and one of my dearest friends is gay and both are in wonderful relationships. It pains me to see them being discriminated against because of who they are. Religion is what makes people go so blind with hate and forget the REAL reason behind it. Being a 'Christian' is supposed to love your fellow man; lessons about God loving ALL his children and in the end, only he will judge you and make that final decision. Everyone wants to wave scriptures and quotes in my face. That's fine but is that … [view original content]
It sounds really dumb, and not wise in a business sense. Who doesn't love supporting a business of homophobic bigots?
It wouldn't even make sense- it's not like people wear neon signs saying "I'M GAY!". You couldn't tell, and it's impolite to ask someone if they are gay or straight in general if you don't know them well. I also think it would be kind of awkward to prove.
Religious freedom is one thing, but discriminating against people is awful and shouldn't be allowed.
If it's a matter of refusing service on religious grounds, somebody should go open up a restaurant and say "Gays Welcome - but no Jews." Let's see how well that goes over.
How is it not fair? Have you heard what is going on in Syria/Iraq? You think we should be worried about this? Some stupid ass law that doesn't mean shit anyways, that will be fought over for the end of time, people are dying over there right now for being Gay.
My husband has served a term in Iraq, and he says he would gladly do another term if it meant never receiving homophobia again in his life.
Also, you fucking chose to go to Iraq. Sorry to be shitty, but it's really not a fair comparison.
People may not like being turned away (and with good reason), but acting like a child and trying to get daddy (the government) to force them to give you your cake/sandwich/whatever it is you are want is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, it sucks that people will be turned away, but if they have a problem with it, get people to boycott the business with them.
I could say all the same that people who want killers to be put in prison for their own safety are "crying for their daddy". It is not ridiculous at all, it's justice. People will not be turned away for these kinds of differences, and if they are it is a crime against innocent. Where does it stop? Next thing you know they'll decline their healthcare!
Economical punishments from the public will not ensure that gay people will get the service they deserve, it is merely revenge. Actual laws requiring businesses to give everyone an equal service and corporal punishments for those who discriminate people for their race/sexuality will solve the problem.
There's all the difference in the world of physical distress and emotional distress. Physical distress, caused by actions such as murder, as… moresault, and rape, have physical and health-oriented ramifications regarding that person's continued existence. Emotional distress does not directly cause physical, health-related harm to an individual. People may not like being turned away (and with good reason), but acting like a child and trying to get daddy (the government) to force them to give you your cake/sandwich/whatever it is you are want is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, it sucks that people will be turned away, but if they have a problem with it, get people to boycott the business with them.
Economic punishment from the public > corporal punishment from the goverment
I live in the middle of no where. If the bomb hits me then the person dropping the bomb either has really bad aim or they are trying to kill our corn. Lol.
But I wasn't arguing with you, I pretty much agreed with you actually
Pretty sure that theres lots of people wanting/willing to help you out with your PTSD. Such as friends, family, support groups, therapists and etc.
People treat you like episode four Kenny if you want the truth.
George don't you think you had enough to drink?
What is wrong with George, why is he always starting a fight?
You invited George? God Jessica, doesn't want to be around him, she says he makes her feel uncomfortable.
George you are so embarrassing. I can't take you anywhere without you causing some scene.
Okay sorry but you cant pull that card dude.
Gay/Lesbian people are treated pretty well in America, better than me.
Not as muc… moreh as they should be generally, the south especially treats gay people bad and also they probably dont get treated better than you.. do business refuse to serve you because you've been to war? I highly doubt it, im not saying you dont have your own stuggles but please dont compare going to war with being gay.
i don't have groups of females wanting to be friends
Thats just a terrible stereotype that isnt really true about gay people
with my PTSD ass.
Pretty sure that theres lots of people wanting/willing to help you out with your PTSD. Such as friends, family, support groups, therapists and etc.
Ever been to Iraq?
No, but going to war in the United States is something you're willing to do, you know that you are going into a war and will see some terrible shit. Gay p… [view original content]
If it's a matter of refusing service on religious grounds, somebody should go open up a restaurant and say "Gays Welcome - but no Jews." Let's see how well that goes over.
As I said before, there is all the difference in the world between being a murderer (who has committed an act that causes direct physical harm) rather than emotional distress of being discriminated against. A murderer has ended somebody's life, while a homophobic business owner has refused somebody cake.
The entire point I was trying to get at was that a free market would technically make it possible for discrimination to occur, but the socio-economic backfire from the public against those who do discriminate would heavily discourage the action in the first place. Government laws regulating business interfere with the existence and function of a free market, and are highly unnecessary for ensuring the people are given equal service. Corporal punishment doesn't solve the problem: it only adds new ones. By throwing people who refuse to provide a service (that they don't have to provide to anyone in the first place) in jail, you are essentially forcing them to conform to your own personal standards.
If a business discriminates, there will be outcry from the public, so any business owner in their right mind who actually wants to keep their reputation wouldn't dare shun somebody service for frivolous reasons.
I said it before, and I'l say it again:
Economic punishment from the public >>> corporal punishment from the government
People may not like being turned away (and with good reason), but acting like a child and trying to get daddy (the government) to force them… more to give you your cake/sandwich/whatever it is you are want is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, it sucks that people will be turned away, but if they have a problem with it, get people to boycott the business with them.
I could say all the same that people who want killers to be put in prison for their own safety are "crying for their daddy". It is not ridiculous at all, it's justice. People will not be turned away for these kinds of differences, and if they are it is a crime against innocent. Where does it stop? Next thing you know they'll decline their healthcare!
Economical punishments from the public will not ensure that gay people will get the service they deserve, it is merely revenge. Actual laws requiring businesses to give everyone an equal service and corporal punishments for those who discriminate people for their race/sexuality will solve the problem.
Lol why not, it's not like they can tell a straight person from a homosexual person. So this law will be pretty useless unless business owners become psychic
there is all the difference in the world between being a murderer (who has committed an act that causes direct physical harm) rather than emotional distress of being discriminated against. A murderer has ended somebody's life, while a homophobic business owner has refused somebody cake.
I used it as an example to make my point stand out, it could be said the same about people "crying to their daddy" when they see someone didn't pay for something they took from a store - that is also not direct physical harm, yet it is a violation of a law and an act of injustice.
Besides, by saying that you basically claim that as long as discrimination does not involve physical harm, no one should prohibit it. Sorry to tell you, but that's pretty stupid. Racism, homophobia and general discrimination come in many shapes, forms and sizes.
the socio-economic backfire from the public against those who do discriminate would heavily discourage the action in the first place.
If Indiana could pass a law that discriminates the gay, I don't think that the majority would disagree with it, and I don't think local businesses would be very harmed from it, considering the law was able to pass.
It would still not give gay people the service they deserve for being regular citizens like any other. Discrimination. Injustice. No other way of putting it.
Corporal punishment doesn't solve the problem: it only adds new ones.
I think you misunderstand the term "free market", the free market doesn't always do the job our law is supposed to make, relying on the public on this matter is irresponsible when it comes to taking human rights away from humans who never chose to be gay.
Corporal punishment will dissuade those who want to discriminate gay people. Because that's one of the purposes of the law, to discourage injustice by punishing those who commit crimes.
Now you said that they don't even have to provide service in the first place. That's true, but if you do choose to give people service, you are NOT allowed to discriminate some and provide service for others, that's a responsibility you have to take when you decide to open a fucking business.
By throwing people who refuse to provide a service (that they don't have to provide to anyone in the first place) in jail, you are essentially forcing them to conform to your own personal standards.
You're right, we are forcing them to conform to our personal standards, just like believing murder is wrong and that people have freedom of speech is also a standard not perceived by every living human being - yet it is still a standard in the constitution. Why? Because it's fucking logical, humane, we are supposed to be caring and understanding of our surroundings if we want to live in a normal society.
As I said before, there is all the difference in the world between being a murderer (who has committed an act that causes direct physical ha… morerm) rather than emotional distress of being discriminated against. A murderer has ended somebody's life, while a homophobic business owner has refused somebody cake.
The entire point I was trying to get at was that a free market would technically make it possible for discrimination to occur, but the socio-economic backfire from the public against those who do discriminate would heavily discourage the action in the first place. Government laws regulating business interfere with the existence and function of a free market, and are highly unnecessary for ensuring the people are given equal service. Corporal punishment doesn't solve the problem: it only adds new ones. By throwing people who refuse to provide a service (that they don't have to provide to anyone in the first place) in jail, you are essential… [view original content]
Lol why not, it's not like they can tell a straight person from a homosexual person. So this law will be pretty useless unless business owners become psychic
Lol why not, it's not like they can tell a straight person from a homosexual person. So this law will be pretty useless unless business owners become psychic
Weird tastes?... I'm pretty sure it would be hard to find a bakery who sells that. And do you really think homosexuals just go around ordering Male genetalia shaped cakes?
Lol why not, it's not like they can tell a straight person from a homophobic person.
Well for example, say someone went into a baker shop and asked for a cake that is shaped like Male Genetalia. What do then.
If it's a matter of refusing service on religious grounds, somebody should go open up a restaurant and say "Gays Welcome - but no Jews." Let's see how well that goes over.
You know, up until this point, I hadn't realized that I was talking to you, AWESOMEO. How've you been, dude?
it could be said the same about people "crying to their daddy" when they see someone didn't pay for something they took from a store - that is also not direct physical harm, yet it is a violation of a law and an act of injustice.
I didn't address property rights in that case, because we hadn't exactly brought it up at that point. The purpose of the government/law is to protect life, liberty, and property. In cases of murder and theft, there is a violation to life and property, respectively. If the government is to force a business owner to provide a product or service to somebody they do not wish to, that is a violation of their liberty, completely going against the entire purpose of the law.
you basically claim that as long as discrimination does not involve physical harm, no one should prohibit it. Sorry to tell you, but that's pretty stupid. Racism, homophobia and general discrimination come in many shapes, forms and sizes.
I think discrimination is pretty stupid, and absolutely pointless, and I do think that people should prohibit it. However, the way to do it is not by making it against the law. We cannot outlaw everything we do not like, as people have basic human rights. To hold somebody legally accountable for violating the basic rights of somebody else (life, liberty, property) is perfectly fine, but to hold somebody legally accountable for doing something discriminatory on their own private property is absolutely ridiculous. Discrimination, if it does not reach a level of violating the right to life (by means of physical harm), liberty (by means of not providing people certain legal abilities in public matters, such as prohibiting gay marriage, which I am completely against), or property, is not enough in my mind to warrant legal repercussions.
If Indiana could pass a law that discriminates the gay, I don't think that the majority would disagree with it, and I don't think local businesses would be very harmed from it, considering the law was able to pass.
The law, if you read it, has no mention of homosexuals or homosexuality. It simply provides grounds for people to refuse services for religious reasons, and defends them in the case of a lawsuit. There has been mass backlash from the public, including many people who live in Indiana, against the law itself. The problem is not the law. The law is justified in affirming the right to choose who you serve. The problem is people misusing that ability to discriminate against others, and that is best met with economic repercussions from the public.
I think you misunderstand the term "free market", the free market doesn't always do the job our law is supposed to make, relying on the public on this matter is irresponsible when it comes to taking human rights away from humans who never chose to be gay.
We don't have a free market. The government regulates businesses and the economy to a great degree. I speak of the free market as something we should implement. For a free market to exist, there must not be government regulations of businesses and the economy, for "regulation" is in this case an antonym of "freedom". I am in favor of moving towards a libertarian, capitalist society where the market (being the public) is free and regulates itself, rather than being regulated by the government.
Now you said that they don't even have to provide service in the first place. That's true, but if you do choose to give people service, you are NOT allowed to discriminate some and provide service for others, that's a responsibility you have to take when you decide to open a fucking business.
That responsibility is purely subjective. Where in the law does it state that businesses are legally required to provide services to all whom request it? I believe this legal responsibility you speak of is pure conjecture, but if I am wrong, please, provide me the evidence.
You're right, we are forcing them to conform to our personal standards, just like believing murder is wrong and that people have freedom of speech is also a standard not perceived by every living human being - yet it is still a standard in the constitution
I agree with you on many of these points. Murder is wrong, discrimination is wrong, people deserve freedom of speech, etc etc. But the execution of these beliefs is where we disagree. I believe murder is wrong because it violates the basic right to life that humans bear, and by violating a right, it is thus deserving of legal repercussions. I believe discrimination is wrong because it inhibits societal progress, but progressing society is not the job of the government: it is the job of the people. The job of the government is to protect our rights, but the job of the people is move the world forward.
In the end, I have great deals of contempt for any business, person, or company that discriminates against people and refuses them services. I believe they are deserving of socio-economic punishment from the people, in the sense that they no longer receive support from customers, clients, and business partners. However, I am also a big believer in the free market. I believe that despite my griefs and contempt with those who commit acts of discrimination in their businesses, it is their right to do so. I may not like what they do on their own property, but I don't particularly like it when people talk about how bad chicken parmesan is either, because goddamn do I love me some chicken parm. I don't like what they have to say, or what they do on their own property that does not violate basic human rights to life, liberty, and property, but so long as I live, I will stand in defense of their right to do/say so without repercussions from the law.
there is all the difference in the world between being a murderer (who has committed an act that causes direct physical harm) rather than em… moreotional distress of being discriminated against. A murderer has ended somebody's life, while a homophobic business owner has refused somebody cake.
I used it as an example to make my point stand out, it could be said the same about people "crying to their daddy" when they see someone didn't pay for something they took from a store - that is also not direct physical harm, yet it is a violation of a law and an act of injustice.
Besides, by saying that you basically claim that as long as discrimination does not involve physical harm, no one should prohibit it. Sorry to tell you, but that's pretty stupid. Racism, homophobia and general discrimination come in many shapes, forms and sizes.
the socio-economic backfire from the public against those who do discriminate would heavily discourage the… [view original content]
Weird tastes?... I'm pretty sure it would be hard to find a bakery who sells that. And do you really think homosexuals just go around ordering Male genetalia shaped cakes?
If the government is to force a business owner to provide a product or service to somebody they do not wish to, that is a violation of their liberty, completely going against the entire purpose of the law.
And if the government is to let businesses prohibit certain people from getting service, it is also a violation of their rights, isn't it? Which is more important; The right to get the service you deserve, no matter who you are, or to get the option to discriminate people for who they are and deny them of service, products and possibly even health-aid?
Now, see, by looking at it that way, you could say that by forcing people not to steal or not to murder we are also violating their liberty, but when it comes at the cost of someone else's health, property or liberty, it is ok to deny them of that right. The right to be treated equal whether you're gay or not is also one of those rights.
To hold somebody legally accountable for violating the basic rights of somebody else (life, liberty, property) is perfectly fine, but to hold somebody legally accountable for doing something discriminatory on their own private property is absolutely ridiculous.
the basic rights of somebody else is also to not be discriminated against (see article 7 of The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights - "All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." - Also, what about equal pay? Do you think this kind of law will encourage that? Because equal pay is also a right in this declaration.)
Also, look at the picture Flog posted below, they can even deny to sell medication, this is concerning their health now, not only getting service at stores.
It simply provides grounds for people to refuse services for religious reasons, and defends them in the case of a lawsuit.
Read what I said about people using religion as a trump card to discriminate others.
The law is justified in affirming the right to choose who you serve.
Even if that's a right, I don't think that the grounds for who you chose to serve were based on religious opinions, this rule let it happen, and it's simply wrong.
I am in favor of moving towards a libertarian, capitalist society where the market (being the public) is free and regulates itself, rather than being regulated by the government.
Well, I don't see that happening anytime soon or working, but that's me.
Where in the law does it state that businesses are legally required to provide services to all whom request it?
It doesn't so directly, but as I posted above it is a human right to not be discriminated against, which this is what this law happens to encourage, directly or indirectly.
but progressing society is not the job of the government: it is the job of the people. The job of the government is to protect our rights, but the job of the people is move the world forward.
I see, I just don't think we should leave this to society to fix this or account or to let society regulate it without any repercussions, oh well.
You know, up until this point, I hadn't realized that I was talking to you, AWESOMEO. How've you been, dude?
it could be said the same… more about people "crying to their daddy" when they see someone didn't pay for something they took from a store - that is also not direct physical harm, yet it is a violation of a law and an act of injustice.
I didn't address property rights in that case, because we hadn't exactly brought it up at that point. The purpose of the government/law is to protect life, liberty, and property. In cases of murder and theft, there is a violation to life and property, respectively. If the government is to force a business owner to provide a product or service to somebody they do not wish to, that is a violation of their liberty, completely going against the entire purpose of the law.
you basically claim that as long as discrimination does not involve physical harm, no one should prohibit it. Sorry to tell y… [view original content]
As a christian myself I wholeheartedly agree with you. Nothing disgusts me more than when people use God as a symbol of hate. We are supposed to love and care about each other or, at the very least, respect each other.
I think it's sick and very homophobic. Sure, the Bible condemns homosexuality, but there's a difference between using the Bible as a trump c… moreard to restrict gay people (emphasis on the word people) from having basic rights and believing that homosexuality is wrong.
The Bible teaches that we should not condemn other people or presume to know who will or will not be saved. Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or shun or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners".
Long story short, this is another case of men using God's word to facilitate their own selfish and hateful way of life against those who are different from them. Whether the Pope, the church or your mom says they don't deserve equal rights doesn't matter, it's out of the question. We're all equal to God.
"Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling blo… [view original content]
I think that if the business owner is religious, and if he views homosexuality is wrong, that he is well within his right to refuse them service.
Following your logic, a christian should be able to turn down a woman for, let's say, a manager job. After all there are severals verses in the Bible clearly saying that women can't excerse any form of authority on men.
"Timothy 2:11-12
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to excercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
Let's not forget most of the Bible was written in much less intelectual times compared to ours. Not everything should be followed blindly, considering we are in the 21st century, and fortunately many christians understand that. Our world is modern, why not our beliefs?
Lastly, I'll just quote James 4:12:
"There is only one law giver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
Agreed. I hate these kind of situations. It isn't fair to homosexuals, and it also makes Christians look like assholes, which sucks because most of us(from my experiance) aren't like that.
Also you choose to be a Christian. It is, and always has been, 100% okay to judge someone/restrict someone for their choices (not that sayin… moreg 'you can't prevent others from doing things for terrible reasons' is really a restriction) - because our entire law system is based on the fact that people be judged for the choices they make rather than who they are. You do not choose to be female, or black, or gay any more than you chose to be male and white and straight.
Religious people should not get special rights in their actions just because they have religious motivation. Religions should be respected but should not define the law, and must work within the confines of it.
I think that's really prejudice and homophobic. But like a lot of people on here have said, how would that work? You can't always tell if someone is gay just by looking at them. Even based on stereotypes. There was this one kid I went to school with and I thought he was gay for the longest time. It was mainly because of the way he talked and the way he acted. But once high school rolled around, he got a girlfriend and I'm like, "Wait? You're straight?!" (Of course I didn't actually say that to him) but you get my point. Sometimes people can seem gay, but are actually straight. I'm sure it works the other way around too. So I don't think there's any real way to tell unless the person walking into the store tells you.
So, as above, the law has been limited a bit. But it's still pretty shitty.
Doctors should not have the right to refuse service to anyone based on religious grounds. Refusing to give someone HIV medication is simply horrific.
Comments
My husband has served a term in Iraq, and he says he would gladly do another term if it meant never receiving homophobia again in his life.
Also, you fucking chose to go to Iraq. Sorry to be shitty, but it's really not a fair comparison.
I was born into a christian family and I chose my religion outside of it.
it's discrimination. I dont give a flying hell wether its the persons buisness or not, they shouldnt be allowed to turn away anyone unless its against the law to serve them. It makes the person feel unaccepted in our society and thats not something im going to support.
There's all the difference in the world of physical distress and emotional distress. Physical distress, caused by actions such as murder, assault, and rape, have physical and health-oriented ramifications regarding that person's continued existence. Emotional distress does not directly cause physical, health-related harm to an individual. People may not like being turned away (and with good reason), but acting like a child and trying to get daddy (the government) to force them to give you your cake/sandwich/whatever it is you are want is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, it sucks that people will be turned away, but if they have a problem with it, get people to boycott the business with them.
Economic punishment from the public > corporal punishment from the goverment
I'm catholic and I think it's fucking retarded
I'm a Christian but i believe that i have no right to judge someone by their sexual orientation, we should just treat homosexuals as what they are, people like everyone else
Someone correct me if i'm wrong but nowhere in the bible it says that you should hate and avoid homosexual people, it only says it's wrong, it's a sin, and everyone has sinned in their life, actually the bible states "Do to others as you would have them do to you" and since gays are people then you have to treat them as you'd like them to treat you, i'm just talking about the religions that believe in the bible here of course, i don't know which are the rules that other religions have about homosexuals.
100% against it. Personal morality should not decide if you can provide service to people. Next, we'll be hearing that pro-life business owners can kick people out if they have had an abortion.
Also, I believe that freedom of religion goes too far when it affects others.
I can smell a hate crime from a mile away. I'm all down for those wanting to express and uphold their thoughts, views and beliefs in this world. I'm a Catholic man and since the moment I was conceived, I was taught homosexuality was a sin and God would punish those that slept with the same sex. I believed that; I'm ashamed to say for years, these were my thoughts but because it was all I ever knew.
Seeing things like this angers me now because my brother and one of my dearest friends is gay and both are in wonderful relationships. It pains me to see them being discriminated against because of who they are. Religion is what makes people go so blind with hate and forget the REAL reason behind it. Being a 'Christian' is supposed to love your fellow man; lessons about God loving ALL his children and in the end, only he will judge you and make that final decision. Everyone wants to wave scriptures and quotes in my face. That's fine but is that REALLY going to solve this ongoing problem? If GOD made these individuals who are gay, then he loves them.
Yes, these owners have the right to deny homosexuals services. That's fine. But soon, you'll get others denying individuals for other reasons: because your black, your hispanic, disabled, a different religion, etc. History is repeating itself. Here in California, the state that I live in, is ACTUALLY thinking about passing a vote about killing anyone that is gay. Are you kidding me...genocide? Because of your orientation? We had segregation of blacks and whites not that long ago; the murder of millions of Jews and now this because you're gay?
This is ridiculous. Stupid, ignorant and silly. We should be focusing on OTHER issues here in America. The World. Anything but THIS again.
So, as above, the law has been limited a bit. But it's still pretty shitty.
Doctors should not have the right to refuse service to anyone based on religious grounds. Refusing to give someone HIV medication is simply horrific.
Truth. This is just enabled bigotry and cruelty. So a parent can sue a teacher who stops their kids from bullying a gay child? Bullying is the type of thing that leads to depression and suicide, especially among gay youth. Are the Indiana lawmakers that stupid or just heartless dickheads?
Killing gays? What the fuck?
It's a comfort to know that this law has no chance of getting passed. But bloody hell, this is Westboro-levels of cruelty.
It sounds really dumb, and not wise in a business sense. Who doesn't love supporting a business of homophobic bigots?
It wouldn't even make sense- it's not like people wear neon signs saying "I'M GAY!". You couldn't tell, and it's impolite to ask someone if they are gay or straight in general if you don't know them well. I also think it would be kind of awkward to prove.
Religious freedom is one thing, but discriminating against people is awful and shouldn't be allowed.
If it's a matter of refusing service on religious grounds, somebody should go open up a restaurant and say "Gays Welcome - but no Jews." Let's see how well that goes over.
How is it not fair? Have you heard what is going on in Syria/Iraq? You think we should be worried about this? Some stupid ass law that doesn't mean shit anyways, that will be fought over for the end of time, people are dying over there right now for being Gay.
two hams
no bread.
I could say all the same that people who want killers to be put in prison for their own safety are "crying for their daddy". It is not ridiculous at all, it's justice. People will not be turned away for these kinds of differences, and if they are it is a crime against innocent. Where does it stop? Next thing you know they'll decline their healthcare!
Economical punishments from the public will not ensure that gay people will get the service they deserve, it is merely revenge. Actual laws requiring businesses to give everyone an equal service and corporal punishments for those who discriminate people for their race/sexuality will solve the problem.
Nah i gotcha, In 2008 we almost got hit by a dirty bomb.
People treat you like episode four Kenny if you want the truth.
George don't you think you had enough to drink?
What is wrong with George, why is he always starting a fight?
You invited George? God Jessica, doesn't want to be around him, she says he makes her feel uncomfortable.
George you are so embarrassing. I can't take you anywhere without you causing some scene.
My Favorite is:
George WILL YOU ACT NORMAL.
If people IRL started hating Jews again as much as they have the guts to say to me here on the internet, this isn't too far from happening once again.
As I said before, there is all the difference in the world between being a murderer (who has committed an act that causes direct physical harm) rather than emotional distress of being discriminated against. A murderer has ended somebody's life, while a homophobic business owner has refused somebody cake.
The entire point I was trying to get at was that a free market would technically make it possible for discrimination to occur, but the socio-economic backfire from the public against those who do discriminate would heavily discourage the action in the first place. Government laws regulating business interfere with the existence and function of a free market, and are highly unnecessary for ensuring the people are given equal service. Corporal punishment doesn't solve the problem: it only adds new ones. By throwing people who refuse to provide a service (that they don't have to provide to anyone in the first place) in jail, you are essentially forcing them to conform to your own personal standards.
If a business discriminates, there will be outcry from the public, so any business owner in their right mind who actually wants to keep their reputation wouldn't dare shun somebody service for frivolous reasons.
I said it before, and I'l say it again:
Economic punishment from the public >>> corporal punishment from the government
UH they do hate Jewish people, especially from the muslim community. I don't but, they do.
Lol why not, it's not like they can tell a straight person from a homosexual person. So this law will be pretty useless unless business owners become psychic
I used it as an example to make my point stand out, it could be said the same about people "crying to their daddy" when they see someone didn't pay for something they took from a store - that is also not direct physical harm, yet it is a violation of a law and an act of injustice.
Besides, by saying that you basically claim that as long as discrimination does not involve physical harm, no one should prohibit it. Sorry to tell you, but that's pretty stupid. Racism, homophobia and general discrimination come in many shapes, forms and sizes.
If Indiana could pass a law that discriminates the gay, I don't think that the majority would disagree with it, and I don't think local businesses would be very harmed from it, considering the law was able to pass.
It would still not give gay people the service they deserve for being regular citizens like any other. Discrimination. Injustice. No other way of putting it.
I think you misunderstand the term "free market", the free market doesn't always do the job our law is supposed to make, relying on the public on this matter is irresponsible when it comes to taking human rights away from humans who never chose to be gay.
Corporal punishment will dissuade those who want to discriminate gay people. Because that's one of the purposes of the law, to discourage injustice by punishing those who commit crimes.
Now you said that they don't even have to provide service in the first place. That's true, but if you do choose to give people service, you are NOT allowed to discriminate some and provide service for others, that's a responsibility you have to take when you decide to open a fucking business.
You're right, we are forcing them to conform to our personal standards, just like believing murder is wrong and that people have freedom of speech is also a standard not perceived by every living human being - yet it is still a standard in the constitution. Why? Because it's fucking logical, humane, we are supposed to be caring and understanding of our surroundings if we want to live in a normal society.
Well for example, say someone went into a baker shop and asked for a cake that is shaped like Male Genetalia. What do then.
Sigh, oh well
Homosexual, homophobic is someone who hates gay people
But yeah, you're right, the law is pretty fucking stupid all around.
Sorry I'll fix it xD
Weird tastes?... I'm pretty sure it would be hard to find a bakery who sells that. And do you really think homosexuals just go around ordering Male genetalia shaped cakes?
I don't remember ever going to applebees and asked my sexual orientation. I been hit on by both men and women, but never straight out asked.
You know, up until this point, I hadn't realized that I was talking to you, AWESOMEO. How've you been, dude?
I didn't address property rights in that case, because we hadn't exactly brought it up at that point. The purpose of the government/law is to protect life, liberty, and property. In cases of murder and theft, there is a violation to life and property, respectively. If the government is to force a business owner to provide a product or service to somebody they do not wish to, that is a violation of their liberty, completely going against the entire purpose of the law.
I think discrimination is pretty stupid, and absolutely pointless, and I do think that people should prohibit it. However, the way to do it is not by making it against the law. We cannot outlaw everything we do not like, as people have basic human rights. To hold somebody legally accountable for violating the basic rights of somebody else (life, liberty, property) is perfectly fine, but to hold somebody legally accountable for doing something discriminatory on their own private property is absolutely ridiculous. Discrimination, if it does not reach a level of violating the right to life (by means of physical harm), liberty (by means of not providing people certain legal abilities in public matters, such as prohibiting gay marriage, which I am completely against), or property, is not enough in my mind to warrant legal repercussions.
The law, if you read it, has no mention of homosexuals or homosexuality. It simply provides grounds for people to refuse services for religious reasons, and defends them in the case of a lawsuit. There has been mass backlash from the public, including many people who live in Indiana, against the law itself. The problem is not the law. The law is justified in affirming the right to choose who you serve. The problem is people misusing that ability to discriminate against others, and that is best met with economic repercussions from the public.
We don't have a free market. The government regulates businesses and the economy to a great degree. I speak of the free market as something we should implement. For a free market to exist, there must not be government regulations of businesses and the economy, for "regulation" is in this case an antonym of "freedom". I am in favor of moving towards a libertarian, capitalist society where the market (being the public) is free and regulates itself, rather than being regulated by the government.
That responsibility is purely subjective. Where in the law does it state that businesses are legally required to provide services to all whom request it? I believe this legal responsibility you speak of is pure conjecture, but if I am wrong, please, provide me the evidence.
I agree with you on many of these points. Murder is wrong, discrimination is wrong, people deserve freedom of speech, etc etc. But the execution of these beliefs is where we disagree. I believe murder is wrong because it violates the basic right to life that humans bear, and by violating a right, it is thus deserving of legal repercussions. I believe discrimination is wrong because it inhibits societal progress, but progressing society is not the job of the government: it is the job of the people. The job of the government is to protect our rights, but the job of the people is move the world forward.
In the end, I have great deals of contempt for any business, person, or company that discriminates against people and refuses them services. I believe they are deserving of socio-economic punishment from the people, in the sense that they no longer receive support from customers, clients, and business partners. However, I am also a big believer in the free market. I believe that despite my griefs and contempt with those who commit acts of discrimination in their businesses, it is their right to do so. I may not like what they do on their own property, but I don't particularly like it when people talk about how bad chicken parmesan is either, because goddamn do I love me some chicken parm. I don't like what they have to say, or what they do on their own property that does not violate basic human rights to life, liberty, and property, but so long as I live, I will stand in defense of their right to do/say so without repercussions from the law.
To all who wish to read the law itself, you can find it here:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197
Doesn't have to be gay. Could be a bachelorette party. Though I've never heard of anyone doing that.
Lol, I've been alright. Thanks for asking.
And if the government is to let businesses prohibit certain people from getting service, it is also a violation of their rights, isn't it? Which is more important; The right to get the service you deserve, no matter who you are, or to get the option to discriminate people for who they are and deny them of service, products and possibly even health-aid?
Now, see, by looking at it that way, you could say that by forcing people not to steal or not to murder we are also violating their liberty, but when it comes at the cost of someone else's health, property or liberty, it is ok to deny them of that right. The right to be treated equal whether you're gay or not is also one of those rights.
the basic rights of somebody else is also to not be discriminated against (see article 7 of The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights - "All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." - Also, what about equal pay? Do you think this kind of law will encourage that? Because equal pay is also a right in this declaration.)
Also, look at the picture Flog posted below, they can even deny to sell medication, this is concerning their health now, not only getting service at stores.
Read what I said about people using religion as a trump card to discriminate others.
Even if that's a right, I don't think that the grounds for who you chose to serve were based on religious opinions, this rule let it happen, and it's simply wrong.
Well, I don't see that happening anytime soon or working, but that's me.
It doesn't so directly, but as I posted above it is a human right to not be discriminated against, which this is what this law happens to encourage, directly or indirectly.
I see, I just don't think we should leave this to society to fix this or account or to let society regulate it without any repercussions, oh well.
As a christian myself I wholeheartedly agree with you. Nothing disgusts me more than when people use God as a symbol of hate. We are supposed to love and care about each other or, at the very least, respect each other.
Following your logic, a christian should be able to turn down a woman for, let's say, a manager job. After all there are severals verses in the Bible clearly saying that women can't excerse any form of authority on men.
"Timothy 2:11-12
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to excercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
Let's not forget most of the Bible was written in much less intelectual times compared to ours. Not everything should be followed blindly, considering we are in the 21st century, and fortunately many christians understand that. Our world is modern, why not our beliefs?
Lastly, I'll just quote James 4:12:
"There is only one law giver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
Agreed. I hate these kind of situations. It isn't fair to homosexuals, and it also makes Christians look like assholes, which sucks because most of us(from my experiance) aren't like that.
It's ridiculous. I try to be patriotic but stuff like this makes me sick and lose faith in this country.
I think that's really prejudice and homophobic. But like a lot of people on here have said, how would that work? You can't always tell if someone is gay just by looking at them. Even based on stereotypes. There was this one kid I went to school with and I thought he was gay for the longest time. It was mainly because of the way he talked and the way he acted. But once high school rolled around, he got a girlfriend and I'm like, "Wait? You're straight?!" (Of course I didn't actually say that to him) but you get my point. Sometimes people can seem gay, but are actually straight. I'm sure it works the other way around too. So I don't think there's any real way to tell unless the person walking into the store tells you.
So much for "do no harm"
Reminds me of the friends episode where they accidentally order a penis cake for Ben's 1st birthday party.