Indiana legislation allows discrimination against homosexuals

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I understand that the governor of Indiana is now going to introduce legislation to make it clear that this law cannot be used to deny services to anyone.

That much was announced in the very article this thread was based on.

Where have you been the past 3 days?

By far the best thing to come out (joke intended) of this whole thing is the term 'Big Gay' in reference to equal rights lobbyists.

Hilarious stuff.

same old shenanigans

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I understand that the governor of Indiana is now going to introduce legislation to make it clear that this law cannot be used to deny services to anyone.

Indeed, this was rather the point; RFRA laws don't specifically spell out such a right and are mostly used to protect religious minorities from being legislated against more than is needed, but the problem is that in other States there had been attempts to use them to deny business to gays which didn't work because of state anti-discrimination laws. Trouble is, Indiana has no such state-wide law (though local jurisdictions, including Indianapolis, do) and hence there was this worry about RFRA.

Frankly, just focussed on the law itself, it was a bit academic; a fringe worry in the grander scheme that was unlikely to cause much trouble, though a viable thing to protest about as a symbol. Indiana having no state-wide anti-discrimination law was a far bigger issue, and it's good to know that the first steps to that changing are now under way.

The idea, incidentally, that the free market is a way to control discrimination has been utterly discredited for decades by the civil rights struggle. All that does is entrench discrimination. Public discriminatory attitudes [b]must be fought else they legitimise outdated and unacceptable views that worsen life for many- and that people can choose to shop elsewhere is utterly irrelevant. In a modern day civilized society, no-one should have to shop elsewhere on this kind of basis or even consider the issue.

Once you are doing business with the public, you take on a set of new responsibilities that are not equivalent to, say, the privacy of your home. It is absolutely and utterly unacceptable to deny people any form of service based on their beliefs, all the more so beliefs that have no place being condemned in modern society. If you don't accept that then tough- you shouldn't be in business with the public. That this furore- somewhat exaggerated- ends up with Indiana modernising its laws in this way is a positive outcome.

Still, the fight goes on- Arkansas next. [/B]

👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆

To bluewaterrider

You are mistaken either in what you think I am referring to or what you are. I am referring to his press conference on Tuesday which was the day after this thread started. He previously said he wanted to clarify it, but that at the time was just vague talk about side-stepping the issue. Only on Tuesday did he specify that he was going to enshrine anti-discrimination into law, which is the climbdown/u-turn the press are talking about. It's a significant change.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You're, not your.

You've been doing this throughout the entire thread. Stop it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I understand that the governor of Indiana is now going to introduce legislation to make it clear that this law cannot be used to deny services to anyone.

(shortened for ease)

I'll strongly oppose civil service or Goverment funded businesses discriminating but some Ma & Pa that sells homemade cakes to church weddings isn't a hate group. Honestly if a business not DIRECTLY profiting from gay marriage is the worst discrimination a LGBT couple faces on their quest more marriage I'd say we are living in a fine time to be gay.
////
Instead of us fighting over a 5 person shop not baking cakes, let's go after real issues, like the states that don't even allow gay marriage.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym

Instead of us fighting over a 5 person shop not baking cakes, let's go after real issues, like the states that don't even allow gay marriage.

or we could...you know...do both.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
or we could...you know...do both.

One step at a time, I suppose. (Though, a leap would be preferable.) 🙂

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
The biggest issue I find with your comparison is that Gay people have civil rights. What we are looking at isn't Gay rights, it's Small Business Owner rights. You have no right to demand service, just like I can't legally force you to let me sleep on your couch, just because you let a friend do it once.

I'll strongly oppose civil service or Goverment funded businesses discriminating but some Ma & Pa that sells homemade cakes to church weddings isn't a hate group. Honestly if a business not DIRECTLY profiting from gay marriage is the worst discrimination a LGBT couple faces on their quest more marriage I'd say we are living in a fine time to be gay.
////
Instead of us fighting over a 5 person shop not baking cakes, let's go after real issues, like the states that don't even allow gay marriage.

Nope, not so- this is directly comparable to a civil rights issue; denying people goods and services based on their beliefs is exactly that. It trumps your vague idea of 'small business owners' rights' by a long margin. You absolutely have the right to demand service- or more to the point, not to be refused service due to your beliefs (as opposed to your behaviour, which is a different matter), and your comparison to sleeping on a couch is not useful- that's a private matter, not a public one. If you were offering public accommodation, then once more you are open to public accountability and must not discriminate. If it;s just your house, that's not a business and noting to do with it at all.

As for it not being the worse example of discrimination- well that's true, and nor is the penalty for flaunting it some great jail term. It's also irritating if, for example, a gay couple deliberately demands pro-gay goods from businesses they know to be uncomfortable in that area with the specific intention of winding them up- but that's a side of the rights struggle you have to live with. Nonetheless, these social battles must be won. The point remains allowing people to discriminate in the provision of goods and services based on beliefs encourages a segmented and discriminatory society. It needs to be stopped via legislation- which is precisely what is happening.

Meanwhile, the fight against states not allowing gay marriage goes on the same. It's not as if it is either/or. Discrimination really just needs to be fought at all levels. I would also point out that the attitude of "Gays have won the important battles and shouldn't sweat the small stuff" is not a useful attitude at all- they should not have to make do or compromise. That is the point of equality.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
or we could...you know...do both.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nope, not so- this is directly comparable to a civil rights issue; denying people goods and services based on their beliefs is exactly that. It trumps your vague idea of 'small business owners' rights' by a long margin. You [b]absolutely have the right to demand service- or more to the point, not to be refused service due to your beliefs (as opposed to your behaviour, which is a different matter), and your comparison to sleeping on a couch is not useful- that's a private matter, not a public one. If you were offering public accommodation, then once more you are open to public accountability and must not discriminate. If it;s just your house, that's not a business and noting to do with it at all.

As for it not being the worse example of discrimination- well that's true, and nor is the penalty for flaunting it some great jail term. It's also irritating if, for example, a gay couple deliberately demands pro-gay goods from businesses they know to be uncomfortable in that area with the specific intention of winding them up- but that's a side of the rights struggle you have to live with. Nonetheless, these social battles must be won. The point remains allowing people to discriminate in the provision of goods and services based on beliefs encourages a segmented and discriminatory society. It needs to be stopped via legislation- which is precisely what is happening.

Meanwhile, the fight against states not allowing gay marriage goes on the same. It's not as if it is either/or. Discrimination really just needs to be fought at all levels. I would also point out that the attitude of "Gays have won the important battles and shouldn't sweat the small stuff" is not a useful attitude at all- they should not have to make do or compromise. That is the point of equality. [/B]

Honestly, we have more than Ma & Pa bakerys. Your not really denying them goods and services, your just saying you won't provide them.

I'd argue until legal marriage equality happens nationwide the LGBT struggle hasn't won its battle.
///
Honest question: Iyo, does the Goverment have the obligation to arrest Christians from a church if a gay couple wants to elope there? Does the Goverment have the right to jail a religious leader with the ability to marry people, who refuses to marry a gay couple?

Originally posted by Sacred 117
One step at a time, I suppose. (Though, a leap would be preferable.) 🙂

Honestly, if you were an anti-gay business owner and lost your business because of gay people. Are you

1.) "shucks, I've seen the error of my ways"

Or

2.) "f***ing fa**ots ruined my life"

You have to be delicate or you force a MAJOR divide, and no intelligent person wants that.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
or Neither because we can't be in two places at once and dividing our time is just making our stance weaker. Private businesses are private. Do you think I can refuse service to you if I just dislike you? Legally I can, just opinion wise.

you can absolutely refuse service to an individual so long as your reason is not simple bigotry. for example a clerk can turn away a customer, who happens to be black, for not wearing shoes or a shirt. this does not give them the right to turn someone away for being black. pretty sure that this is the point you are missing.

No, sorry, you are wrong again there. Private businesses may be privately owned but they deal with the public- indeed, perform a vital part of public existence- and hence they are beholden to laws related to dealing with the public; this is one of them.

To be honest, if there was an epidemic of people refusing service to people they did not like, then absolutely yes, that would need to be legislated against too. There isn't, though, so it doesn't matter. There certainly is a problem of refusing service to gays and the like; that needs to be dealt with.

Religious exemptions are often part of equality legislation for marriage,. Personally, though- well, you say 'arrest', I doubt it generally comes to that, but I would indeed prefer it to be illegal for churches to discriminate when offering a vital public legal mechanism like marriage, But then I think marriage should be entirely secularised and religious ceremony done separately, whioch would make the whole deal irrelevant.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you can absolutely refuse service to an individual so long as your reason is not simple bigotry. for example a clerk can turn away a customer, who happens to be black, for not wearing shoes or a shirt. this does not give them the right to turn someone away for being black. pretty sure that this is the point you are missing.

Indeed as I said- you can turn people away based on their behaviour but not their beliefs.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
or Neither because we can't be in two places at once and dividing our time is just making our stance weaker.

Just on this point in particular- not only do I think there is no evidence for this (it's like saying police should ignore minor crimes and focus only on big ones- whereas crime is better dealt with by attacking the whole spectrum), I would also say that the very issue we are talking about in this thread proves the opposite. The massive adverse reaction to this law, causing a u-turn, is a victory for gay rights campaigners that has generally strengthened their position for all their fights. The show of public support and boycott threats from state governments and businesses has been a huge positive.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
we have tried it, it lead to increases in hate crimes.

What specifically are you referring to; the "leap" or the "small steps"? (If the latter, I'll be all the more curious.)

Honestly, if you were an anti-gay business owner and lost your business because of gay people. Are you

1.) "shucks, I've seen the error of my ways"

Or

2.) "f***ing fa**ots ruined my life"

If public services were allowed to be made exclusive on a discriminating basis, we might have a sample. (Though, there could be one from the era of the Civil Rights Movement I'm overlooking/forgetting about.) Thankfully, according to the apparent updates, it isn't. 👆

Also, was it not you who recommended businesses be "left to deal with the consequences," so to speak?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Honestly I kinda support this,

Free markets will weed out bigots, and you should be free to express yourself anyway you want, but you deal with the backlash.

You'll have to answer this question for yourself. You tell me what you think would happen

You have to be delicate or you force a MAJOR divide, and no intelligent person wants that.

Ush basically already answered this. I refer you to him.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, sorry, you are wrong again there. Private businesses may be privately owned but they deal with the [b]public- indeed, perform a vital part of public existence- and hence they are beholden to laws related to dealing with the public; this is one of them.

To be honest, if there was an epidemic of people refusing service to people they did not like, then absolutely yes, that would need to be legislated against too. There isn't, though, so it doesn't matter. There certainly is a problem of refusing service to gays and the like; that needs to be dealt with.

Religious exemptions are often part of equality legislation for marriage,. Personally, though- well, you say 'arrest', I doubt it generally comes to that, but I would indeed prefer it to be illegal for churches to discriminate when offering a vital public legal mechanism like marriage, But then I think marriage should be entirely secularised and religious ceremony done separately, whioch would make the whole deal irrelevant. [/B]

An Epidemic? Not really... There is probably less than 50 bakerys in the state that won't. I'd be amazed if it's greater than 10%.

Ok I'll concede on arrest, I'm not sure on ministers punishment, but I'd wager their loss of ability to wed couples.
///
I'm more apt to go against a business that sabotages a gay wedding than refuses to take part in it.

This law is stupid. As a gay man. I would at least hope big chain stores still let us shop. But as for small business owners, I don't care. I buy from them because I feel bad for them. If you don't want my money, go broke loser.

Cool beans.