Indiana legislation allows discrimination against homosexuals

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I can sell hate group swag. If I wanted I could sell "go Isis" bumper stickers. I don't see a reason for either side to complain as the law stands now. You can refuse customers without needing to explain your reasoning, that's my take.

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.

Nobody is trying to limit the products you are selling but if you discriminate against people that is wrong.

The "111 Bakery" that sparked controversy has closed its doors for good. Link

Despite the claims, seems the rise in profits from the gay-haters only lasted a few months while the supporters for equality were in it for the long haul.

Which kinda proved my point...

Originally posted by Newjak
You can sell hate stuff all you want. Sell all the ISIS and Nazi banners you want. But if someone comes into buy that stuff and you refuse to sell it to them you should be sued.

Nobody is trying to limit the products you are selling but if you discriminate against people that is wrong.

I can profit off hate, but if I don't want to profit off hate, that's when I'm bad.

It is a boilerplate law from ALEC, which is sometimes funded by the Koch Brothers, the Catholic Church and Phyllis Schlafly. Another attempt for religion and billionaires to tell other people how to live. Despicable.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Which kinda proved my point... kinda hypocritical, no? Well maybe "hypocritical" isn't the right word, but an odd stance.

I can profit off hate, but if I don't want to profit off hate, that's when I'm bad.

Seems small like a small difference but it is huge.

Originally posted by Robtard
The "111 Bakery" that sparked controversy has closed its doors for good. Link

Despite the claims, seems the rise in profits ... only lasted a few months while the supporters for equality were in it for the long haul.

Does the argument of your implication work if you DON'T assume the bakery owners were lying in their response?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 111 Cakery was still profitable, said co-owner Randy McGath, but McGath's 45-year-old wife, Trish, who did most of the baking, wanted more time to spend with the couple's four grandchildren. The business "was wearing her out," her husband said. She has been taking a break from working since Dec. 31, when the bakery went out of business, he said ...

McGath insisted sales never dipped below their pre-flap levels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Robtard

... from the gay-haters

More of this language.

But the threshhold for being called a "hater" isn't very high where this subject is concerned is it?

Pretty sure I've heard these bakers called "haters" for their mere refusal, for instance. But does that gel with the following information?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McGath said he and his wife, who attend a Baptist church on Indianapolis' Westside, were well aware of the neighborhood's gay culture when they opened their bakery there in 2012. He said they served the gay community gladly for several years but "just didn't want to be party to a committment ceremony" because such an event reflected "a committment to sin."

Despite McGath's views his discourse remained civil even in talks with his most virulent critic, the lone picketer Todd Fuqua, both he and Fuqua said.

"There was zero hate here," said McGath, who is now selling recreational vehicles. "We were just trying to be right with our God. I was able to speak to many homosexuals in the community and to speak our opinion and have a civil conversation. I'm still in touch with some."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.indystar.com/story/life/2015/02/26/bakery-refused-cake-gay-couple-closes-doors/24074691/

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Does the argument of your implication work if you DON'T assume the bakery owners were lying in their response?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 111 Cakery was still profitable, said co-owner Randy McGath, but McGath's 45-year-old wife, Trish, who did most of the baking, wanted more time to spend with the couple's four grandchildren. The business "was wearing her out," her husband said. She has been taking a break from working since Dec. 31, when the bakery went out of business, he said ...

McGath insisted sales never dipped below their pre-flap levels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More of this language.

But the threshhold for being called a "hater" isn't very high where this subject is concerned is it?

Pretty sure I've heard these bakers called "haters" for their mere refusal, for instance. But does that gel with the following information?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McGath said he and his wife, who attend a Baptist church on Indianapolis' Westside, were well aware of the neighborhood's gay culture when they opened their bakery there in 2012. He said they served the gay community gladly for several years but "just didn't want to be party to a committment ceremony" because such an event reflected "a committment to sin."

Despite McGath's views his discourse remained civil even in talks with his most virulent critic, the lone picketer Todd Fuqua, both he and Fuqua said.

"There was zero hate here," said McGath, who is now selling recreational vehicles. "We were just trying to be right with our God. I was able to speak to many homosexuals in the community and to speak our opinion and have a civil conversation. I'm still in touch with some."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.indystar.com/story/life/2015/02/26/bakery-refused-cake-gay-couple-closes-doors/24074691/

Seems you didn't understand what "seems" implied.

Seems you didn't understand who I was calling a "hater".

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Pretty sure I've heard these bakers called "haters" for their mere refusal, for instance. But does that gel with the following information?

He said they served the gay community gladly for several years but "just didn't want to be party to a committment ceremony" because such an event reflected "a committment to sin."

Haters gonna hate.

They had a priest on NPR today who made the argument that no priest should be required to officiate in a ceremony that they don't agree with, and I think I can agree with that, because that's taking issue with the nature of a service, i.e. a gay marriage. Let them have that, there are plenty of other priests who will do it.

What I can't agree with is the wedding cake makers who refuse to serve gay couples, because that isn't a reservation with the service itself but rather with the customer engaging the service. The same excuse that would allow these people to turn away gays could be applied to literally any other type of person.

For an analogy, think of taxis. I think a cab driver would be in his rights to refuse to admit someone if they were smoking (because the passenger smoking would change the nature of the service), but I wouldn't ever accept a cab driver refusing to admit someone just because they were a smoker, regardless of their behavior while in the cab.

If someone is willing to pay you money, behaves with the proper decorum, and is respectful, you do your ****ing job and serve them. And yes, I am willing to bite the bullet and say I'd serve Hitler a snowcone if he was polite and paid.

Well, maybe not that far, but you get what I mean.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
They had a priest on NPR today who made the argument that no priest should be required to officiate in a ceremony that they don't agree with, and I think I can agree with that, because that's taking issue with the nature of a service, i.e. a gay marriage. Let them have that, there are plenty of other priests who will do it.

While I want to agree with that on the surface, it's a bit of the bullshit since churches/religious institutions get tax exemptions on the premise that the money they're taking in, is then used to help others/the community in some fashion.

So what we're essentially allowing is for these religious figures to say "will help you, won't help you" based on bigotry. If that's the case, revoke their tax exemption status.

edit: iirc, similar happened with The LDS church in the 70's and not allowing black people to attain priesthood status.

Originally posted by Robtard
While I want to agree with that on the surface, it's a bit of the bullshit since churches/religious institutions get tax exemptions on the premise that the money they're taking in, is then used to help others/the community in some fashion.

So what we're essentially allowing is for these religious figures to say "will help you, won't help you" based on bigotry. If that's the case, revoke their tax exemption status.

edit: iirc, similar happened with The LDS church in the 70's and not allowing black people to attain priesthood status.

It's a private-public distinction--churches are public places, priests are private individuals who should have a say in the services they render (but not solely on the basis of who their "customers" are--for instance no priest should ever be allowed to refuse to allow a homosexual to attend their sermon)

It's crazy the hypocrisy with this debate.

"Stop hate with hate"

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
It's crazy the hypocrisy with this debate.

"Stop hate with hate"

I'll never agree that it is a good idea to force businesses to do business with people that they do not want to do business with. That's very shitty to force your morals and beliefs on people.*

That's no different than me forcing you to get baptized as a Mormon because I believe it is morally correct and it is an action/behavior that you should be expected to do. Oh, what's that? You don't like me forcing my moral beliefs on you? Too bad! Now that the politically correct police are on my side, we will rape you in the public opinion forum, verbally, until you submit to our will. Line up for your baptisms. And let me remind you, you have to get baptized as a Mormon several times a month. Even if you personally believe that Mormons are satanic and by getting baptized as a Mormon, you are directly offending God, too bad! The politically correct thought police want you to go f*ck yourself and do this because there are enough vocal supporters of it. It's just despicable that you guys want to resist this. It's clearly morally wrong that you refuse to get baptized as a Mormon. Everyone knows that getting baptized as a Mormon is the correct thing to do. It will prevent you from offending your friends, family, and coworkers. You don't want to look like a close-minded bigot, right? So come get your Mormon baptisms while the water is hot!

Forcing people to do things against their will is one of the worst things we can do to each other. It would be different if you were forcing them to stop doing something. This is not. This is forcing them to DO something. "But, dadudemon, doesn't that mean a doctor can refuse to treat a Jew and then the Jew dies due to the Doctor's refusal to help? How can you possibly reconcile this with your statements that people should not be forced to do things against their will?" You can either accept the fact that you're a shitty person for wanting to force your beliefs and behavioral actions on people or you can select extremely rare scenarios that almost never ever happen to justify your shittiness. With the ability to let people chose for themselves comes the very cold reality that some people will choose something that you don't like.

"dadudemon is just salty." Just because I'm pointing out the absurd hypocrisy of this entire discussion does not mean I'm salty. 😉

Edit - I wish there were more people who valued personal freedom over legislated beliefs/morals/behaviors, on this forum. For me, I find it ridiculous that I even have to make these arguments. There are almost no religious people on this forum. The only people I know that make my kind of arguments are atheists who oppose religion. It should be obvious as to why they make my arguments: when you start legislating morals/behaviors/beliefs, it's a slippery slope. What happens if the majority of Americans are now Muslims and they are the vocal majority? What happens if they want Sharia Law? Now what? Where are you gay-cake arguments, now? Maybe it's not such a good idea to legislate and force people to do things against their beliefs and against their will, eh? Well, it's too late: you already set a precedence with your gay-cakes. This is why atheists are the only ones making my arguments. I have never heard a Christian or Jew make my particular arguments (agreeing with my conclusion, that people shouldn't be forced to serve gay-couples if they don't want to, is not the same thing as making my argument).

*Ushgarak made a good argument against that (but I will address it with a lengthy video on Sunday** because it will take forever to put that together) by saying that we had to force people to stop being racist f*cks.

** We all know I'm a procrastinating bastard and it won't happen on Sunday. But if it does, it's just a pleasant surprise. I still owe inimalist a video from 2008.

Except no one was forcing their "moral and beliefs" on said bakers when said homosexuals asked for a wedding cake. Said gays asked said bakers to do their job and were willing to pay for it, ie bake a ****ing cake.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except no one was forcing "moral and beliefs" on said bakers when said homosexuals asked for a wedding cake.

Sure, asking to be served a cake with two brides or two grooms does not force anyone to do anything. But that's pretty obvious and it is also irrelevant to my points.

Robtard, will you be baptized with me? I'll baptize you.

I stopped reading after: "I'll never agree that it is a good idea to force businesses to do business with people that they do not want to do business with. That's very shitty to force your morals and beliefs on people.*"

That's what I was responding too. If the rest of your post was about something entirely different, so be it.

And no, I won't be baptized, that would be you forcing your "morals and beliefs" on me. But I'd happily bake you a cake showing the time-line of Mormon awesomeness, even though I'm not a Mormon and don't believe in any Mormoness.

Originally posted by krisblaze
I love americans.

bigot

Originally posted by Robtard
That's what I was responding too.

No you weren't. Because what you stated is not applicable to to what I stated. Just tangentially relevant.

Originally posted by Robtard
And no, I won't be baptized, that would be you forcing your "morals and beliefs" on me.

Oh really? Well, I believe you agree with me, then. So you believe we should prevent laws, laws which are strongly based on beliefs/morals, that force people to perform certain actions? If so, right-o, ol' chap! If not, you just agreed with me but now you're changing your mind.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No you weren't. Because what you stated is not applicable to to what I stated. Just tangentially relevant.

Oh really? Well, I believe you agree with me, then. So you believe we should prevent laws, laws which are strongly based on beliefs/morals, that force people to perform certain actions? If so, right-o, ol' chap! If not, you just agreed with me but now you're changing your mind.

Yes, I was.

Bit silly of you to edit my post so it doesn't convey exactly what I said and then reply to that.

But if you can't tell the difference between forcibly converting someone to a religion and asking a business to serve you like they serve the rest of the public, then you got some issues, brah.