Indiana legislation allows discrimination against homosexuals

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Honestly it's not gay couples crying in the streets, it's professional cry babies.

Rick Santorum brought up an artful aspect of the law, it would allow businesses to refuse service to hate groups. The aspect of rejection on the basis of moral objections only allows you the ability to appeal a discrimination charge.

Which is why laws like these have been passed in other places to allow religious freedom from bigots or people that don't care about someone else's culture.

The main problem has always been those other places have always had anti-discrimination laws in place so the abuse of it to discriminate against other people based on race, sexual orientation, gender could not happen.

Originally posted by Newjak
Okay so the law could be used to keep people from having to tolerate hate groups.

Which is why laws like these have been passed in other places to allow religious freedom from bigots or people that don't care about someone else's culture.

The main problem has always been those other places have always had anti-discrimination laws in place so the abuse of it to discriminate against other people based on race, sexual orientation, gender could not happen.

The law should never tolerate/protect hate groups.

The law should also not force someone who disagrees with what you're doing to participate in what you're doing.

The whole "your freedom ends when mine begins" kinda thing. Not "my freedom ends when you think it's discrimination".

Originally posted by Nibedicus
This is ridiculous.

Can I go to a known feminist baker now and have them make boobs and vagina cakes en masse and "feminists are stupid" cupcakes and sue her for $135,000 if she refuses to make them?

A feminist bakery? LoL, dude.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The law should never tolerate/protect hate groups.

The law should also not force someone who disagrees with what you're doing to participate in what you're doing.

The whole "your freedom ends when mine begins" kinda thing. Not "my freedom ends when you think it's discrimination".

For instance you do not have the freedom to go murder anyone you want. Or at least without potential punishment.

You can not forcibly take another person's property.

You kind of have your sentence backwards. Your freedom ends when you began to harm another person. Discrimination does and has always harmed the people begin discriminated against.

Originally posted by Newjak
Except half of society is putting limits on people's freedoms in the name of other people's rights.

For instance you do not have the freedom to go murder anyone you want. Or at least without potential punishment.

You can not forcibly take another person's property.

You kind of have your sentence backwards. Your freedom ends when you began to harm another person. Discrimination does and has always harmed the people begin discriminated against.

It's not simply putting limits on freedoms, it is essentially forcing ppl to do what they do not want to do or suffer dire consequences. Big difference. I thought slavery was abolished. I am talking about the bakery example here.

Apparently you can as long as you can line it up with some form of discrimination.

I intentionally wrote it that way to prove my point. As such, the concept has to work in a vice versa arrangment for it to be fair, don't you agree?

If somone goes to a state that has legal prostitution, gets a known lesbian-only prostitute, can he sue her for 135,000USD for sexual discrimination if she refuses to have sex with him?

And to be clear, I have no issues with them getting fined. But 135k?? That is disgusting. Especially when they have served the lesbian couple before. I have a feeing that the lesbians just wanted to have a bit of pocket money for their honeymoon than any kind of moral indignation here.... They literally ruined the lives of 2 ppl just cuz they got slightly inconvenienced. That is not justice. But I guess Christians are this age's whipping boys so that is just all well and dandy.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It's not simply putting limits on freedoms, it is essentially forcing ppl to do what they do not want to do or suffer dire consequences. Big difference. I thought slavery was abolished.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wait, so any kind of business regulation is slavery?

No, it's about allowing ppl to say no to serving when their job is a non-essential/non-commodity. There are exceptions, of course, but a bakery is def not one of them.

It's not as if they refused to sell products already being offered to the couple due to discrimination, either, they just didn't wish to actively participate in something that ran counter to their beliefs.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
$135,000 is way too high. I agree with a fine, but that's ridiculous.

I mean, they're a small business, that will ruin them. $5,000 or $10,000 would prove the point without putting them out of business.

Fair.

👆

Originally posted by Nibedicus
This is ridiculous.

Can I go to a known feminist baker now and have them make boobs and vagina cakes en masse and "feminists are stupid" cupcakes and sue her for $135,000 if she refuses to make them?

I think it is a fine, not a tort payout.

But, yes, that's what that means. Forcing people to do things against their will and against their core beliefs is soooo beautiful, right? Hooray for "freedom."

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The law should never tolerate/protect hate groups.

The law should also not force someone who disagrees with what you're doing to participate in what you're doing.

The whole "your freedom ends when mine begins" kinda thing. Not "my freedom ends when you think it's discrimination".

That's not how freedom works. With free speech, you either allow people to express themselves, freely, or you don't. This means you allow people to not serve homosexuals/blacks/jews or you don't.

Another way to put it is you have to take the bad with the good. The right to express yourself as you see fit means you could choose to love everyone or hate everyone. As long as that right is preserved, it's freedom. If it is not, it is oppression.

^ agreed

Originally posted by Nibedicus
No, it's about allowing ppl to say no to serving when their job is a non-essential/non-commodity. There are exceptions, of course, but a bakery is def not one of them.

Ahhh, yes. I see.

I agree with this.

Man...I can't believe I didn't think of this.

So I would like to amend my position. I'm no longer a staunch "freedom" advocate. For essential utilities like electricity, cell service, internet, and gas, these should not be allowed to discriminate. It has to be offered to all: no exceptions. Even if the operator/provider is privately owned, it should be regulated to require it offer it freely to anyone. Now, whether or not that should be a "paid for" service, is another discussion.

Non-essential goods and services, however, should not be subject to this same regulation. All of you should thank Nibedicus for changing my stubborn mind on this. This is a rare moment. Bask in it while it lasts.

I smell that you are weak, DDD. Prepare to have your orange creme center feasted on by my attack dogs.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It's not simply putting limits on freedoms, it is essentially forcing ppl to do what they do not want to do or suffer dire consequences. Big difference. I thought slavery was abolished. I am talking about the bakery example here.

Apparently you can as long as you can line it up with some form of discrimination.

I intentionally wrote it that way to prove my point. As such, the concept has to work in a vice versa arrangment for it to be fair, don't you agree?

If somone goes to a state that has legal prostitution, gets a known lesbian-only prostitute, can he sue her for 135,000USD for sexual discrimination if she refuses to have sex with him?

And to be clear, I have no issues with them getting fined. But 135k?? That is disgusting. Especially when they have served the lesbian couple before. I have a feeing that the lesbians just wanted to have a bit of pocket money for their honeymoon than any kind of moral indignation here.... They literally ruined the lives of 2 ppl just cuz they got slightly inconvenienced. That is not justice. But I guess Christians are this age's whipping boys so that is just all well and dandy.

I will say your lesbian only example is probably the best example I've seen on pushing the boundary on what should or should not be allowable discrimination. And makes me question my stance further so good job on that. Still I do think there is a difference most services and what comes into play with the human body as no one should be forced to have sex with someone they don't want to. We already have laws protecting people from that in rape laws.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fair.

👆

I think it is a fine, not a tort payout.

But, yes, that's what that means. Forcing people to do things against their will and against their core beliefs is soooo beautiful, right? Hooray for "freedom."

That's not how freedom works. With free speech, you either allow people to express themselves, freely, or you don't. This means you allow people to not serve homosexuals/blacks/jews or you don't.

Another way to put it is you have to take the bad with the good. The right to express yourself as you see fit means you could choose to love everyone or hate everyone. As long as that right is preserved, it's freedom. If it is not, it is oppression.

For instance I don't think people are trying to limit freedom of expression. Anyone can voice whatever they want to say.

Let me try to find a good analogy for this. You can openly hate your neighbor because they are a muslim. No one is saying you can't express an opinion even a bigoted one. There is a line between expression and action though. So for instance you could put a sigh on your lawn that says you hate muslims but you can not go into the realm of action and attack your neighbor because they are muslim or destroy their property because they are muslim.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ahhh, yes. I see.

I agree with this.

Man...I can't believe I didn't think of this.

So I would like to amend my position. I'm no longer a staunch "freedom" advocate. For essential utilities like electricity, cell service, internet, and gas, these should not be allowed to discriminate. It has to be offered to all: no exceptions. Even if the operator/provider is privately owned, it should be regulated to require it offer it freely to anyone. Now, whether or not that should be a "paid for" service, is another discussion.

Non-essential goods and services, however, should not be subject to this same regulation. All of you should thank Nibedicus for changing my stubborn mind on this. This is a rare moment. Bask in it while it lasts.

I hope you see a fundamental problem in this kind of attitude.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fair.

👆

Originally posted by Newjak
So I do think their is a key difference in what you are suggesting vs what you are saying.

For instance I don't think people are trying to limit freedom of expression. Anyone can voice whatever they want to say.

Let me try to find a good analogy for this. You can openly hate your neighbor because they are a muslim. No one is saying you can't express an opinion even a bigoted one. There is a line between expression and action though. So for instance you could put a sigh on your lawn that says you hate muslims but you can not go into the realm of action and attack your neighbor because they are muslim or destroy their property because they are muslim.

There is a key difference. Due to the precedence set and upheld over and over, in the US Supreme Court, part of "Freedom of Speech" also includes how you physically express that freedom of speech with your actions. It falls under "protected speech." This type of speech is known as "expressive conduct" or "symbolic speech." It is not simply being able to think and say what you want. It includes actions or behaviors that reflects that "freedom." Part of protected speech could be not serving blacks, Asians, straight white males, etc (but the American Civil Rights Act now prevents that. Yes, the right to not serve people you don't like, for whatever reason, is no longer protected speech specifically due to the American Civil Rights Act).

I don't want you to just take my word for it.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/7019/Freedom-Speech-Expressive-Conduct.html

As you can probably guess, there are other cases that run directly against my idea of Expressive Conduct (ones that I strongly disagree with). One such case is The US vs. O'Brien. O'Brien burned his draft card in protest of the Vietnam War. Due to another law, they got him on a technicality and called it "not protected speech." It was related to the constitution and a law that basically made drafts legal. Burning his card, somehow, violated that law. My opinion is that, today, that legality of that law and his protected speech demonstration would be seen differently. Why? Because we have computers. It would take mere seconds, even without his draft card, to look him up if that scenario came up. No harm done by burning the draft card. But that also means he would probably not burn his card because I believe he burned his card specifically to demonstrate he wouldn't participate in the war.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, this is all sorts of ****ed up. The Vietnam War is a blight on US History, imo. There are worse things but we really did some bad things, with legal precedence, during that time.

Originally posted by Newjak
So would that mean non-essential places would be able to not serve Blacks, Asians, Women, Catholics, Muslims?

Yes, we've been over that already in this very thread. That's exactly what that means.

Originally posted by Newjak
I hope you see a fundamental problem in this kind of attitude.

I would never refer to "freedom" as a problem unless I was an oppressive fascist. uhuh

As stated many times before, you have to take the bad with the good. Your right to be a douchenugget is also another's right to love everyone. Freedom of Speech is awesome...but it can also be ugly. It's not "freedom" if the ugly cannot be allowed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think it'd be really classy if at this point the lesbian couple tried to get the charges dropped (idk if you can do that once the settlement's been awarded) and just let the bakery off with this stern warning.

That would be kind and I would not put it past a couple from the LGBTQ community to take the higher road: they've had to act Christlike for far longer than their oppressive "Christian" counter parts. 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
That would be kind and I would not put it past a couple from the LGBTQ community to take the higher road: they've had to act Christlike for far longer than their oppressive "Christian" counter parts. 😐

You're improving. You included quotes this time, making a distinction between true Christianity and what merely PASSES for Christianity in name in the public mind.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're improving. You included quotes this time, making a distinction between true Christianity and what merely PASSES for Christianity in name in the public mind.

I disagree that I'm improving on my way of differentiating Christians because I've always held that there are good people and bad people: Christians are no exception. I've always held that many Christians are "Christian" in name-only. Many Christians are some of the most insufferable, self-righteous, hypocrites I have ever seen.

But don't take my word for it...take Christ's word for it:

Matthew 7:21-23

21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Look, now I've cited scripture...not sure how appropriate that is in the GDF.

I'm a pretty gay person let me just put that out before I go any further... But how would the baker know your gay? I mean if you go in with your partner the guy isent going to ask you if you are gay or not.. At least that's never happend to me

Originally posted by Spawningpool
I'm a pretty gay person let me just put that out before I go any further... But how would the baker know your gay? I mean if you go in with your partner the guy isent going to ask you if you are gay or not.. At least that's never happend to me

Hypothetical: If I was a baker and you and your finance (let us all him Ronaldo) came into my bakery and said "we're getting married in May, we'd like to see your wedding cake portfolio.", I would assume that the cake I'd be baking for you and Ronaldo would be for a same-sex wedding.

But I also possess a Batman-level intuition 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
Hypothetical: If I was a baker and you and your finance (let us all him Ronaldo) came into my bakery and said "we're getting married in May, we'd like to see your wedding cake portfolio.", I would assume that the cake I'd be baking for you and Ronaldo would be for a same-sex wedding.

But I also possess a Batman-level intuition 👆