Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*
- Thread starter Malinatar
- Start date
Xevy
Log Wizard
- 8,677
- 3,868
Literally the gay/drag bar that's been there for 30+ years is called "Talbott Street". It was like going to So Cal and saying "we don't serve Hispanics!"
Skanda
I'm Amod too!
- 6,662
- 4,506
http://gamepolitics.com/2015/03/27/g...til-after-2020
The answer is "not very". They have a contract with the city until 2020.
Royal
Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
- 15,077
- 10,641
Another example for you:http://player.theplatform.com/p/BCY3...?autoPlay=true
An Indianapolis business owner called in to a local radio show to say that he would he eagerly discriminate against gays in his place of business. I love how he cites his Christian upbringing as the reason for not wanting gays in his restaurant yet readily admits to lying to suspected gay customers in the past about kitchen equipment being broken to avoid serving them. Selective Christians are the best Christians. However he wasn't eager enough about the new law to name his business. I wonder how he hopes to eagerly flex his Jesus muscles and keep it from getting out locally.
zombiewizardhawk
Potato del Grande
- 9,349
- 11,972
So true. On the other hand, why the fuck is it so important that people be able to force their way into a business or anywhere else (physical space or otherwise) where they are not wanted and/or have nothing in common with people and have no purpose there (other than to be the dickhead in the room crying for attention).
An entire city refuses to do business with a homo which results in them being forced to drive 50 miles to buy groceries or leaves them unable to get electricity/water to their home because the utility companies won't provide service to them? Sure, we've got an issue. Randy's cake shop won't sell you a cake for your gay marriage? Who the fuck cares, buy a cake somewhere else.
zombiewizardhawk
Potato del Grande
- 9,349
- 11,972
On a seperate note, I like all the retards in here raging against religion claiming it's not fair for "religious nutjobs" to force their beliefs on anyone else while simultaneously wanting THEIR views shit down everyone else's throats because "lolz i'm right cause i'm anti-religion, my thoughts are teh proper way to human. If you disagree with me, go fuck yourself, bigot.".
How many of you who rage at religious groups for "trying to ostracize people from their communities and show them they aren't appreciated" and talk about how wrong it is get all giddy and start screaming how glorious it is when people do things far worse, more destructive, and usually a lot more harmful (physically or otherwise) than simply refusing service on something like a wedding cake but aim it at a "religious group" whether it's a church somewhere or even some loons like the Westboro Baptist crowd.
How many of you who rage at religious groups for "trying to ostracize people from their communities and show them they aren't appreciated" and talk about how wrong it is get all giddy and start screaming how glorious it is when people do things far worse, more destructive, and usually a lot more harmful (physically or otherwise) than simply refusing service on something like a wedding cake but aim it at a "religious group" whether it's a church somewhere or even some loons like the Westboro Baptist crowd.
- 42,267
- 183,269
Yeah, I live in Indiana, and have heard quite a few people refer to it as "the most Northern part of the South." They're not wrong.
Shit like this law make me want to leave the country, not just the state. I firmly believe people are gay when born, that it isn't a decision that comes with puberty or whatever. Telling them they don't get service is absolutely no different than segregating blacks or Jews or Native North Americans or whatever. This shit is bonkers.
No, thefunniestthing is watching people try to take the progressive high ground in this thread while bitching about "SJWs" in the Gamergate one.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Its a hobby of mine to take on tough cases.
We can work with this
Yeah think so.
Its definitely culturally part of the South now.
/shotsfired
Not wanting people discriminated against when they go into businesses isnot"shoving views down someone's throats"
I don't even want trannies discriminated when they go out in public to shop at businesses. Which goes to Itzena's attempt to cry hypocrisy as well about the GG thread.
There is a wide divide between refusal to pander to the internet based social justice movement that does nothing but whine and bitch endlessly about privilege and shit, and actually supporting discriminating against those people when they go out shopping.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,573
- 73,676
I don't have a good grasp of the law, but isn't passing a law saying, "It's legal for businesses to do this." being less intrusive by default? Isn't the law there to reduce the scope of government?
General Antony
Vyemm Raider
- 1,142
- 3,547
You have no right to compel others with force to not discriminate against people. If you actually believe in the concept of liberty, which I don't think most here do, then you recognize that they are free to do as they wish to the extent they're not causing injury to others. It's not about supporting discrimination - I think most businesses will harm themselves by taking on these policies. It's about not allowing the state to compel by use of force private parties to associate with those that they don't want to.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Yeah the government does have that right.
Take it up with the Supremes if you disagree.
Katzenbach v. McClung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Borzak
Bronze Baron of the Realm
- 24,815
- 32,294
I still fail to see the issue, as mentioned above make it a club where you instantly make people join for a small fee of $1.00 or whatever and it's good for a year. They do that in lots of other "retail" type businesses like bars and retaurants. Don't want to server them, fine "you're not a member".
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
A little background: Generally referred to as Ollie's BBQ case when it comes up in ConLaw in part because there are a bunch of Katzenbach cass (Katzenbach was LBJ's AG who brought a bunch of CRA of 1964 Cases) The CRA of 1964 was passed under Congress' power to regulate Interstate Commerce. Emphases on Interstate. Ollie's BBQ was a small, instate racist-as-can-be restaurant. Not to put too fine a point on it but the activist Warren Court basically struck out the interstate limitation on the Commerce Power in this case. So yeah I've got problems with the case and the Warren Court - the Commerce Power was walked back a little bit in the Obamacare Case but whatever.
It's really simple: people should get to discriminate in this country under our First Amendment rights of Association, Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion. And if you don't like how someone's FA rights mean that you don't get your cake, guess what? You get to take your business elsewhere to someone who isn't a bigot and give them your money. You should not get to take them to court.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
1. I don't need an education on a "little background" you can read the wikipedia link it is comprehensive
2. No matter how much you want to cry that 1st amendment right to free association gives you a right to discriminate when running a public business, the fact is that you're wrong, the Supremes have decided this multiple times. You're free to have a wrong opinion, but its wrong and that isn't going to change regardless of how much you wish it were so.
This isn't up for debate. The Supremes decided 9-0 that the Feds have a reasonable right to regulate to prevent discrimination, because it affects interstate commerce, which it does.
You cannot have this discussion devoid of the historical context of most of the businesses in the South segregating and discriminating against customers, and how that socially accepted mass discrimination affected the fundamental rights of the people being discriminated against.
Your right to dislike someone based on their skin color, sexual orientation, etc ends at their nose, and when discrimination could lead to loss of access to basic goods and services such as buying food, the discriminators are the ones violating the basic fundamental rights of the discriminated against. Its that simple.
And the social consequences of this viewpoint you are expressing is that you'd tear our civilization apart at the seams. Blacks only serving blacks. Whites only serving whites. Gays only serving gays. Christians only interacting with Christians. Muslims only interacting with Muslims.
If you think the Feds don't have a vested interest in preventing that sort of social mass break down, you might be retarded.
But this is tad we're talking about, so yeah.
2. No matter how much you want to cry that 1st amendment right to free association gives you a right to discriminate when running a public business, the fact is that you're wrong, the Supremes have decided this multiple times. You're free to have a wrong opinion, but its wrong and that isn't going to change regardless of how much you wish it were so.
This isn't up for debate. The Supremes decided 9-0 that the Feds have a reasonable right to regulate to prevent discrimination, because it affects interstate commerce, which it does.
You cannot have this discussion devoid of the historical context of most of the businesses in the South segregating and discriminating against customers, and how that socially accepted mass discrimination affected the fundamental rights of the people being discriminated against.
Your right to dislike someone based on their skin color, sexual orientation, etc ends at their nose, and when discrimination could lead to loss of access to basic goods and services such as buying food, the discriminators are the ones violating the basic fundamental rights of the discriminated against. Its that simple.
And the social consequences of this viewpoint you are expressing is that you'd tear our civilization apart at the seams. Blacks only serving blacks. Whites only serving whites. Gays only serving gays. Christians only interacting with Christians. Muslims only interacting with Muslims.
If you think the Feds don't have a vested interest in preventing that sort of social mass break down, you might be retarded.
But this is tad we're talking about, so yeah.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
I don't entirely understand why this is even a law.
Couple wants a wedding cake from wedding cake shop. Wedding cake shop owner says, "Newp". Couple sues wedding cake shop, wedding cake shop calls his buddy who works in the statehouse and everyone decides to pass a law because god damn this is retarded?
I mean is there really something special about these cakes? Are theythat good? Cause the law is kinda retarded. But it's kinda retarded both ways. Hey, fucknuts, make the cake for Adam and Steve over there. Like you got anything better to do. And hey, Adam and Steve fucknuts. Here's an idea. When a baker tells you you're going to hell and he won't make you your god damn wedding cake... here's an idea: Maybe, just maybe, youdon'twant to eat that wedding cake anyway.
Couple wants a wedding cake from wedding cake shop. Wedding cake shop owner says, "Newp". Couple sues wedding cake shop, wedding cake shop calls his buddy who works in the statehouse and everyone decides to pass a law because god damn this is retarded?
I mean is there really something special about these cakes? Are theythat good? Cause the law is kinda retarded. But it's kinda retarded both ways. Hey, fucknuts, make the cake for Adam and Steve over there. Like you got anything better to do. And hey, Adam and Steve fucknuts. Here's an idea. When a baker tells you you're going to hell and he won't make you your god damn wedding cake... here's an idea: Maybe, just maybe, youdon'twant to eat that wedding cake anyway.