America home of the free? Not in Indiana.
|
lazerone
|
Posted 2:43 pm, 03/30/2015
|
His business, his right. Simple. He owns it and pays the bills.
|
|
Truthseeker911
|
Posted 2:38 pm, 03/30/2015
|
Here's an analogy for you lazer.
You are driving through indiana and find your self running low on gas. The sign says gas station ahead 1 mile. You pull in to fill up and out comes the Muslim gas station owner, he sees your Ted Cruz for pres bumper sticker and your ichthys on your car and says, " sorry, no gas for you! " You do not have enough gas to make it to the next closest station. Now what are you going to do?
|
|
this n that
|
Posted 2:30 pm, 03/30/2015
|
Topsoil as momo has concisely shown you, you're the one who has nothing.
And as for name calling... Being a hypocrite is a prerequisite for being a liberal , And about 98 percent of liberals willingly jump at the chance to be a hypocrite every chance they get. There are a few exceptions here and there, but most of you are untruthful hypocrites. Sure looks like I'm the honest one here.
And while I'm here... what about.."no shoes, no shirt, no service? What about the "soup nazi" was he within the law when he jerked George's soup back because he dared to ask for some bread?
You people would be dangerous if you weren't so obviously, so consistently hypocrites.
|
|
lazerone
|
Posted 2:29 pm, 03/30/2015
|
I agree, the KKK is a terrible organization but this law keeps them from being able to sue a business for not printing them T-Shirts.
|
|
Hepsibah
|
Posted 2:27 pm, 03/30/2015
|
Lazer, The KKK is an organization that PROMOTES discrimination, hatred and violence toward African Americans. Not a good analogy.
|
|
andreallynow
|
Posted 2:26 pm, 03/30/2015
|
I think the bottom line for business owners is this: Do I want to make money or not? Am I willing to lose residual business because I do not want to serve gays, blacks, Asians, hippies, people with blue eyes, etc....
|
|
lazerone
|
Posted 2:22 pm, 03/30/2015
|
This law helps out the blacks also. Lets say that a T-shirt printing business is owned by a black family. A customer comes into the business wanting some KKK t-shirts printed up but it is against the owners beliefs. This law keeps this business owner from having to print up "KKK" T-shirts and not worried about being sued. The Religious Restoration Act of 1993 was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). It was passed by a unanimous Democrat House of Representatives and a near unanimous Democrat Senate, and none other than Bill Clinton signed it into law -- and that law that is practically identical to the one in Indiana.
|
|
Hepsibah
|
Posted 2:14 pm, 03/30/2015
|
If there was no discrimination involved, I think most folks can sense that in a person's demeanor. I don't think that a false claim of discrimination would hold up in court. Plus, a couple who is getting married usually have stars in their eyes and just want to order a wedding cake, arrange for a caterer, take care of the many other preparations and GET ON WITH THE DANGED WEDDING.
And then get on with their lives together.
|
|
mommotwo
|
Posted 2:06 pm, 03/30/2015
|
I don't think you can assume that a gay couple would become demanding if you politely and honestly explained to them that you had another wedding cake to bake that week.
No, but you can't assume that they wouldn't be demanding and claim discrimination, either.
|
|
chendo
|
Posted 2:04 pm, 03/30/2015
|
it's a non issue. the law says you cannot discriminate against a protected class.
discrimination takes place when i do not want to serve you because you are gay...or black...or jewish...or whatever. discrimination does not take place if i already have a wedding booked, or i am going to be closed that day...or whatever.
but, what if i can't bake a cake, and the couple decides it is because i am discriminating against them? what garbage!
if, however they have a valid claim, then let the market decide. let them call me out and boycott me.
i say let the business owners decide
|
|
Hepsibah
|
Posted 2:01 pm, 03/30/2015
|
I don't think you can assume that a gay couple would become demanding if you politely and honestly explained to them that you had another wedding cake to bake that week.
The might even come back sometime to ask for another kind of cake for a different occasion or for cinnamon buns.
|
|
mommotwo
|
Posted 1:51 pm, 03/30/2015
|
this point is moot
No it's not. It's a good point. I may turn down a wedding for any number of reasons. I may do a wedding for someone because they are a friend and I have nothing else to do that day. I may do one just because I want a little extra money. It should be MY choice and I shouldn't have to explain it. Anytime you start forcing someone to provide a service then you open up a whole new can of worms. What if I'm a baker and already have a wedding cake to do that week and just won't have time to do another and it just so happens that a gay couple come in demanding I not send them away? My business. My choice.
|
|
mommotwo
|
Posted 1:26 pm, 03/30/2015
|
It's no longer a hobby when I actually charge for the service and you can bet if I do a wedding, then I charge, lol.
|
|
Top Soil
|
Posted 1:05 pm, 03/30/2015
|
mommotwo (view profile) | Posted 12:57 pm, 03/30/2015 | Example- I take pictures- basically just as a hobby. I really only WANT to do it as a hobby. I have however been talked into doing a few weddings. I don't like doing weddings. It's a lot of work and people always expect the impossible. Anyway, why would anyone think that I cannot pick and choose who I take pics for? I may not like the location. I may not want to work where there will be a lot of drinking. I may not want to do their pics because I simply had rather go to a ball game. Isn't that always my choice? |
This isn't the topic.
Hobby =/= business
Location or drunks =/= h*mosexuals
this point is moot
|
|
TheMUSE
|
Posted 1:04 pm, 03/30/2015
|
I think it's sad that there is still this division going on in 2015. I have many Christian friends and I don't always agree with what they feel in their hearts.... I would never consider voting for something that took away their rights, nor would I ever consider voting against something that would protect their freedoms. What others believe in privately is none of my business. What others do privately is none of my business. Why is what my husband and I do privately anyone else's business? My money is just as good as anyone else's. Having said that, I personally wouldn't want to patronize a business that doesn't understand or accept my marriage or whom I am as a person. I wouldn't want to force anyone to do something against their religious beliefs. It's a shame when people try to impose their beliefs on anyone else. When we got married in NC, we were the first male/male ceremony in our county. I could tell the magistrate was a bit nervous so I told him he could use whatever words to unite us that were in HIS comfort zone. After all, the result was legally the same had he used "religious" words in the ceremony. He thanked us and soon we were married. He was very polite and kind. Had he refused to do his job, I would have been upset for sure, but it seemed like we came up with a good compromise that made us equally satisfied. It still is a shame though that business owners feel it necessary to deny a couple celebrating their love something as simple as flowers or a cake. They aren't the ones performing the ceremony, nor are they condoning the couple's union by providing advertised services.
|
|
mommotwo
|
Posted 12:58 pm, 03/30/2015
|
Top soil- I'm being honest. I can't think of a time that I personally have whined about being persecuted as a Christian. So, unless you can remember for me....then?
|
|
mommotwo
|
Posted 12:57 pm, 03/30/2015
|
Example- I take pictures- basically just as a hobby. I really only WANT to do it as a hobby. I have however been talked into doing a few weddings. I don't like doing weddings. It's a lot of work and people always expect the impossible. Anyway, why would anyone think that I cannot pick and choose who I take pics for? I may not like the location. I may not want to work where there will be a lot of drinking. I may not want to do their pics because I simply had rather go to a ball game. Isn't that always my choice?
|
|
Top Soil
|
Posted 12:51 pm, 03/30/2015
|
mommotwo (view profile) | Posted 12:38 pm, 03/30/2015 | But in other threads you complained about Christians being persecuted? So Obviously you DO have a problem with this, you just refuse to recognize the similarities
o.k..so you're gonna have to give me some examples so I know if you are comparing apples to oranges (like usual). |
Jason won't let me have access to the MySQL database, and the search algorithm on this sight doesn't allow the use of search booleans.
I would have to shift through thousands of posts individually,ain't nobody have time for that. You are just going to have to be honest here.
|
|
Top Soil
|
Posted 12:42 pm, 03/30/2015
|
andreallynow (view profile) | Posted 11:51 am, 03/30/2015 | It's never okay to discriminate, IMO. But, just because I don't discriminate, doesn't mean that there aren't people who wouldn't. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't be forced to provide services to anyone if they don't want to take that persons money. |
Absolutely right! but here is the difference.
A landlord CAN discriminate against people. True. Its 100% legal for a landlord to refuse to do business with someone with bad credit, or who has a bad reference. He also has the right to willingly do business with those same people with a credit rating of 100.
If a customer came up to me and asked me to write a program in swift, then I have the right to refuse to do that because i don't want to learn swift, but I will lose business.
|
|
mommotwo
|
Posted 12:38 pm, 03/30/2015
|
But in other threads you complained about Christians being persecuted? So Obviously you DO have a problem with this, you just refuse to recognize the similarities
o.k..so you're gonna have to give me some examples so I know if you are comparing apples to oranges (like usual).
|
|
|
