Pong Messiah Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 What is wrong with Indiana? Why does it insist on being on the wrong side of history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RelentlessMalice Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 A solution is that any business that refuses services based on race,gender,sexual oreientation etc... Should be called out and a all out boycott on the business should ensue. The business has two choices then. One is to relent and apologize or two eventually go out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 You sound like a libertarian! I am not sure that has ever had more than limited success in the real world. But let's see how Indiana fares if all the folks promising not to do business there follow through! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'd like to read one article that manages to explain specifically why it's evil without the explanation just being that it's evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RelentlessMalice Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Exactly! The two best ways to change someones behavior is by affecting their wallets or lives. Boycott the shit out of any business who pulls this mess. To me this is a clear violation of the 14th amendment. Looks like Arkansas is going to do a similar law next so get the boycotting going. When these businesses start losing money they will change or they will be out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'd like to read one article that manages to explain specifically why it's evil without the explanation just being that it's evil.its christians and republicans yet again attacking gay ppl and equality and the man wants 'an explanation.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryn Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Whoops: Indiana’s anti-gay ‘religious freedom’ act opens the door for the First Church of Cannabis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 ok ryn maybe this law isnt all bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Dude, if I live in that state, I'd be online shopping for satanic rastafarian supplies SO HARD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas1138 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 GUYS NO INDIANA IS GREAT I PROMISE. I MEAN OUR WEATHER SUCKS SOMETIMES, BUT THE STATE IS HONESTLY AWESOME. LALALALALALALALALA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Okay. Pong troll is awesome. This law is to protect people that do refuse service like that lady who lost her cake shop because some lesbians sued her for breach of contract when she refused to bake and deliver a wedding cake for the lesbians. They lesbos won and now we have a stupid state law. We are turning into a nanny state for the stupid. That cake shop lady stood up for what she felt was right. Now there are consequences. She should be proud she lost her shop because she felt she was in the right. This is why immigrants are better at owning businesses as they just want to make money. They don't care if you are mariposas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 We are turning into a nanny state for the stupid. That cake shop lady stood up for what she felt was right. Now there are consequences. She should be proud she lost her shop because she felt she was in the right.OK I get that there are government nannies reaching into everybody's panties and that people are emotionally stunted and so coddled they even feel they have a right to not be offended. And whining about microaggressions is laughably pathetic. But forgetting about nanny state-ism and hypersensitivity for a moment, I just don't see how anybody should or could be proud of denying services to another person for what they are. That's the kind of thing any semi-evolved human being looks back on with shame, not pride. This is why immigrants are better at owning businesses as they just want to make money. They don't care if you are mariposasThat sounds like a good philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Yes. I know ALL ABOUT this. You can't have eight Facebook friends who are die hard progressives and not hear about this. Lots and lots and LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS about how stupid Christians, conservatives and republicans are. 24/7/365. Not that I disagree, mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I just wish they would take time to think about WHY, rather than just shouting. Shouting is stupid. And all of those progressives are on the side of Walmart. Let that sink in for a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Kurgan. I pray for you everyday. A bus driver on San Antonio was shot by a passenger. Pong, I am just trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolence Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Spam, I often don't know what to think of you. If you run a for-profit business, profit / revenue should be your ONLY REASON FOR EXISTING. That's not to say you can't invest sustainably or donate to charity, but you should NEVER TURN away a customer who is after your core competency product / service due to "personal beliefs." You should work in the private, not-for-profit sector if your beliefs are that strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Dude, if I live in that state, I'd be online shopping for satanic rastafarian supplies SO HARDYeah, I can definitely see that. I vote you most likely to go all Children of the Corn. Spam, I often don't know what to think of you. If you run a for-profit business, profit / revenue should be your ONLY REASON FOR EXISTING. That's not to say you can't invest sustainably or donate to charity, but you should NEVER TURN away a customer who is after your core competency product / service due to "personal beliefs." You should work in the private, not-for-profit sector if your beliefs are that strong. In principle, you are correct, of course , but see my reasoning below. A solution is that any business that refuses services based on race,gender,sexual oreientation etc... Should be called out and a all out boycott on the business should ensue. The business has two choices then. One is to relent and apologize or two eventually go out of business.And this is exactly why I think that people SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against customers for any reason. If someone told me they didn't want to serve a particular person or group, my first question would be have you been sued yet? You hate gays? Good, lose money because you've been boycotted and don't bake their wedding cakes. You hate {enter ethnicity here} and don't want to serve them? Good, get sued into oblivion and go away. Conversely, you hate Christians and don't want some bible thumper to purchase your vagina pastries in your lesbian-themed pastry shop? Good, the world sees you for the hypocrite that you are. The thing all these scenarios have in common is that in the end, people who stand on their (warped) principles and mix business with politics, won't be in business very long. In today's society, between being litigious as well as all the activists chomping at the bit for a chance to relive (or live, if they weren't alive at the time) the 1960s and protest, it would be virtually impossible to have a business model like that to remain sustainable. Plus, we get the added benefit of identifying these prejudiced pricks for what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas1138 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I think it should be okay for someone who provides services to not want to provide them to gay couples for their weddings. It's up to the free market to decide if that's a viable course to take. Conversely, if a homosexual walked into random pastry shop looking for a birthday cake, no, I don't think the owner should be able to be all NO GAYS ALLOWED. I think it should be okay for anesthesiologists to choose not to put women under for abortions. Am I a bigot/BIG DUMB MAN? Answer honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Depends on your motives, if you ask me. My motive is to expose prejudiced fools and open them up to lawsuits and boycotts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 I think it should be okay for someone who provides services to not want to provide them to gay couples for their weddings. It's up to the free market to decide if that's a viable course to take. Conversely, if a homosexual walked into random pastry shop looking for a birthday cake, no, I don't think the owner should be able to be all NO GAYS ALLOWED. I think it should be okay for anesthesiologists to choose not to put women under for abortions. Am I a bigot/BIG DUMB MAN? Answer honestly.I think you are a thoughtful poster, and I like reading your stuff. I think it is dumb and bigoted for somebody to say "You need to find somebody else to make a cake for your gay wedding," but if it is a private transaction, I would like to see the market correct the bigotry rather than the state. I won't lie that it makes me uncomfortable, though, and I keep running scenarios through my head of bigoted towns where everybody is fine with freezing out "certain types" of people and the market actually makes things worse -- so it feels like a lesser of many evils choice. But at the end of the day, as little faith in individuals and the market I may have, I have even less in groups of people and/or the government. Wasn't a big part of the gay cake thing in Washington or Oregon tied to the fact that it was a brick-and-mortar establishment? If a homosexual person is told they can't come into a certain establishment or purchase goods there, I think that is pretty simple case of "Do you want to keep your business license or not, you knucklehead?" Likewise, unless you are your own boss, you shouldn't get to pick and choose what parts of your job you want to do. Abort babies or find another line of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I would like to see the market correct the bigotry rather than the state. I won't lie that it makes me uncomfortable, though, and I keep running scenarios through my head of bigoted towns where everybody is fine with freezing out "certain types" of people and the market actually makes things worse -- so it feels like a lesser of many evils choice. But at the end of the day, as little faith in individuals and the market I may have, I have even less in groups of people and/or the government.+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas1138 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I just think that if providing that service becomes "morally reprehensible" to you on religious reasons, I don't think you should be forced to do something. I don't really care why it's morally reprehensible to you, or if I agree with it, I don't think you should be forced to compromise your belief system under any circumstances (I'm not dealing with crazy hypotheticals here, that I'm sure there are hundreds of instances where we can go "well, what if....," I'm talking broadly, but still limited to this narrow instance - if that makes any sense) I think if you're a (wedding cake) baker or a wedding planner you should be able to say "eh, I don't do gay weddings but there's X place right down the way that's more than happy to do that for you, have a nice day." Maybe that's too idealistic of an outcome to imagine. But if that particular business owner can take the hit of never providing whatever service for whatever group, then I think they should have that right. Like you said, if the free market corrects that (to the point they run out of business or they change their mind), great! Reiterating that no, I don't think Modessa's Soul Food (actual restaurant name in Indianapolis!) or WalMart or Car-X or whatever can have a blanket "Sorry we don't serve your kind here" policy. You'd have to stretch pretty far to find what "substantial burden" the store owner is being placed under by being made to serve "the gays." --- However, you definitely bring up a good point about places where homosexual customers would really be frozen out - that is actually one I hadn't considered. In Indianapolis (where I live) there's always going to be plenty of options. In, say, Jasper there might not be. By the way, I do think this RFRA has been a cluster**** from the start and has substantially harmed an otherwise great state. I'm not defending this bill by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The thing is this basically is a clash between what is moral (or morally reprehensible) and what a person or business is required to do legally...in thicase not to refuse service based on discrimination. I'm not an expert in this area but I am pretty sure that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 are the main reasons for protection against discrimination. This is why I don't think state laws for protection against discrimination are needed, and any state laws "protecting" or allowing people with so-called religious convictions to deny service are either necessary or valid to begin with. Just because you find a person or group morally reprehensible (IE they are gay, or a different group from you) doesn't mean dick because once you enter the domain of business and service industry, you can't discriminate because its against the law. So that's why I say let these businesses discriminate if they want to. Theres already Federal laws against it and they will be sorry eventually, because they are in the wrong, both morally and legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Great. Now my forms when I order a cake will have a box I have to check that state "Is this cake to be used for something gay?" And I will have to say yes because it is for a children's birthday party. To be honest - now that I am home and can type on a computer - I think this is a pity law that Indiana created. This came up because some lady refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and I am sure there has been a few other cases too and got sued. The law was on the opposite side of whatever objectionable thing the business owner was refusing to do based on a general discrimination. Really and truly people who run businesses like this do end up going out of business. Because their business acumen is not that great. They're just doing what they think they love to do best. The truly good at business will be like Evo described: They will happily take your money and provide the cake to you. They don't care if you film fetish food porn, smash it in your homosexual lovers face or let your kid smash it at his first birthday. It is flour, sugar, butter and eggs and it is money. But now this poor lady is wringing her hands because she breached a contract to provide something and lost in the law suit and now she can't pay up and will need to sell her shop and close up. Well some law makers want you to keep on making your cakes and running your business model poorly so they're going to pass a law that helps cover you when you want to up and say "I feel like this is morally reprehensible and do not like Asian Furries using my private party room to throw a party after they put the deposit down and I'm going to tell them after the invitations have gone out that my party room is closed to them because a signed contract is my word but I can't sleep at night thinking about furries humping on my beautiful tables". Voila! The government as absolved you from your guilt. Now your no longer going to have a huge party that will make you beaucoup bucks from all those partying furries but an empty party room. (I'm using furries because Aprilface had a bunch of them at her campground this weekend and they made a mess - and you don't see the CA state park service refusing them a camping spot!) This seems so anti republican. I mean don't they want less government in business? Will signs have to be posted? Will you as a business owner have to have a questionaire filled out before you can begin any kind of business transaction? In other news lots of people get frozen out of things through a kind of discrimination. There are towns that will kick a hobo out or panhandler rather than feeding him or people look the other way. People with really bad credit - re: the poor cannot attain basics because they need good credit to secure a safe car, housing and good jobs. But by all means let's protect those people who want the right to refuse service to loud black women who bitch endless on their cell phones and can't provide a clear concise order of what they want and then freak the fuck out when the order is screwed up. I am totes mcgoats for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolence Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 This "let the free market" sort it out is extremely naive, especially in the context of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. How many black-owned businesses existed back then? I'd dare say not a whole lot. And how many white-owned businesses-- particularly in the South-- were enthusiastic about the prospect of gaining new black customers? I'd venture, probably a fewer number than black owned businesses. So by regulating discrimination in public accommodations, the state acknowledges that it needs to take action to move the needle. Expecting the magical free market world of boycotts and capital flow to desegregate things in the Bible Belt might have taken centuries-- and that was not ethically permissible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts