Why do Hoosiers Support Sharia Law?

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

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.

Yeah, but we live in 2015, some half-century after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and a quarter century after the ADA. Both those acts have went a long way to level the playing field, and when businesses don't comply, they face fines and civil lawsuits and protests and boycotts that will hurt business. When was the last time you heard a business refused service because of someone's color? Denny's comes to mind, but that was years ago, and after all kinds of bad press, and protest. Do you not think that if the NAACP got wind of a restaurant or business being clearly racist that they wouldn't be contacting the news media and do you think Al Sharpton and those like him wouldn't be calling for a national boycott? If you don't, then that would be naive.

 

So in the light of that, why CAN'T the free market decide, now, in a post CRA & ADA world? Why do we need new state laws to either say the same thing as these federal laws, or, why do we need state laws "permitting" discrimination, under the guise of religious belief? Seems to me where federal law ends, the free market CAN pick up the slack.

 

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!)

 

Yeah, but in my view, Spam, to be sure this is a state law in this case and this state law won't stand because it violates an already existing federal law. Now that its drawing national attention, it's only a matter of time before it is struck down by the courts.

[The Kurgan]

I just wish they would take time to think about WHY, rather than just shouting.

 

Good advice for all.

[Guest]

The only actual argument that I've heard is that sexuality is not a protected class in Indiana, which to me implies an issue with this law, not the law being protested.

[Ms. Spam]

Something I can think of that pertains to legal issues is Cracker Barrell refusing to hire gays in the early 90s

[monkeygirl]

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.

 

 

??

What's the difference in these 2 situations?

[Pong Messiah]

Excellent post. It sums up many of my own feelings and concerns.

 

I think it's important to remember we are not living in 1964, though... culture has changed a LOT. There are fewer and fewer circles where being a bigot is something to be proud of. It is a label you definitely do not want -- something to be embarrassed about, and it definitely can cause you to lose business, especially if you are larger company. The power of individual activism (active, passive, and especially slacktive), instant communication, and coordination is huge compared to just 20 years ago. I once participated in a protest that got an Australian company to drop a major partner from thousands of miles away -- two sentences a couple of clicks and done! This kinda thing was total sci-fi in 1964.

 

IMO thinking in terms of today's world and values when judging past civil rights legislation is a major flaw of libertarian thinking; refusing to move forward from yesterday's world and values when clinging to legislative "solutions" for social problems is a major flaw in the thinking of many progressives.

[Lucas1138]

 

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.

 

 

??

What's the difference in these 2 situations?

 

Well one has to do with being party to a gay wedding and one doesn't. The first is an endorsement, even if tacit, of something one might find to be against their religion. The second is baking someone a cake because they are hungry/want a cake.

 

Are you ever going to learn how the new quote system works, btw?

[Pong Messiah]

as soon as she finds her cursor am I right

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

The only actual argument that I've heard is that sexuality is not a protected class in Indiana, which to me implies an issue with this law, not the law being protested.

Yeah, that is true there is no specific law that protects gender/sexuality identity, but I believe there have been cases where it has been successfully argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 has been extended to include gender/sexuality identity. That is, if I remember correctly. Someone correct me I'm not.

[Lucas1138]

Gender and sexual identity are protected classes, yes.

[Carrie Mathison]

The power of individual activism (active, passive, and especially slacktive), instant communication, and coordination is huge compared to just 20 years ago. I once participated in a protest that got an Australian company to drop a major partner from thousands of miles away -- two sentences a couple of clicks and done! This kinda thing was total sci-fi in 1964.

Well it's one thing to be a phony, an armchair activist. Quite another to be... proud of it. Color me perplexed.

 

LOL high five dude. You're just a regular f-cking Maximilien Robespierre, aren't you?

[Pong Messiah]

 

The power of individual activism (active, passive, and especially slacktive), instant communication, and coordination is huge compared to just 20 years ago. I once participated in a protest that got an Australian company to drop a major partner from thousands of miles away -- two sentences a couple of clicks and done! This kinda thing was total sci-fi in 1964.

Well it's one thing to be a phony, an armchair activist. Quite another to be... proud of it. Color me perplexed.

 

LOL high five dude. You're just a regular f-cking Maximilien Robespierre, aren't you?

 

All I pointed out is that it is much, much easier ("two sentences... click") for an individual to participate in activities that modify a business's behavior or associations than it was in 1964, so what applied then may not apply today.

 

I don't recall any glaring errors in what I said, nor do I recall any particular sense of pride in my words or actions. To the best of my knowledge, I never implied that I was a regular f-cking Maximilien Robespierre, either.

 

Now if we are done here, please feel free to run along and drown in your own bile alone and unloved forever.

[Ms. Spam]

See. That's why I like saying I boycott Indiana. I mean unless I get lost in Chicago and accidentally end up across state lines I won't have much interaction with the state. Easypeasy!

[monkeygirl]

 

 

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.

 

 

??

What's the difference in these 2 situations?

 

Well one has to do with being party to a gay wedding and one doesn't. The first is an endorsement, even if tacit, of something one might find to be against their religion. The second is baking someone a cake because they are hungry/want a cake.

 

Are you ever going to learn how the new quote system works, btw?

 

I didn't know there's a new quote system. I JUST GOT THE OLD ONE DOWN.

 

okay, HOW DOES selling flowers to a (gay) couple differ from selling cake to a (gay) person? And how does one know if the person to whom they're selling is gay?

 

I don't see the difference between selling a cake and a flower, or flowers. How does the flower make the vendor and endorser or party to the wedding but selling cake doesn't?

 

[Pong Messiah]

I am not 100% sure, but I think he is talking about services that require you to participate somehow in the event?

 

I think he is saying that if you are, say, a homophobic photographer, you should be allowed to tell a gay couple who requests your services for their wedding "Sorry, but I am not going to take this commission because you are gay and I love Jesus," because it forces you to leave your comfort zone and participate in things you find icky. It is too much of a burden on you morally or whatever.

 

But if you run a store and a gay couple wants to buy a camera for their wedding, it's not too big of a burden to sell to them. It's not like you are being forced to go to the wedding, so the burden of icky is now on you -- the price you pay for operating a business that is open to the public is you have to deal with groups of people you don't like.

 

Am I right, Lucas?

[Carrie Mathison]

I don't recall any glaring errors in what I said, nor do I recall any particular sense of pride in my words or actions.

Of course there wasn't. It was completely innocuous to share a personal anecdote on a topic that is emotionally charged for you when making a point as obvious as saying "the sky is blue;" nothing at all unnecessary or self-aggrandizing about throwing in the end result of your protest; the tenor of your posts, of course, say nothing about the difference in how you approach this issue as opposed to other political issues. No, silly me, you're just like the guy that comes on the morning news and reads off the daily expected temperatures off the map overlay.. simply making observations... "two sentences... click."

[Lucas1138]

I am not 100% sure, but I think he is talking about services that require you to participate somehow in the event?

 

I think he is saying that if you are, say, a homophobic photographer, you should be allowed to tell a gay couple who requests your services for their wedding "Sorry, but I am not going to take this commission because you are gay and I love Jesus," because it forces you to leave your comfort zone and participate in things you find icky. It is too much of a burden on you morally or whatever.

 

But if you run a store and a gay couple wants to buy a camera for their wedding, it's not too big of a burden to sell to them. It's not like you are being forced to go to the wedding, so the burden of icky is now on you -- the price you pay for operating a business that is open to the public is you have to deal with groups of people you don't like.

 

Am I right, Lucas?

Basically, yes. Looks good. I'll revisit when I het home

[Lucas1138]

No need to add more to that, seems like you got it.

 

This has me all hot and bothered. In a good way. Worth a read if you have the stomach for legalese.

 

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf

[Pong Messiah]

 

I don't recall any glaring errors in what I said, nor do I recall any particular sense of pride in my words or actions.

Of course there wasn't. It was completely innocuous to share a personal anecdote on a topic that is emotionally charged for you when making a point as obvious as saying "the sky is blue;" nothing at all unnecessary or self-aggrandizing about throwing in the end result of your protest; the tenor of your posts, of course, say nothing about the difference in how you approach this issue as opposed to other political issues. No, silly me, you're just like the guy that comes on the morning news and reads off the daily expected temperatures off the map overlay.. simply making observations... "two sentences... click."

 

This is at least the third time in recent memory you have popped into a thread to personally attack me while not adding anything meaningful to the discussion. Considering the infrequent nature of your posts, it is hard not to feel somewhat... targeted by your behavior. While I am flattered by the attention, I have neither the time nor interest to engage with you in this manner any further. Please be aware that continued pointlessly antagonistic comments from you will result in your post being deleted, and/or you being banned depending on my mood and how far you decide to push it.

[monkeygirl]

I am not 100% sure, but I think he is talking about services that require you to participate somehow in the event?

 

I think he is saying that if you are, say, a homophobic photographer, you should be allowed to tell a gay couple who requests your services for their wedding "Sorry, but I am not going to take this commission because you are gay and I love Jesus," because it forces you to leave your comfort zone and participate in things you find icky. It is too much of a burden on you morally or whatever.

 

But if you run a store and a gay couple wants to buy a camera for their wedding, it's not too big of a burden to sell to them. It's not like you are being forced to go to the wedding, so the burden of icky is now on you -- the price you pay for operating a business that is open to the public is you have to deal with groups of people you don't like.

 

Am I right, Lucas?

Yeah-still doesn't make sense to me. You are not participating in a gay wedding unless you are part of the wedding party itself or the person who marries the two persons. If you own a flower shop, you're simply providing a product. If you're a photographer, you're providing a service and a product. Neither of these make you a "party to" a gay union. It may take you less time to sell a camera rather than take the photographs with a camera you own, but they're both still just a product and/or service one provides-the length of time necessary for the transaction should have nothing to do with anything.

 

[monkeygirl]

 

 

I don't recall any glaring errors in what I said, nor do I recall any particular sense of pride in my words or actions.

Of course there wasn't. It was completely innocuous to share a personal anecdote on a topic that is emotionally charged for you when making a point as obvious as saying "the sky is blue;" nothing at all unnecessary or self-aggrandizing about throwing in the end result of your protest; the tenor of your posts, of course, say nothing about the difference in how you approach this issue as opposed to other political issues. No, silly me, you're just like the guy that comes on the morning news and reads off the daily expected temperatures off the map overlay.. simply making observations... "two sentences... click."

 

This is at least the third time in recent memory you have popped into a thread to personally attack me while not adding anything meaningful to the discussion. Considering the infrequent nature of your posts, it is hard not to feel somewhat... targeted by your behavior. While I am flattered by the attention, I have neither the time nor interest to engage with you in this manner any further. Please be aware that continued pointlessly antagonistic posts from you will result in your post being deleted, and/or you being banned depending on my mood and how far you decide to push it.

 

PLEASE don't **** with my Amanda. She was just probably drunk after a long day of dealing with the Proletariat or crack-high. IT'S JUST WHAT SHE DOES.

[monkeygirl]

 

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.

 

 

YES. It's already okay for anesthesiologists to choose not to put women under for abortions. NOBODY goes under anesthesia for an abortion.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Boycott MonkeyGirl

[monkeygirl]

STFU YOU I'LL BOYCOTT YOUR MOM GAWD

 

 

The Republican leaders of the Indiana Legislature on Thursday unveiled a change to the state's controversial religious freedom law spelling out that it does not allow businesses to refuse service to gays or other minority groups.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/religious-freedom-controversy-indiana-legislators-announce-changes-law-n334541

[Lucas1138]

 

YES. It's already okay for anesthesiologists to choose not to put women under for abortions. NOBODY goes under anesthesia for an abortion.

 

What?

 

 

Yeah-still doesn't make sense to me. You are not participating in a gay wedding unless you are part of the wedding party itself or the person who marries the two persons. If you own a flower shop, you're simply providing a product. If you're a photographer, you're providing a service and a product. Neither of these make you a "party to" a gay union. It may take you less time to sell a camera rather than take the photographs with a camera you own, but they're both still just a product and/or service one provides-the length of time necessary for the transaction should have nothing to do with anything.

 

 

 

It makes perfect sense to you, you just don't agree. That's fine. I can't see how if you provide floral arrangements for a wedding, or a cake for a wedding, or you are a wedding planner how that doesn't make you a part of the ceremony and at the very least tacitly imply that you or your company endorse it. You disagree. Like I said, that's fine.