I’m with MacGyver on this. Even though there have not been lawsuits in Indiana, there have been in other states. Several of my more conservative cousins have posted tirades about the evil government forcing businesses to cater to gays and lesbians, and gotten offended when I called them out on their bigotry. Federal law is quite clear, if you operate a business that is open to the public you have to serve all the public. You cannot pick and choose which customers you welcome. Yes, most people will walk away and take their business elsewhere, but that does not make discrimination legal or right. And yes, if those poor beleaguered Christians found themselves losing money because of their bigotry they’d change their policy immediately.
I have mixed feelings about this; the religious backdrop is disturbing, but I support small businesses' ability to refuse service.To blacks or Asians, too? Lois
I completely understand feelings in support of the business side. I actually have more than a few Conservative views on things, but the current Republican Party has gone so far out of whack that there is no longer any room for (dare I use the term) “moderates". What bothers me is that there is the situation that triggered all of this and the actual reaction in the form of the bill. The situation is that there are florists, caterers and photographers that do not want to get involved in gay/lesbian weddings. I’ve been trying to find out how many lawsuits have been filed in Indiana between gay/lesbian couples trying to arrange a wedding and businesses who have refused them. I can’t find any. In fact there have been gay couples interviewed on the news who said they were turned down by businesses and just moved on until they found businesses who would handle their weddings. I have talked to several gay people who said they would do the same thing. So, is there a problem? It doesn’t seem like it. The bill, on the other hand, does not even mention the above issue. It is purposely vague and general such that anyone with any kind of so-called religious belief can refuse anyone anything, within certain parameters (you still can't force blacks to sit in the back of the bus). To me it reads that if you have some inherent prejudice against some group, you are allowed to hide behind a religion and discriminate against them as you please. From all of this it appears to be a way for “Hoosiers" to make a statement of their support for “traditional values" under the guise of protecting all of these beleaguered Christian business people who are being dragged daily into court by gay thugs and bullies. What a sham and a waste of taxpayer’s money."The situation is that there are florists, caterers and photographers that do not want to get involved in gay/lesbian weddings." There are florists, caterers and photographers that do not want to get involved in the weddings of blacks or Asians or Jews. Do you take the same position on that? . Lois
You have to wonder how many of the owners of these businesses would be willing to stand by their conviction not to serve particular customers if those customers made up the majority of the clientele in town. I personally think they are a bunch of cowardly hypocrites. If a substantial portion of their income were dependent on business from whatever group they are opposed to I think its a fair bet to say that they would gladly serve them. Additionally the law is inconsistent. Why is it important to allow someone to discriminate against gays but not blacks or women? Its inconsistent because not because its logical but because it is still politically prudent to discriminate against gays but not so for women or blacks. This law does not deserve a place in the American legal system.The Civil Rights law was supposed to end ALL such discrimination, but now there are to be exceptions? You're right, they are cowardly hypocrites. I can also think of more descriptive names for them. Lois
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
An Act
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
“Public Accommodations” includes goods and services provided by private business.
Lois
The freedom to use religion as an excuse for discrimination and segregation. Religious people should be so proud. Indiana Committee Passes Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' License To Discriminate Bill]There is little or no evidence that laws have anything to do with ehics so what should we expect?
Some types of discrimination are legal, you have to know which buttons to push.Which types of discrimination are legal?Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/title-ii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-injunctive-relief.html A few states do have anti-gay discrimination laws, but if you don't live in those states, you can discriminate. http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2014/02/can-your-business-legally-refuse-to-serve-gays.html
You have to wonder how many of the owners of these businesses would be willing to stand by their conviction not to serve particular customers if those customers made up the majority of the clientele in town. I personally think they are a bunch of cowardly hypocrites. If a substantial portion of their income were dependent on business from whatever group they are opposed to I think its a fair bet to say that they would gladly serve them.Of course if you set up shop in San Francisco, East Village of NYC, Mount Vernon of Baltimore, South Street of Philly or any well known gay area you can't honestly claim be surprised that most of the clientele is gay - that is hypocritical. However if you operate in "bumblef**k nowheresville", and gays start demanding you cater to them, theres going to be trouble.
I have mixed feelings about this; the religious backdrop is disturbing, but I support small businesses' ability to refuse service.To blacks or Asians, too? LoisNot so much to asians, but to many blacks....YES! As I said in my earlier post, it can be done if you know which buttons to press - so to speak.
I have mixed feelings about this; the religious backdrop is disturbing, but I support small businesses' ability to refuse service.To blacks or Asians, too? LoisNot so much to asians, but to many blacks....YES! As I said in my earlier post, it can be done if you know which buttons to press - so to speak. So you favor discriminating against many blacks? Which ones?
I have mixed feelings about this; the religious backdrop is disturbing, but I support small businesses' ability to refuse service.To blacks or Asians, too? LoisNot so much to asians, but to many blacks....YES! As I said in my earlier post, it can be done if you know which buttons to press - so to speak. So you favor discriminating against many blacks? Which ones?The disruptive ones who commonly loiter around public places in majority black areas.
Not only would it make the world more dangerous for unpopular minorities, but allowing this sort of discrimination would create a distinctly unamerican atmosphere of oppression and intolerance throughout country. Businesses small or otherwise can not be permitted to discriminate based on the owners individual prejudices or beliefs.You must be joking, because oppression and intolerance is not a minor bug of American life, it's been a defining feature of American life since the beginning. Moral arguments like these are as dead as the millions of Native Americans we slaughtered to set up this country.
Oppression and intolerance have prevailed in human societies for millennia. We need to overcome such behavior, not reinforce it by discriminating against people because of race, religion, sexual preference or hair color.
The disruptive ones who commonly loiter around public places in majority black areas.Hey, are you a member of the Indiana State Legislature? If not, you certainly have a shot at running for office here.
It is officially “The Law of the Land”
Gov. Mike Pence signs ‘religious freedom’ bill in private]
Gov. Pense says: This bill is not about discrimination
He defends it as a necessity to protect religious people from gays, but it is not about discrimination. Yeah, well, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane says:
"Although not unexpected, it is still extremely disappointing that Governor Pence endorses this out-of- touch, discriminatory legislation," said Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane in a statement. "Not only is this law unnecessary, it unfortunately has already portrayed our state as intolerant, unfriendly, and backwards; things which I believe most Hoosiers reject."A proud day for Indiana. :-S
I am not sure if any of you saw the interview with Indiana’s Governor Mike Pence on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. He was directly and specifically asked no less than 3 times if the law would allow a Florist to deny service to a gay couple and absolutely refused to answer the question. His response was simply to claim that Indiana is the victim of intolerance ( I assume because they are catching a lot of flack for legalizing intolerance) and that the law simply protects religious liberty.
It always amazes me how politicians can completely ignore and avoid a direct question and do so with a straight face. I am not sure why Stephanopoulos didn’t just say " I will assume that your refusal to answer the question means that the answer is yes" instead of letting him get away with repeatedly trying to divert the conversation.
I am not sure if any of you saw the interview with Indiana's Governor Mike Pence on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. He was directly and specifically asked no less than 3 times if the law would allow a Florist to deny service to a gay couple and absolutely refused to answer the question. His response was simply to claim that Indiana is the victim of intolerance ( I assume because they are catching a lot of flack for legalizing intolerance) and that the law simply protects religious liberty. It always amazes me how politicians can completely ignore and avoid a direct question and do so with a straight face. I am not sure why Stephanopoulos didn't just say " I will assume that your refusal to answer the question means that the answer is yes" instead of letting him get away with repeatedly trying to divert the conversation.Yes, that would have been a good response. I keep wondering if the US could just remove Indiana as one of the United States (and a couple of other states), let them have their "independence", cut off all Feferal money, and build a fence around it. It would be interesting to see how they would fare. I suspect they'd all eventually shoot each other. (Under the "give a fool enough rope . . . ." standard. )
His response was simply to claim that Indiana is the victim of intolerance ( I assume because they are catching a lot of flack for legalizing intolerance) and that the law simply protects religious libertyI did not see it but I read about it. This is a joke (not the funny kind). The Indiana Republicans have since said that they were confused and surprised that ANYBODY took the bill for anything other than a statement of freedom for all religions (which makes them liars or stupid or both because a number of groups and businesses brought it up before it was approved in both houses). Now they are talking about amending it in order to make its purpose clearer. When asked if this meant it would clearly state that discrimination against gays would not be allowed, as other states have done, Pence said it was "not on his agenda". In other words, no, it will not disallow discrimination against gays, because that was the purpose of the bill in the first place.
I keep wondering if the US could just remove Indiana as one of the United States (and a couple of other states), let them have their “independence", cut off all Federal money, and build a fence around it.Lois! I live in Indiana. Please don't lock me in! We're not all Indiana Republicans.
I do think there is one upside to this debacle, and that’s to show us what would happen if the federal government changed in 2016 to match the Indiana state gov. I.e. full Republican control. Can you imagine any one of the current crop of Repub haters got elected, Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, etc. AND congress remained in tea party hands. It would be Indiana on a large scale BUT hopefully the kind of pressure being put on Indiana currently would be put on the US as a whole, and finally people would wake up to the disease of conservative Republicans/Tea Party…and the nightmare might end.
Gosh, I hope you are right.
However, there is a fundamental problem with this situation in Indiana and it involves truth vs. half-truths. And the supporters of the bill are defensively buying the half-truths.
One of the arguments put forth by Pence and the Republicans is that they cannot understand all the resistance since the Indiana bill is just like so many other bills passed in other states. (buzzer sound) False. And supporters of the bill have taken this up as their rallying cry (or so I heard on a Christian radio station this morning on the way into work; I like to hear what “the other side" has to say from time to time).
They cite Illinois. Same bill. Ah, but the Illinois bill includes the clause that a religious rule does not trump laws against discrimination. The Indiana bill is vague and allows religion to trump discrimination laws.
Illinois too liberal for you? Let’s look at Texas. Under Gov. George W. Bush (no less), their version of this bill went through the same process but George refused to sign it without that pesky provision saying religion does not trump discrimination law. What’s this? George W. is not conservative enough for Indiana?
Pence says his law does not allow discrimination, but refuses to put it into the law explicitly like Bush did. It would be nice if we had a Governor in Indiana with as much wisdom and intelligence as George W. Bush. But we don’t.