(April 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Polaris Wrote: I can see, when gay marriage is legalized in America in the next few years, a gay couple going to a Church that does not recognize homosexuality and sue the Church when the pastor says they cannot do so because of religious views....you know when the couple can get married at many other Churches that would do so or even get a civil marriage (some countries like France have all marriages be a civil marriage). At one point, it's not about being denied but instead about being acknowledged.....I think that is what Indiana wants to avoid.

Oh boy. 

The church is not a for-profit business, and therefore is not subject to anti-discrimination laws. Are you really that dense?

(April 3, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Norman Humann Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: In this case, the baker is the minority......and you're squashing his rights.

His rights to squash others' rights? Tell me more.

What do you want to know?  Some photographer doesn't want to service the gay community.  So what, for every one of him there are probably 10 other photographers that will service the gay community.  This isn't about making sure gays have equal access.  They do.  This is about controlling people.

People like DP don't like people that think homosexuality is wrong.  They want to impose their will on them and make them service clientele they don't want to service. Forcing someone to service another against their will is a denial of thier freedom.  It is slavery.

(April 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: In this case, the baker is the minority......and you're squashing his rights.

In what world does this make any sense? If you open a for profit business, you are subject to the rules and laws that a for profit business is subject to. You cannot discriminate in hiring, you have to pay taxes, you cannot discriminate in who you serve.

If you don't like the rules, don't open a business.

(April 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Polaris Wrote: I can see, when gay marriage is legalized in America in the next few years, a gay couple going to a Church that does not recognize homosexuality and sue the Church when the pastor says they cannot do so because of religious views....you know when the couple can get married at many other Churches that would do so or even get a civil marriage (some countries like France have all marriages be a civil marriage). At one point, it's not about being denied but instead about being acknowledged.....I think that is what Indiana wants to avoid.

Actually churches are protected against that, they can refuse to perform marriages that are outside of their religion. They do it already Catholic churches don't do muslim weddings, Muslims wont do catholic weddings.

(April 2, 2015 at 10:41 am)Mezmo! Wrote:

(April 2, 2015 at 8:52 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Ah, then by that reasoning you'd be fine with the bakery turning away all african american...

Never. The black experience in America isn't even remotely comparable to homosexuality. I've never heard of institutionalised gay slavery. Have you. Did gays ever have to use separate water fountains and swimming pools. Don't think so.

And that has what to do with the argument?  Seriously, it is about discrimination in the here and now.

A business open to the public is open to all of the public.  Don't like it? Don't start a business.

(April 3, 2015 at 6:07 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: In this case, the baker is the minority......and you're squashing his rights.

In what world does this make any sense? If you open a for profit business, you are subject to the rules and laws that a for profit business is subject to. You cannot discriminate in hiring, you have to pay taxes, you cannot discriminate in who you serve.

If you don't like the rules, don't open a business.

Exchanging goods and services is how humans survive and have survived since there have been humans.  It is an inalienable right.  You want to restrict a persons ability survive simply because you don't like what they believe and not for any compelling interest.  It would be different if gays couldn't find photographers, or bakers or were otherwise shut out of the market.  But they aren't shut out of the market and they can find everything they need or want easily.

You progressives just want to control people because there simply isn't a societal injustice here that needs to be corrected.

---

(April 3, 2015 at 6:07 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: In this case, the baker is the minority......and you're squashing his rights.

If you don't like the rules, don't open a business.

Or change the rules.

Which is what this law does.  If you don't like the new rules....how about you just stop being?

(April 3, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: Exchanging goods and services is how humans survive and have survived since there have been humans.  It is an inalienable right.  You want to restrict a persons ability survive simply because you don't like what they believe and not for any compelling interest.  It would be different if gays couldn't find photographers, or bakers or were otherwise shut out of the market.  But they aren't shut out of the market and they can find everything they need or want easily.

You progressives just want to control people because there simply isn't a societal injustice here that needs to be corrected.

No one is restricting anything, you dolt! Telling people they have to serve everyone if they serve anyone is not a restriction. I would have the same reaction if someone decided they didn't want to serve black people.

(April 3, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 6:07 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: If you don't like the rules, don't open a business.

Or change the rules.

Which is what this law does.  If you don't like the new rules....how about you just stop being?

And when the people voice their reaction to you changing the rules, you backtrack like it wasn't what you meant to do in the first place.

(April 2, 2015 at 10:55 am)Mezmo! Wrote: Because the legacy of oppression, slavery and genocide, speaks to a strong compelling state interest and the need for government intrusion that even I as a libertarian find necessary. Using the threat of government to make the inclination towards sodomy a protected class to me is not as threatening as governmental overreach. Not getting a cake is much less harmful to a free society than having your livelihood destroyed by the state.

The government has an interest in ensuring all citizens are treated equally. The 14th Amendment guarantees it, as well, regarding interactions with the government.

I'm unsure of the benefits of allowing bigotry to be enacted in society. Do you have some specific instances where you think permitting bigotry benefits society?

(April 3, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: What do you want to know?  Some photographer doesn't want to service the gay community.  So what, for every one of him there are probably 10 other photographers that will service the gay community.  This isn't about making sure gays have equal access.  They do.  This is about controlling people.

People like DP don't like people that think homosexuality is wrong.  They want to impose their will on them and make them service clientele they don't want to service. Forcing someone to service another against their will is a denial of thier freedom.  It is slavery.

So you completely ignored my post trying to explain the issue to you, I see, and instead attributed something completely different to me. I'm trying to assume you're not lying right now. Just letting you know. Hope you can clear this little maneuver up for me. 

But in case you do need me to repeat:

I can assure you there is no army of gay couples who are going out of their way to search for Christian bigots who they know already hate them and force them to bake their food and take their pictures at their wedding. I don't know if you've ever been married yourself but I can tell you that the last thing you want is someone who's not completely into their part of the job working for you on that most important day. You want a photographer who's enthusiastic about taking the right pictures. You want a baker who will happily bake you the best cake you've ever had. You specifically do not want someone who feels like they're forced to be there doing whatever critical component to the big day might be. 

However, at the same time, you don't have the option of just "finding someone else" at the 11th hour. if the baker backs out on the contract at the last minute, your only option really is the grocery store for your wedding cake. If the photographer decides to be a no-show because of his/her precious religious beliefs, your only option is to hope everyone else brought a camera and someone in the crowd takes some decent photos. 

Is this penetrating your thick skull? 

This is not about "controlling people" and "slavery". This is about contracts and being responsible when making them and taking responsibility for the contracts you've already agreed to. You might think that Jesus will save your soul from Hell but he should not allow you to back out of a contract for services on this earth at the last minute because you just found out this is a gay wedding. 

And if you do, your sanctimonious ass should be sued because you not only reneged on your contract at the last minute but you ruined someone's wedding day. 

Clear?

Live in our society, abide by our society's rules. Society says don't be a dick to people because of who they are.
Keep your fucking sky fairy superstitions to yourself, where it belongs.
If you accept our protection from our powerful military and our police, if you use our transportation systems and utility systems to run your business, and you depend on our fair judiciary to enable your business to operate within the other good members of our commerce system, then the least you can do is not single out customers to shame and degrade because you have a serious mental disorder called religion.