(April 3, 2015 at 6:32 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(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.

You just said that if they don't like your rules, they don't have to start a business.  You want to restrict everyone's ability to do anything if it doesn't conform to your rules.  This is why I hate you progressives so much and think your are just evil vermin.
Indiana's new law isn't going to shut anyone out of the market place.  It isn't going to cause black people to be denied the ability to purchase a meal or a gay couple to have wedding cake baked for them.  Life for blacks and gays is going to go on just like its been going on in the state.  Nothing substantially changes because of this law. You got your panties all bound up because now some people are allowed by law, to behave in a way you don't want them to behave.

---

(April 3, 2015 at 6:41 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(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?

If someone backs out of a contract sue them.  However this law came into existence because bakers and photographers were being forced into contracts they did not want to enter.  You want to force people into contracts.  You want slavery.  You despise this law because it takes away your power to control how people behave.

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

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

But they can't necessarily easily find the goods and services they need.  They will be unfairly burdened by that.

This is just Jim Crow again.

(April 3, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: If someone backs out of a contract sue them.  

With the "religious freedom law" you can't. 

In court, they can say, "I found out at the last minute it was a gay wedding and my religious beliefs wouldn't allow for it."

(April 3, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote:

(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.

But they can't necessarily easily find the goods and services they need.  They will be unfairly burdened by that.

This is just Jim Crow again.

This has never been demonstrated to be true in the case of gays finding bakers or photographers for their weddings.  This is and has always been about making the occasional baker or photographer behave they way you want him to behave because you don't like his beliefs.

---

(April 3, 2015 at 6:56 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: If someone backs out of a contract sue them.  

With the "religious freedom law" you can't. 

In court, they can say, "I found out at the last minute it was a gay wedding and my religious beliefs wouldn't allow for it."

Court asks the plaintiff, "Did you ask if this was a gay wedding?  If it was really that important to you, why didn't you ask?"  I don't believe this laws allows you to breach a contract.  It allows you to not enter a contract.

The reason this law exists is because people were being forced to service gay weddings against their morality.  Now it would be one thing if gays were shut out of the market and denied these services.  But there was no desperate impact and thus no need for the courts to compel individuals to do things against their will. 

Again, you progressives just want to force people to behave the way you think they should behave.  Your not any different than  slave owners as far as I am concerned.

(April 3, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote:

(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.

But they can't necessarily easily find the goods and services they need.  They will be unfairly burdened by that.

This is just Jim Crow again.

Really? Doesn't this usually work against the owner instead of the consumer who can shop at an establishment that would glady welcome their business?

(April 3, 2015 at 7:14 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote: But they can't necessarily easily find the goods and services they need.  They will be unfairly burdened by that.

This is just Jim Crow again.

Really? Doesn't this usually work against the owner instead of the consumer who can shop at an establishment that would glady welcome their business?

For businesses, discrimination has an opportunity cost attached to it.  In the case of the baker, his/her gross sales will be lower because he doesn't bake for gay weddings.   This isn't enough punishment for progressives.  That baker must conform to their will or he simply won't be allowed to engage in his business.

(April 3, 2015 at 7:22 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 7:14 pm)Polaris Wrote: Really? Doesn't this usually work against the owner instead of the consumer who can shop at an establishment that would glady welcome their business?

For businesses, discrimination has an opportunity cost attached to it.  In the case of the baker, his/her gross sales will be lower because he doesn't bake for gay weddings.   This isn't enough punishment for progressives.  That baker must conform to their will or he simply won't be allowed to engage in his business.

I'm a progressive and don't hold to that belief. I believe forcing people into adopting or even expressly accepting a particular lifestyle is wrong.

Society has no interest in seeing bigotry perpetuated, and has passed laws and handed down court rulings to that effect.

Don't like it? Overturn the decisions, repeal the law, or move to a place like Russia or Pakistan where your bigotry receives government approval.

(April 3, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 7:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: For businesses, discrimination has an opportunity cost attached to it.  In the case of the baker, his/her gross sales will be lower because he doesn't bake for gay weddings.   This isn't enough punishment for progressives.  That baker must conform to their will or he simply won't be allowed to engage in his business.

I'm a progressive and don't hold to that belief. I believe forcing people into adopting or even expressly accepting a particular lifestyle is wrong.

This is the only thing I know about your positions so I would classify you as libertarian.

People should be free to behave the way they want unless there is a real compelling interest otherwise.  When society as a whole begins to deny gays access to goods and services, that could be a compelling interest.  When it is just an occasional baker or photographer that doesn't want to service the gay community....that isn't a compelling interest. 

Forcing an individual baker to service a market segment that is being serviced is simply imposing your morality on him or her.

  

(April 3, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Norman Humann Wrote: His rights to squash others' rights? Tell me more.

This isn't about making sure gays have equal access.  They do.  This is about controlling people.

And the bible isn't?
This legislation is insanely stupid. Your assessment that it is about controlling people is even dumber. You have an ancient text prescribing thought and behavior at the base of all this, but this control of people doesn't seem to bother you. A tad bit hypocritical here.