It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial 'religious freedom' bill

page: 27
21
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NavyDoc

if you are the only provider of gasoline in the area then yes anyone in the area has the right to buy gas from you!! it's for the communities good and part of your obligation as a business owner! otherwise at least in that one little community I am talking about well you'd possibly be part of a manslaughter investigation by causing someone to be stranded in a hostile environment! there are still small little communities that have maybe one or two places to buy needed goods and to deny the people in those communities (or outsiders who are just passing through) services based on whatever reason you can come up with would cause them undue hardships that no true christian would want to impose on another (weather sinful or otherwise)



Firstly, have any of these cases had the result of "sole provider" of anything? Isn't this a bit of reducto ad absurdum?

One could make an argument that if one was the sole provider of a life and limb necessary product such as electricity or medications, then there could be a case of discrimination causing personal harm, but that hasn't happened. So far, every single one of these cases have been non-vital issues with nearby alternative choices.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't care what a true or untrue Christian would do. I only disagree with a coercive and overregualted society.




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Gryphon66




1. How will proprietors in Indiana make sure that their customers are acceptable to their religious beliefs?


Perhaps those unacceptable to religious businesses will have to wear an armband or have a symbol stitched on their clothing.
And have official documents to be surrendered to the authorities when asked.

Sound familiar?


How about nobody wear any sort of armband and everybody be permitted to go about their own business as they see fit without government mandates--you know, freedom.


You're on the wrong side of History on this Navydoc, as much as I respect your Libertarian views, this is taking the US back decades and nothing to do with the voting populace and more to do with the money gained for the governors election pot by the "American Family Association" as proved by who attended the signing of this bill last week.


Often it is good to be "on the wrong side of history" because quite often what is considered "the right side of history" is ultimately the wrong thing.

Yes, the law is stupid and unnecessary, however, why did the voters of Indiana feel compelled to do it? Is it because there is a perception of increasingly overbearing federal mandates and regulations and this is in part backlash on that?

IMHO, ultimately more and more governmental coercion into the decisions of private individuals will be a bad thing. It may seem good when as long as the pendulum is swung our way, but history has shown that it is an awful, awful thing when it swings, as it eventually will, the other way.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Well its sounds like you wish to live in a total "Libertarian Society" which would be cool if everyone was on the same page, however what I envision with your utopia would more akin to "Mad Max".



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Is that the only response to my lengthy post was about "Gays being refused a Cheeseburger"? And whilst that may not have happened yet as the law does not become active until June 2015, it will happen and you and I both know that. Its already happening where one "Christian Jihadist" restaurant owner called a radio show and stipulated how he revelled in the fact he denied service to gay patrons.

The Christians have forewarned that the world was going the end when Gay Marriage was made legal, I think my little bit of propaganda will never be matched by the Christian Rights propaganda!



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

This bill is abhorrent in today's society, for god sake the US is meant to be the leader of the Free World but its looking more and more like the American Christians are installing their own Christian sharia law. Its a slippery slope Navydoc and once Pandora's Box is opened, it cannot be closed.

You keep stating that individuals have the right to deny service to folk and that is true, but not to discriminate against folk. If the internet was around in 1950's then we would be having the same debate about interracial marriage, and out of interest, where would you have been on that debate?


I've already stated it--that government and taxpayer funded entities must treat every individual the same, however, private individuals must be free to engage or not engage in commerce as they see fit. People keep bringing up the civil rights debate but I think they miss the salient point. Private businesses were already changing due to public embarrassment and loss of revenue and the free market was in the process of adjusting that issue already. The REAL issue that the civil rights movement addressed and fixed--rightly so-- was of governmental discrimination and laws that made a subset of citizens second and third class. By law, AA were not allowed to vote, own firearms, use the same facilities, utilize the same services as white Americans and it is the law that was changed and governmental discrimination that was removed.

However, now, 50+ years later and in this economy, it is exceedingly rare that a business would discriminate (truly discriminate, many accusations of discrimination are indeed fabricated by people like Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson looking for a payout) and this fear of "going back to Jim Crow" is unfounded and perpetuated by those who profit politically and financially on this fear.

There's been a tiny handful of these cases, so small that each and every one makes national news, and that is indicative that the sky will not fall if people were permitted to make their own decisions.

IMHO, the greater evil about people clamoring for more government and demanding the coercive force of government to be used to punish behavior they dislike is that they will get what they want--more government with the power to force citizens and punish unpopular beliefs. I think you can agree that this level of governmental encroachment is concerning.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

And we keep saying that a business owner refusing to serve a gay person is no better than what the business owners did back in the 1950's with their "We only Serve White People". Do you see the similarity and if so do you not agree that this kind of thing has no place in today's society?

Edit - And your vision of Society would have us living a Mad Max Scenario where it would be each to their own! I'd rather have the laws sanctioned by our elected officials than leave society to defend itself as it wouldn't work.
edit on 31.3.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Well its sounds like you wish to live in a total "Libertarian Society" which would be cool if everyone was on the same page, however what I envision with your utopia would more akin to "Mad Max".


I disagree. I've already said that the state should provide all of it's services to all citizens equally. I've stated that the job of the state is to protect people's constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and property and provide objective civil courts wherein citizens can hash out personal differences. That does not seem "Mad Max" to me.

Permitting citizens to make their own decisions to do commerce or not will not result in chaos.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

And we keep saying that a business owner refusing to serve a gay person is no better than what the business owners did back in the 1950's with their "We only Serve White People". Do you see the similarity and if so do you not agree that this kind of thing has no place in today's society?

Edit - And your vision of Society would have us living a Mad Max Scenario where it would be each to their own! I'd rather have the laws sanctioned by our elected officials than leave society to defend itself as it wouldn't work.


I certainly think it has no place in today's society. However, if we really want to have a free society, we must not try to solve a problem with an even worse issue. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Boycott, protest, take your money elsewhere, or, as I have done, invest in an alternative venue due to fill the market niche, but let's not beg government to come in and force people because in doing so, we empower government to force US.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Well its sounds like you wish to live in a total "Libertarian Society" which would be cool if everyone was on the same page, however what I envision with your utopia would more akin to "Mad Max".


I disagree. I've already said that the state should provide all of it's services to all citizens equally. I've stated that the job of the state is to protect people's constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and property and provide objective civil courts wherein citizens can hash out personal differences. That does not seem "Mad Max" to me.

Permitting citizens to make their own decisions to do commerce or not will not result in chaos.


So where will the laws of the land be made? Will it be a majority over minority ruling? We are not advanced enough as a civilisation (mentally) too give up government control.

I disagree with your point about

Permitting citizens to make their own decisions to do commerce or not will not result in chaos.
it will take the US back to the 1950's!
edit on 31.3.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Having followed this when it caught my attention the following can be stated:

This is a bad law, make no mistake. This law will lead to far worse things and like a self-fulfilling prophecy, it opens doors that it should not have, and ultimately will be fought in the courts, costing the tax payers millions to defend it. And many who have read and looked at this law, see such.

The potential for abuse and discrimination is there, the very architects of this law make it suspect, all highly religious and all are not friends of the LGBT community. That in itself is suspect, and the very people who were around the governor when this law was signed, represented a minority, all seemed to be religious figures. And only then from a very select few, mostly politicians and those of the Catholic religion, namely monks and nuns. There was also one Rabbi there as well.

But going back to the law, it opens doors, to issues that no one will want, and makes it possible that the very fears and arguments that have been given time and time against same sex marriage, with one swipe of the pen, it makes possible. And it is exploitable, as now people can, use in a court of law to show that an action or something is against their religion, with a chance to influence the very laws of the state and possibly the country.

Already there is one that is starting a Church of the cannabis, has filed and been approved to be a valid church in the state. While the state and federal laws still mark such as an illegal substance, this church will force it before it is ready to be discussed in that state. Other issues will follow and ultimately cause more problems than it is worth.

But another point was timing and how fast this bill made its way through the system. No bill ever makes its way that fast, and yet, on the eve when the US Supreme Court is about to hear a court case that will affect the country, this law is ran through the legislatures, like others similar to it, and then put into law in the states. That also makes it highly suspect and ultimately the conclusion can be drawn that this law is to discriminate and give people a legal means out.

There have been questions as to if a business can or cannot refuse business to anyone on the grounds of anything have been asked time and time again. And after careful research, the answer is this: To refuse to do business on the grounds of a religious objection is not permissible. There was a court case where that was answered, back in the late 60’s. Heart of Atlanta. In that case the owner claimed that he had an religious objection to a particular group of people and thus had the right to not serve them and was struck down by the courts. And the courts have also struck down and ruled against churchs before, stating that church’s could not violate laws, no matter what.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

And we keep saying that a business owner refusing to serve a gay person is no better than what the business owners did back in the 1950's with their "We only Serve White People". Do you see the similarity and if so do you not agree that this kind of thing has no place in today's society?

Edit - And your vision of Society would have us living a Mad Max Scenario where it would be each to their own! I'd rather have the laws sanctioned by our elected officials than leave society to defend itself as it wouldn't work.


Boycott, protest, take your money elsewhere, or, as I have done, invest in an alternative venue due to fill the market niche, but let's not beg government to come in and force people because in doing so, we empower government to force US.


Already being done, with some businesses now having stickers made "We serve anyone apart from Bigots". These religious folk who run a business and discriminate will end up going out of business but in the meantime, the everyday Joe in Indiana will see big business leave the state and the unemployment figures go through the roof as more and more business leaders will not want to be tarnished with the same brush as the Christian Right!

Lets be honest here, the American Family Association have lobbied the Governor to make this law despite what the average Joe wanted in Indiana. The Governor is receiving a massive back lash and when the citizens of Indiana realise what a cock up this bill was and how much its going to cost them, they'll vote the Governor out and this law will be repealed.

In the meantime there's gonna be a lot of suffering for the normal citizens in Indiana, all because of the Christian Right groups! This bill will probably make more people leave the church and return to god! it will have the opposite effect on what was intended in the first instance.

In the meantime, I am out of here Navydoc as I have work to do but good debating with you again, even if we don't agree!



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Well its sounds like you wish to live in a total "Libertarian Society" which would be cool if everyone was on the same page, however what I envision with your utopia would more akin to "Mad Max".


I disagree. I've already said that the state should provide all of it's services to all citizens equally. I've stated that the job of the state is to protect people's constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and property and provide objective civil courts wherein citizens can hash out personal differences. That does not seem "Mad Max" to me.

Permitting citizens to make their own decisions to do commerce or not will not result in chaos.


So where will the laws of the land be made? Will it be a majority over minority ruling? We are not advanced enough as a civilisation (mentally) too give up government control.

I disagree with your point about

Permitting citizens to make their own decisions to do commerce or not will not result in chaos.
it will take the US back to the 1950's!


The laws will be made in the same manner as before. Neither the majority nor the minority makes the law. We are a constitutional republic in which the law of the land, the Constitution, was made to protect the minority from the will of the majority.

Do you want to have it where the will of the majority forces you to behave in a certain way, even if it is against your moral compass? Because that is what it seems you are supporting here. That is fine and dandy until the will of the majority swings against you, then it is not so fine.

In a free society, we have to tolerate some arseholes to maintain a free society because if it were illegal to be an arsehole, and who or what is an arsehole is determined buy the majority, you really aren't free.

Westboro Baptist is an abhorrent organization and emotionally I am tempted to plow into them with my truck every time I see them on the side of the road. Logically, however, I understand we need to tolerate them because the value of the freedom of speech outweighs the annoyance of this particular group of arseholes.

It is a dangerous game we play when we want to legislate everything unpleasant away.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

In the meantime, I am out of here Navydoc as I have work to do but good debating with you again, even if we don't agree!


As always a pleasure my friend. Thank you for an intellectually stimulating discussion.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
Logical Question:
If we move this along and start applying discrimination to say, income or "class status". Would it not follow that we should force businesses that provide "public accommodation" to accept those who cannot pay as customers?


That's a silly question. Businesses aren't be asked to provide services that they don't already provide (like free services). They are being asked to treat their customers EQUALLY.

It's like you and several others have gotten together and conspired to change the subject (to Muslims being forced to serve pork, businesses being forced to provide free services). It's an obvious attempt at obfuscation. It shows how weak your argument actually is.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

EDIT - Its a SPOOF news story, but will leave up due to comments made later in thread!

Just to add Navydoc, its already happened, and the best part, the chap was straight! lol

Marcus Bachmann Refused Service in Indiana, Store Owner Assumed He Was Gay


The Bachmanns were visiting the state capitol on Thursday to lend their support to embattled Gov. Mike Pence when the incident occurred. Dorothy Holtz, owner of Dotty’s Dress Den described what happened.
“I didn’t think anything was out of the ordinary at first,” said the 59-year old self-described “devout Christian citizen,” although I don’t usually have men come in by themselves. He was very polite but the more he spoke, the more I thought he was different.”
Holtz began to suspect that Bachmann was “perhaps a homosexual man”, and because it is now within her rights to refuse service based on religious beliefs, informed Bachmann she would be unable to serve him, and asked him to leave.
“I was aghast!” said Bachmann. I’ve been shopping for Michele for years! I had no idea why the woman in the store turned on me like that. I thought perhaps she had suddenly become ill.”


Source

At least Marcus Bachmann now knows what the LGBT citizens will go through with his backing for this law!
edit on 31.3.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)

edit on 31.3.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Swift Corporate Backlash Follows Indiana Governor Pence’s Decision To Sign Anti-Gay Law

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff tweeted on Thursday, shortly after the bill was signed:

Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination.


The online review company Yelp also signaled its intentions to boycott Indiana, and every other state that allows discrimination against gays and lesbians. Yelp chief executive, Jeremy Stoppelman, stated on Thursday:

I hope that in the future the legislatures in the nineteen states that have these laws on the books will reconsider their actions. In the mean time, Yelp will make every effort to expand its corporate presence only in states that do not have these laws allowing for discrimination on the books.


On Friday, the city of San Francisco announced it would boycott Indiana as well. San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee ordered city departments to ban work-related trips to Indiana, unless they were necessary for public health and safety.

We stand united as San Franciscans to condemn Indiana’s new discriminatory law, and will work together to protect the civil rights of all Americans including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.
San Francisco taxpayers will not subsidize legally-sanctioned discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people by the state of Indiana.



The Disciples of Christ Christian Church is also contemplating moving their 2017 convention out of Indianapolis, to protest the passing of the anti-gay law. 8,000 church members attend their annual convention, providing the host city with an estimated economic benefit of nearly 6 million dollars. However, the church has threatened to relocate their convention, due to concerns over the discriminatory Indiana law.


The swift backlash from tech companies, city governments and mainstream Christian churches may give Governor Pence and Republican lawmakers pause for reconsidering the wisdom of passing their anti-LGBT bill. While many Republicans appear uninterested in recognizing equal rights for LGBT citizens, they do recognize the power of money. If the idea that all people should be treated with equal dignity and respect is unpersuasive, perhaps the economic impact of a boycott will be.

Source



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
Logical Question:
If we move this along and start applying discrimination to say, income or "class status". Would it not follow that we should force businesses that provide "public accommodation" to accept those who cannot pay as customers?


That's a silly question. Businesses aren't be asked to provide services that they don't already provide (like free services). They are being asked to treat their customers EQUALLY.

It's like you and several others have gotten together and conspired to change the subject (to Muslims being forced to serve pork, businesses being forced to provide free services). It's an obvious attempt at obfuscation. It shows how weak your argument actually is.


Olaru12 makes his living making films. Do you think he should be forced to make an anti-gay marriage film since he makes films for other people? I'd rather he be able to make his own decision on what sort of films he is willing to make.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
Swift Corporate Backlash Follows Indiana Governor Pence’s Decision To Sign Anti-Gay Law

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff tweeted on Thursday, shortly after the bill was signed:

Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination.


The online review company Yelp also signaled its intentions to boycott Indiana, and every other state that allows discrimination against gays and lesbians. Yelp chief executive, Jeremy Stoppelman, stated on Thursday:

I hope that in the future the legislatures in the nineteen states that have these laws on the books will reconsider their actions. In the mean time, Yelp will make every effort to expand its corporate presence only in states that do not have these laws allowing for discrimination on the books.


On Friday, the city of San Francisco announced it would boycott Indiana as well. San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee ordered city departments to ban work-related trips to Indiana, unless they were necessary for public health and safety.

We stand united as San Franciscans to condemn Indiana’s new discriminatory law, and will work together to protect the civil rights of all Americans including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.
San Francisco taxpayers will not subsidize legally-sanctioned discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people by the state of Indiana.



The Disciples of Christ Christian Church is also contemplating moving their 2017 convention out of Indianapolis, to protest the passing of the anti-gay law. 8,000 church members attend their annual convention, providing the host city with an estimated economic benefit of nearly 6 million dollars. However, the church has threatened to relocate their convention, due to concerns over the discriminatory Indiana law.


The swift backlash from tech companies, city governments and mainstream Christian churches may give Governor Pence and Republican lawmakers pause for reconsidering the wisdom of passing their anti-LGBT bill. While many Republicans appear uninterested in recognizing equal rights for LGBT citizens, they do recognize the power of money. If the idea that all people should be treated with equal dignity and respect is unpersuasive, perhaps the economic impact of a boycott will be.

Source


And all of those are free-market solutions.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Agreed, but its the everyday Joe in Indiana that will pay the consequences for the Religious Rights intolerance!


Edit - Now I really have to go and do some work! Should ban ATS IP address from my office servers!

edit on 31.3.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




Olaru12 makes his living making films. Do you think he should be forced to make an anti-gay marriage film since he makes films for other people?


As far as I know, "anti-gay marriage" isn't a protected class. However, if Olaru12 refused to hire a competent photographer or boom handler (don't know the proper title) because they were fundamental Christians, you might have a point.




top topics



 
21
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join