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: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Answer


Totally different place and time. How many of those white's only businesses are around today?


What's the difference between now and then?


Do I really have to point out the differences between modern day America and 1950's America?

Don't be silly.


No. There is no difference. You'll just make yourself look stupid.

I'm almost 70. It is my real life history.



originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Answer


Do I really have to point out the differences between modern day America and 1950's America?

Don't be silly.


I like silly questions - especially when someone is stalling because they don't want to give the actual answer. Not really going to work in your favor, is it?

Throw in a little bit more condescension while you're at it. Go ahead - we'll wait...


Yeah, let's see how stupid I can make myself look...

Have you completely forgotten about the Jim Crow laws? It was illegal for a black person to enter a "white's only" establishment.

I'll say it again, the biggest difference between then and now is that people can choose where and with whom to do business. If they have an unpleasant experience, it's not just their friends and neighbors who hear about it, they can get online and tell the whole world that a racist store owner refused to do business with them. When that happens, the business owner will lose what they've worked for.

I'd rather see these idiots exposed for who they really are and watch them lose their livelihood instead of forcing them to play nice while they spout their ignorant hate speech all the way to the bank.

For some reason, a couple of people seem to think I'm on the side of the bigots. Read my posts.



edit on 3/28/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer


Have you completely forgotten about the Jim Crow laws? It was illegal for a black person to enter a "white's only" establishment.

Now - a business owner is allowed to refuse service to someone they don't like. Perfectly legal

There is a lot of wiggle room with a law like this. It wasn't written to protect a specific belief in a specific set of circumstances - it's open to interpretation. Religion just got a free pass. It's a hell of a thing this law - make no mistake


For some reason, a couple of people seem to think I'm on the side of the bigots. Read my posts.


Whichever side you're on, you still won't look at the question directly or answer it directly: what is the difference between now - and then?



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer


FACT: law allows religious belief to refuse a customer who is gay, or atheist, or . . .

FACT: law allows religious belief to refuse a customer who is dark skinned (Mark of Ham)

Your claim ---- a business has the right to refuse anyone for any reason. And the business will fail by its own actions.

My claim ---- white businesses did not fail or suffer by refusing to serve blacks.

My claim ---- businesses in the bible belt will not fail or suffer for refusing to serve gays.

It is the identical scenario.
edit on 28-3-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Here's a beauty ...



In a fantastic story you just can't make up, a black lawmaker in the Indiana state legislature took to the floor and accused a colleague's child -- who can't yet talk -- of racism.

The chamber was debating the controversial "religious freedom" bill when Democratic Rep. Vanessa Summers took aim at Republican Rep. Jud McMillin.

"I told Jud McMillin I love his son, but he's scared of me because of my color," she said. "It's hard. It's true."

Afterward, she defended the comments.

"He looked at me like I was a monster and turned around and cried. And I told him you need to introduce your child to some people that are dark-skinned so he will not be scared," she said.


Black Lawmaker Accuses White Lawmaker's 18-Month-Old Toddler of Racism




posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Answer


FACT: law allows religious belief to refuse a customer who is gay, or atheist, or . . .

FACT: law allows religious belief to refuse a customer who is dark skinned (Mark of Ham)

Your claim ---- a business has the right to refuse anyone for any reason. And the business will fail by its own actions.

My claim ---- white businesses did not fail or suffer by refusing to serve blacks.

My claim ---- businesses in the bible belt will not fail or suffer for refusing to serve gays.

It is the identical scenario.


Fact: even if the law allows the business owner to discriminate at will, the market will not allow that business to exist because people will boycott the business after word gets out.

The difference between then and now is that if a business owner refuses service based on someone's race, they can go online and let everyone know that the business owner is a racist. Obviously, in the past this was not possible because A) there was no internet and B) the law prohibited blacks from going to that store in the first place. Refusing business to blacks was the norm up until the 60's. Now it is not.

You're being intentionally obtuse if you refuse to acknowledge that there's a difference. Just because they pass a law saying the business owner can be an asshole doesn't mean that people won't refuse to do business there and drive him/her out of business. Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby have both felt the sting of boycotts after making their idiotic policies public.
edit on 3/28/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Answer


Have you completely forgotten about the Jim Crow laws? It was illegal for a black person to enter a "white's only" establishment.

Now - a business owner is allowed to refuse service to someone they don't like. Perfectly legal

There is a lot of wiggle room with a law like this. It wasn't written to protect a specific belief in a specific set of circumstances - it's open to interpretation. Religion just got a free pass. It's a hell of a thing this law - make no mistake


For some reason, a couple of people seem to think I'm on the side of the bigots. Read my posts.


Whichever side you're on, you still won't look at the question directly or answer it directly: what is the difference between now - and then?



See my answer to Annee.

In response to you claiming I won't answer the question directly, I pointed out the difference quite clearly in the response you very selectively quoted. Are you intentionally ignoring it just to make the claim that I'm avoiding the question?

I'm on the side of fewer pointless bullsh1t feel-good laws. Let the people decide what happens to a racist business owner. The situation will sort itself out just fine without giving more power to the government.
edit on 3/28/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/28/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer




Fact: even if the law allows the business owner to discriminate at will, the market will not allow that business to exist because people will boycott the business after word gets out.


You can't say that as a fact! There are many determining factors on how the market will react, not even on a level playing field. The market isn't a predictable entity. The fact is....depending on location and demographics; a racist/homophobic scumbag business could infarct thrive in a racist, homophobic atmosphere; Probably like Indiana where the law was passed.




I'm on the side of fewer pointless bullsh1t feel-good laws. Let the people decide what happens to a racist business owner. The situation will sort itself out just fine without giving more power to the government.


Then how can you support this additional law favoring a select group of religious zealots? You can't see your disconnect here?


edit on 28-3-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Answer




Fact: even if the law allows the business owner to discriminate at will, the market will not allow that business to exist because people will boycott the business after word gets out.


You can't say that as a fact! There are many determining factors on how the market will react, not even on a level playing field. The market isn't a predictable entity. The fact is....depending on location and demographics; a racist/homophobic scumbag business could infarct thrive in a racist, homophobic atmosphere; Probably like Indiana where the law was passed.




I'm on the side of fewer pointless bullsh1t feel-good laws. Let the people decide what happens to a racist business owner. The situation will sort itself out just fine without giving more power to the government.


Then how can you support this additional law favoring a select group of religious zealots? You can't see your disconnect here?



I didn't say I support the law. What I support is removing laws that force a business owner to behave a certain way and let nature run its course.

I don't support laws that attempt to tell people how to behave. I do support steps toward removing government control.

Just because I support a particular principles does not mean I support the manner in which it's achieved. I think the religious aspect of this proposed law is dogsh1t but I support the principle of it.

You say that a racist, homophobic business could thrive in a racist, homophobic atmosphere... well fine. Let the assholes hang out with each other. Would a black person, a gay person, or a rational person want to visit that establishment? No... so what exactly are you hoping to accomplish by forcing the racist homophobes to play nice with others?

Is it better to let people be dicks and face the consequences or to force your beliefs on them? That's the irony that some of you don't seem to grasp. I don't like cauliflower. If someone tries to force me to eat cauliflower, I'll just hate it even more.
edit on 3/28/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

then you don't seem to believe in a representative government. a plutocracy would seem to fit the type of government you want.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

But, the situation DIDN'T sort itself out before civil rights were enacted into law. Now, your proposing to remove the Civil Rights Act because a bunch of relgious nuts can't handle extending civil rights to gays.

Gay fear and bigotry is threatening to set America back to the good ole 1950s! Deja Vu all over again!



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Answer

But, the situation DIDN'T sort itself out before civil rights were enacted into law. Now, your proposing to remove the Civil Rights Act because a bunch of relgious nuts can't handle extending civil rights to gays.

Gay fear and bigotry is threatening to set America back to the good ole 1950s! Deja Vu all over again!

You can't make a law that forces people to like other people. We have a God given right to be a-holes. If you are gay, and don't like that I don't like you, should there be a law forcing you to? We don't need "everyone gets a trophy" style laws...we need thicker skin. Or at least some of us. The people who don't like me...I avoid them and don't spend a moment caring how they feel toward me. Maybe other people should do the same.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Answer

But, the situation DIDN'T sort itself out before civil rights were enacted into law. Now, your proposing to remove the Civil Rights Act because a bunch of relgious nuts can't handle extending civil rights to gays.

Gay fear and bigotry is threatening to set America back to the good ole 1950s! Deja Vu all over again!

You can't make a law that forces people to like other people. We have a God given right to be a-holes. If you are gay, and don't like that I don't like you, should there be a law forcing you to? We don't need "everyone gets a trophy" style laws...we need thicker skin. Or at least some of us. The people who don't like me...I avoid them and don't spend a moment caring how they feel toward me. Maybe other people should do the same.


Then don't have a business that serves the public.


edit on 28-3-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Answer

But, the situation DIDN'T sort itself out before civil rights were enacted into law. Now, your proposing to remove the Civil Rights Act because a bunch of relgious nuts can't handle extending civil rights to gays.

Gay fear and bigotry is threatening to set America back to the good ole 1950s! Deja Vu all over again!

You can't make a law that forces people to like other people. We have a God given right to be a-holes. If you are gay, and don't like that I don't like you, should there be a law forcing you to? We don't need "everyone gets a trophy" style laws...we need thicker skin. Or at least some of us. The people who don't like me...I avoid them and don't spend a moment caring how they feel toward me. Maybe other people should do the same.


Then don't have a business that serves the public.


Everyone has a right to own or start their own business. Or are we going to take that away too? What we need is common sense...not more laws because everyone thinks they are special and need to be protected when the sun doesn't shine on them a particular way.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
You can't make a law that forces people to like other people.


No law is "forcing" you to "like" anyone.
This is a law ALLOWING people to get away with treating people as second class citizens, based on things that are none of anyone else's business.

This is what baffles me about the right wing American "Republican". You guys wave around your rights and freedoms, claim to be all about personal liberty and want to keep government out of your private lives, but then you DEMAND the RIGHT to inflict your religious delusions onto other people, DEMAND the right to abuse others based on something that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

If these laws were really about people being allowed to refuse business to anyone, why is there no mention of race? Why no mention of gender? Why no mention of other religions or nationalities?

You cannot claim this law is about freedom of businesses to refuse service to anyone, when that is not the reality. This is not a law allowing any business to refuse to serve anyone, this is a law SPECIFICALLY allowing the religious (of which Christianity is the majority) to refuse service to LGBT people.

Either way, this is going to be fascinating to watch. These states are now going to face massive boycotts, and not just by LGBT people, but all decent Americans, and numerous large corporations and businesses across the country. To make it even more juicy, the youth are seeing once again how hateful and ignorant the Republican party is. If the Republican party thinks it has any hope of gaining after this fiasco, they're in for a shock.

The youth had already turned away from the Republican party back at the last election (the numbers clearly show that younger voters are increasingly Democrat) and this messed up nonsense is not going to win over any young voters at all.

Incidentally, there are already new websites springing up for listing bigot businesses in these states. The first companies to start turning LGBT people away will be listed on hundreds of websites around the world, and locals will have plenty of sites to go to find MORAL businesses to give their money to instead. And if you think that's only going to be LGBT people, think again. No decent person wants to go eat at a restaurant owned by a bigot, gay or straight.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Answer

But, the situation DIDN'T sort itself out before civil rights were enacted into law. Now, your proposing to remove the Civil Rights Act because a bunch of relgious nuts can't handle extending civil rights to gays.

Gay fear and bigotry is threatening to set America back to the good ole 1950s! Deja Vu all over again!

You can't make a law that forces people to like other people. We have a God given right to be a-holes. If you are gay, and don't like that I don't like you, should there be a law forcing you to? We don't need "everyone gets a trophy" style laws...we need thicker skin. Or at least some of us. The people who don't like me...I avoid them and don't spend a moment caring how they feel toward me. Maybe other people should do the same.


Then don't have a business that serves the public.


Everyone has a right to own or start their own business. Or are we going to take that away too? What we need is common sense...not more laws because everyone thinks they are special and need to be protected when the sun doesn't shine on them a particular way.


No, we just have CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, protecting people from bigots and ignorant fools who want to directly abuse others for something that is none of their concern.

I'm waiting for the passing of laws allowing people to refuse to serve Christians, I take it you would be perfectly okay with this, even though we both know that could never possibly happen?



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
these homophobic business owners don't need to like them, touch them, smile at them, or agree with them....sell them the product, collect their money, and go about your business.....you don't get GAY INFECTIONS from being around them....geez, what a bunch of business owner wussies.....what do they do when they sit near a gay person in a restaurant? run out the door screaming GAY COOTIES!! GAY COOTIES!!



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE




You can't make a law that forces people to like other people.


Nope. But we can make laws that protect the right to equal treatment. They're called Civil Rights and Congress was so intent on forcing people to behave civilly that they wrote "The Civil Rights Act". Everyone in the USA is under its jurisdiction, except those who profess religion, now, because of hatred for gays.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
You can't make a law that forces people to like other people.


No law is "forcing" you to "like" anyone.
This is a law ALLOWING people to get away with treating people as second class citizens, based on things that are none of anyone else's business.

This is what baffles me about the right wing American "Republican". You guys wave around your rights and freedoms, claim to be all about personal liberty and want to keep government out of your private lives, but then you DEMAND the RIGHT to inflict your religious delusions onto other people, DEMAND the right to abuse others based on something that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

If these laws were really about people being allowed to refuse business to anyone, why is there no mention of race? Why no mention of gender? Why no mention of other religions or nationalities?

You cannot claim this law is about freedom of businesses to refuse service to anyone, when that is not the reality. This is not a law allowing any business to refuse to serve anyone, this is a law SPECIFICALLY allowing the religious (of which Christianity is the majority) to refuse service to LGBT people.

Either way, this is going to be fascinating to watch. These states are now going to face massive boycotts, and not just by LGBT people, but all decent Americans, and numerous large corporations and businesses across the country. To make it even more juicy, the youth are seeing once again how hateful and ignorant the Republican party is. If the Republican party thinks it has any hope of gaining after this fiasco, they're in for a shock.

The youth had already turned away from the Republican party back at the last election (the numbers clearly show that younger voters are increasingly Democrat) and this messed up nonsense is not going to win over any young voters at all.

Incidentally, there are already new websites springing up for listing bigot businesses in these states. The first companies to start turning LGBT people away will be listed on hundreds of websites around the world, and locals will have plenty of sites to go to find MORAL businesses to give their money to instead. And if you think that's only going to be LGBT people, think again. No decent person wants to go eat at a restaurant owned by a bigot, gay or straight.

If it is none of anyone else's business, then the business owner wouldn't know...would they? Fact is, I don't deserve a law that says that if I walk into a gay bar that I have to be treated a certain way. I would expect odd looks and probably a bit of "what are YOU doing here". So guess what...I don't go where I'm not welcome. I can live with that. Why can't others?

But since you mention "none of their business", maybe your point is more on the lines of demanding acceptance, instead of wanting equal treatment. I mean...if it is none of their business what your sexual preference is, then I assume you aren't flaunting it around...right. I mean...it is none of their business...right?
edit on 3/28/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE




You can't make a law that forces people to like other people.


Nope. But we can make laws that protect the right to equal treatment. They're called Civil Rights and Congress was so intent on forcing people to behave civilly that they wrote "The Civil Rights Act". Everyone in the USA is under its jurisdiction, except those who profess religion, now, because of hatred for gays.


While I'm not religious...the religious people I know don't "hate" gay people. They disagree with their lifestyles but there is no hate.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Answer

then you don't seem to believe in a representative government. a plutocracy would seem to fit the type of government you want.



What have I typed in this thread that gave you that idiotic idea?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join