Tim Cook 'deeply disappointed' by new Indiana anti-gay law

1246728

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 551
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NostraThomas View Post



    Jesus wasn't a bigot. He accepted everyone. He didn't use religion to justify his personal prejudices, either.



    And this is relevant how?

     

    The law does not say, as far as I understand, not having read all the details, that religious people can discriminate against gays.  The law says that religious people can refuse to participate in business arrangements that make them a part of something they disagree with based on their belief system.

     

    I don't believe the law allows a business to put out a sign that says "Gays not allowed".   It does allow them to refuse to provide a service that makes them a part of an activity they disagree with.  

     

     

    I am going to bow out for a while since I have real work to do.   If I don't reply to questions or anything for a while that is the reason.

  • Reply 62 of 551

    What is wrong with some of you?  Sexual orientation is not and should not be the basis for anything.  Period.

  • Reply 63 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     



    No, for once, Mr Frost is correct.

     

    I often see signs at restaurants and business that say the business has the right to refuse service for any reason.  (It is understood that certain protected classes cannot be refused simply for being in that class).


    Why are you avoiding my question?

     

    I've asked it SIX TIMES and you are still avoiding it.

     

    If my religious belief is that I should not associate with black people does that give me the right not to allow black people in my store?


     

     

    What is this religious belief that doesn't allow black people in stores?

     

    I haven't heard of it.

  • Reply 64 of 551
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    Precisely.

     

    Restaurants, for instance, are free to turn away whosoever they please. That is their discretion.


     

    Yeah, I see well dressed and well mannered colored and LGBT people kicked out all the time on the whim of the restaurant owner.

  • Reply 65 of 551
    masnickmasnick Posts: 22member

    Barry, your comment ("Some of you Americans have not evolved in the slightest.") leads me to believe you are not from the United States. 

     

    I am glad of that. My guess is that if you were here, you would believe you know more about my rights than I do, and you would make every effort to force your understanding of my rights upon me, with or without my consent.

     

    I'd suggest you lobby in your own country, wherever that is, and make your country whatever you want it to be. I'll stay away from it, and you stay away from mine. K?

     

    Or do you plan to force me to visit your country, or force me to host your visit to mine?

  • Reply 66 of 551
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post





    If the act itself is against their belief system, perhaps no, but if a religious person runs a business where s/he refuses to serve certain customers because of sexuality, or race, or whatever, perhaps they should not be in that business. It is a stretch to call it discrimination against a business owner to refuse the business owner to discriminate.



    You have a twisted idea of what 'freedom' is.

     

    No, you have a twisted belief of what Freedom is.

     

    Freedom is being able to live your life the way you want as long as it does not infringe on others.

     

    Being forced to participate in an activity they disagree with, for example, a gay wedding, is not discriminating against the gay wedding, but rather is discriminating against the religious person.  The gay wedding party is not being stopped from having their wedding, nor from having their wedding photographed.  The gay wedding party can go to any other photographer they want.  No one is infringing the rights of the gay wedding party.  But the rights of the photographer are being infringed if they have to participate and they disagree with gay weddings.

  • Reply 67 of 551
    drowdrow Posts: 126member
    on the balance between businesses being free to go out of business in whatever manner they deem fit and protecting all members of society from the irrational whims of the majority, i think it makes sense to side with the latter. when you open your doors to the public, you open your doors to all.
  • Reply 68 of 551
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    chadbag wrote: »
    If this position is hard to understand, I am sorry.  I also support legalization of drugs, even though I think drugs are stupid, should not be used, and I don't even drink alcohol at all, let alone ever have tried any drug myself.   I also think prostitution should be legal, even if I have no desire to visit a prostitute (and believe in abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterwards).   I believe in Freedom as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others in the exercise of it, and refusing do business does not violate the refused customer's rights.
    But it does. If I can refuse to do business with you it can seriously undermine your own business. It will infringe on your rights to do business but I am refusing to sell you what you need. You may have to pay a higher price somewhere else, or need to travel across the state, or you simply may not be able to get the service I offer anywhere where it is of any use to you.
  • Reply 69 of 551
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    So it's ok if I, as an atheist, have a restaurant where anyone weariing a cross or a crucifix, a Star of David or a Yarmulke, a Hajib or any Islamic paraphernalia is immediately kicked out because I don't want to "associate with them."

     

    Good to know.

  • Reply 70 of 551
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

     

    The stuff you are saying is not even CLOSE to correct.

     

    If you want, I will tell you all the points where you are wrong, and I will give you a massively long list of Supreme Court cases that deny everything you have said.

     

    Do you want that?


     

    I am not wrong.   I am not saying everything I saw is currently legal in the US.  But it is not philosophically wrong.  The Supreme Court is just a bunch of grumpy old people who have their own agendas and are not any more "right" philosophically speaking.  They have legal weight so they may make things legal or not legal, whether or not those things are ethically or morally right.

  • Reply 70 of 551
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    chadbag wrote: »
    No, you have a twisted belief of what Freedom is.

    Freedom is being able to live your life the way you want as long as it does not infringe on others.

    Being forced to participate in an activity they disagree with, for example, a gay wedding, is not discriminating against the gay wedding, but rather is discriminating against the religious person.  The gay wedding party is not being stopped from having their wedding, nor from having their wedding photographed.  The gay wedding party can go to any other photographer they want.  No one is infringing the rights of the gay wedding party.  But the rights of the photographer are being infringed if they have to participate and they disagree with gay weddings.
    Not if there is no other photographer in the village. If you are asking me to get married in another village you certainly are infringing on my rights.
  • Reply 72 of 551
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post





    Not if there is no other photographer in the village. If you are asking me to get married in another village you certainly are infringing on my rights.



    No, I am not.  I am not preventing you from getting married.   I am not forcing you to go to another village.    You have no right to a photographer if one cannot be found who can do the job.

  • Reply 73 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NostraThomas View Post



    Jesus wasn't a bigot. He accepted everyone. He didn't use religion to justify his personal prejudices, either.



    And this is relevant how?

     

    The law does not say, as far as I understand, not having read all the details, that religious people can discriminate against gays.  The law says that religious people can refuse to participate in business arrangements that make them a part of something they disagree with based on their belief system.

     

    I don't believe the law allows a business to put out a sign that says "Gays not allowed".   It does allow them to refuse to provide a service that makes them a part of an activity they disagree with.  

     

     

    I am going to bow out for a while since I have real work to do.   If I don't reply to questions or anything for a while that is the reason.


     

     

    Precisely.

     

    In a nutshell, if two men, who choose to partake in homosexual acts, walk into a cake shop and ask for a cake, why would the business owner have a problem? He may well not even know of the mens' sin.

     

    But if two men walk into a cake shop and ask for a wedding cake for their own 'marriage' to each other, then a business owner may wish to refuse to serve them on religious grounds, as to do so, he is implicitly celebrating their union, which may well be against his religious beliefs.

  • Reply 74 of 551
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sestewart View Post

     

    If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Businesses retain the right to refuse service to anyone. They don't have to sell anything to people they don't like. 

     

    If someone doesn't like that, they are more then welcome to create their own business or buy from another merchant. 


     

    your statement is not true. see the civil rights movement -- there are protected classes that cannot be discriminated against in the US.

  • Reply 75 of 551
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    chadbag wrote: »

    No, I am not.  I am not preventing you from getting married.   I am not forcing you to go to another village.    You have no right to a photographer if one cannot be found who can do the job.
    But substitute photography at a wedding with buying a machine part to fix my mill, or fertilizer for my land, or medicine for my child.
  • Reply 76 of 551
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Got the answer I need.  Proves you are hopeless.  

     

    You think it okay not to let black people in a store.


     

    Only proves I am a thinking man, and believe in true Freedom.  Not some slave to political correctness.

     

    I think it should be legal for a business owner to disallow anyone for any reason in his store.  I do not think it is "ok" or "right" to do so.  There is a big difference.

  • Reply 77 of 551
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     

     

    Only proves I am a thinking man, and believe in true Freedom.  Not some slave to political correctness.

     

    I think it should be legal for a business owner to disallow anyone for any reason in his store.  I do not think it is "ok" or "right" to do so.  There is a big difference.




    So you believe in racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and pretty much every other ugly idea in the Universe.

     

    Good to know.

  • Reply 78 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     



    I am not avoiding it.  I have a real job I have to do and the replies are coming in MUCH FASTER than I can keep up with.  This is the first time I have seen your request.  Half the replies to this I have not seen yet.

     

    Yes, someone should be able to refuse to do business with someone if they are black (legally speaking).   No, I do not think that anyone SHOULD refuse to do business with someone who is black (I certainly wouldn't).  No, someone can't refuse to do business with someone based solely on their being black.  (And I am not agitating to change the law, even if I philosophically believe such a law is wrong -- the law itself, and not the outcome, as I don't think anyone SHOULD refuse to do business with someone based solely on the racial makeup of that person -- I do not advocate racism).

     

    If this position is hard to understand, I am sorry.  I also support legalization of drugs, even though I think drugs are stupid, should not be used, and I don't even drink alcohol at all, let alone ever have tried any drug myself.   I also think prostitution should be legal, even if I have no desire to visit a prostitute (and believe in abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterwards).   I believe in Freedom as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others in the exercise of it, and refusing do business does not violate the refused customer's rights.


    In actuality, laws such as these set a precedent for other laws and also restricts where one can go, shop, and conduct business that others can freely go to.  Imagine if there was a grocery store that was for white people and the closest alternative was a significant distance away, or if a long stretch of interstate gas stations don't service latinos (it sounds beyond stupid really). Does this symbolize Freedom in America?

  • Reply 79 of 551
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PBRSTREETG View Post

     

    In actuality, laws such as these set a precedent for other laws and also restricts where one can go, shop, and conduct business that others can freely go to.  Imagine if there was a grocery store that was for white people and the closest alternative was a significant distance away, or if a long stretch of interstate gas stations don't service latinos (it sounds beyond stupid really). Does this symbolize Freedom in America?


     

    To him?  Absolutely.

  • Reply 80 of 551
    waterrocketswaterrockets Posts: 1,231member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     



    No.  Except for "protected classes" a business can legally, right now, refuse to do business with ANYONE THEY WANT.  If someone is an Android lover, and owns a hamburger restaurant, and Tim Cook comes in and wants to buy a hamburger, that restaurant, right now, can legally refuse to do service with him.


     

    Homosexuals have not been a protected class in all anti-discrimination laws, but across the country, cases have been won against business discriminating against homosexuals. That's why Indiana had to create a new law to explicitly allow discrimination. So, your first sentence is now true in Indiana, but it wasn't true last week.

Sign In or Register to comment.