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

18911131428

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    You mean the Constitution that was written a very long time ago by a bunch of landed White Men?

     

    Who could possibly imagine that it would need to evolve over centuries.




    The Constitution is difficult to change for excellent historical reasons and the more incursions against the Constitution, the more powers are concentrated in the Federal government. These incursions ebb and flow, but they have gotten much, much worse, historically speaking, over recent decades.

  • Reply 202 of 551
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

     

     

    Exactly.

     

    There is an incredibly moralistic and militant homosexual lobby that seeks to create a new quasi-religious order of intolerance by forcing people to acquiesce to others of a different belief.

     

    So much emotion. Not enough thinking.


    I think there needs to be clear distinction made between businesses having to provide bespoke products and services for people and business having to provide their standard products and services to people.  For instance, under no cirumstances should it be OK for a business to deny selling a product to a gay person that they would otherwise be quite happy to sell to a straight person under the same terms.  A bed & breakfast in the UK was fined for discriminating against a gay couple in this way when they refused to allow them to share a bed.  Their defence was that they would have treated an unmarried straight couple in the same way.  That didn't wash as it simply meant they admitted they were prepared to discriminate against two different sets of people instead of just one, and actually just made them look worse.  If you run a B&B and you are quite happy to accept straight married couples, you cannot then deny any other type of couple who wish to purchase the same room/service.

     

    However, if I run a family photography business, and someone approached me and asked me to shoot a hardcore gay pornography shoot, I believe I'd be perfectly within my rights to refuse this.  Businesses shouldn't be forced to provide products and services outside of what they usually provide. 

     

    However,

  • Reply 203 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Swift View Post

     

    Taking a knife to a baby in "a Satanic ritual" is murder, and that's the law, and it's also proof that "religious rituals" do have some limitations. Is operating your business part of your religion? Weird. If you want to work in a church, even as janitor, the priest or minister has every right to take your religion into account. The head of a business does not.

     

    Remember the first amendment. Religions have every right to forbid this or that conduct for its members. They have no business telling other religions what to do. If so, okay, my former religion says your religion is leading to damnation, and we will wage a holy war against you until you all convert.

     

    Bzzt! Against the establishment of religion.

     

    No-one has the right to force you to engage in homosexual acts. So if a customer in a store makes an unwanted pass, you can toss him out. But you have to sell him lumber or food or anything else.




    One does not lose their individual constitutional rights simply because they run a business.

  • Reply 204 of 551
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member

    I find it hysterical all the liberals who are wetting their panties over this law. It's the same thing with the law that was vetoed in Arizona. It does not make one damn difference if this gets overturned or not. It is legal for businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation. Some states such as here in California do have laws on discrimination based on sexual orientation. It's stupid all these businesses saying they are going to cancel events. It has always been legal in Indiana to refuse service to gays and lesbians. This new law changes nothing.

  • Reply 205 of 551
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member

    OK, I'll  take the argument to the extreme. If an Islamic Extremist opens a restaurant and an American capitalist comes in to eat. If the extremist believes per his religion that he should kill the American,  is that his religious right, regardless of the law?

  • Reply 206 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Swift View Post

     

    Taking a knife to a baby in "a Satanic ritual" is murder, and that's the law, and it's also proof that "religious rituals" do have some limitations. Is operating your business part of your religion? Weird. If you want to work in a church, even as janitor, the priest or minister has every right to take your religion into account. The head of a business does not.

     

    Remember the first amendment. Religions have every right to forbid this or that conduct for its members. They have no business telling other religions what to do. If so, okay, my former religion says your religion is leading to damnation, and we will wage a holy war against you until you all convert.

     

    Bzzt! Against the establishment of religion.

     

    No-one has the right to force you to engage in homosexual acts. So if a customer in a store makes an unwanted pass, you can toss him out. But you have to sell him lumber or food or anything else.


     

     

    So if a Satanist or atheist comes into your store and asks you to explicitly make him a knife to be used for a human sacrifice, you are obliged to make and sell him that knife?

     

    Got it.

  • Reply 207 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

     

    I think there needs to be clear distinction made between businesses having to provide bespoke products and services for people and business having to provide their standard products and services to people.  For instance, under no cirumstances should it be OK for a business to deny selling a product to a gay person that they would otherwise be quite happy to sell to a straight person under the same terms.  A bed & breakfast in the UK was fined for discriminating against a gay couple in this way when they refused to allow them to share a bed.  Their defence was that they would have treated an unmarried straight couple in the same way.  That didn't wash as it simply meant they admitted they were prepared to discriminate against two different sets of people instead of just one, and actually just made them look worse.  If you run a B&B and you are quite happy to accept straight married couples, you cannot then deny any other type of couple who wish to purchase the same room/service.

     

    However, if I run a family photography business, and someone approached me and asked me to shoot a hardcore gay pornography shoot, I believe I'd be perfectly within my rights to refuse this.  Businesses shouldn't be forced to provide products and services outside of what they usually provide. 

     

    However,




    I disagree. A business isn't the same thing as the government. The government cannot violate our individual rights without violating the Constitution. A proprietor should be able to discriminate against any person, as shortsighted and disgusting as that may seem, and I'm sure none here would argue that discrimination based on skin color, gender or religious affiliation is a laudable trait.

  • Reply 208 of 551
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

     

     

    I don't think that would be a good next step.

     

    They do stone adulterers in some places, though. I can understand why.




    They only stone female adulterers, and in many cases, they do so without evidence or cause.  You are sick making.

  • Reply 209 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

     

    OK, I'll  take the argument to the extreme. If an Islamic Extremist opens a restaurant and an American capitalist comes in to eat. If the extremist believes per his religion that he should kill the American,  is that his religious right, regardless of the law?


     

    That's a poor argument. Homicide is illegal, except if committed in self-defense.

  • Reply 210 of 551
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    chadbag wrote: »
    It is not an anti-gay law. That is misinformation.

    It is a law for freedom of association. You cannot force people to associate with people they don't want to associate with.


    Yep, no gays would be executed under this law. It isn't any where near as bad as people are making it out to be. It is no different than giving people the right to not do business with a child molester.
  • Reply 211 of 551

    Let's take the word "gay" our and put in "African American" "Jew" "Muslim" "Mormon" in its place, would some of you still support this law? I own a business and the only way I would turn someone out would be due to their actions such as: abusive to employees, rude, destructive or pose a threat. Only a fool would tell a paying customer to go elsewhere but apparently so would a state run by haters. 

  • Reply 212 of 551
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    That's a poor argument. Homicide is illegal, except if committed in self-defense.


    Discrimination is illegal also. If it was not why would Indiana need to change the law with this bill.

  • Reply 213 of 551

    Nothing scares a red blooded, gun toting all American heterosexual like an un-armed homosexual. You guys call yourself men? 

  • Reply 214 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Yep, no gays would be executed under this law. It isn't any where near as bad as people are making it out to be. It is no different than giving people the right to not do business with a child molester.



    "Gay" is not the same as "child molester" and that's a weak argument on your part. If you had said "people can choose to do business with whomever they want" and let it be, you'd be in the right.

  • Reply 216 of 551
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

     

    Discrimination is illegal also. If it was not why would Indiana need to change the law with this bill.




    I'd really have to see the text of the law, but I think on constitutional grounds this law likely cannot stand. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making any laws "respecting an establishment of religion", which this law seems to do, based on the barest of descriptions here.

  • Reply 217 of 551
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

     

     

    Exactly.

     

    There is an incredibly moralistic and militant homosexual lobby that seeks to create a new quasi-religious order of intolerance by forcing people to acquiesce to others of a different belief.

     

    So much emotion. Not enough thinking.


    I think there needs to be clear distinction made between businesses having to provide bespoke products and services for people and business having to provide their standard products and services to people.  For instance, under no cirumstances should it be OK for a business to deny selling a product to a gay person that they would otherwise be quite happy to sell to a straight person under the same terms.  A bed & breakfast in the UK was fined for discriminating against a gay couple in this way when they refused to allow them to share a bed.  Their defence was that they would have treated an unmarried straight couple in the same way.  That didn't wash as it simply meant they admitted they were prepared to discriminate against two different sets of people instead of just one, and actually just made them look worse.  If you run a B&B and you are quite happy to accept straight married couples, you cannot then deny any other type of couple who wish to purchase the same room/service.

     

    However, if I run a family photography business, and someone approached me and asked me to shoot a hardcore gay pornography shoot, I believe I'd be perfectly within my rights to refuse this.  Businesses shouldn't be forced to provide products and services outside of what they usually provide. 

     

    However,


     

     

    I see no distinction between your two examples at all.

     

    The Bed and Breakfast refused the couple because they had reasonable grounds to believe that they would engage in homosexual behaviour, which they would effectively be encouraging by admitting them. That was on religious grounds, just as it would have been for an unmarried couple. It was quite wrong of them to be ruled against, and reflects the great evil in society today.

     

    How is your photo shoot example any different? It has no logic, for a start. You think that businesses shouldn’t have to provide things outside what they usually provide? Why? That makes no sense at all. And how do you define it? This is where your argument breaks down. 

     

    Generally, people are in business for business. The aim is to at least earn a living. People should be allowed to serve who they like, based on their own personal judgment, not any dictatorship-imposed mandate. 

     

    I get the impression that liberals love to bring up this bogeyman of swathes of businesses suddenly turning away all blacks, latinos, etc. Businesses have to make money! I imagine that any business that used to serve 80% black customers that decided not to serve them would go bankrupt very quickly.

     

    We need to get away from this historical mistrust of the government against the people and put our trust in people's humanity; that is the only way to truly be free. It’s no wonder that confidence in government is at an all-time low, what with the NSA, privacy issues, etc.

  • Reply 218 of 551
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

     

     

    I don't think that would be a good next step.

     

    They do stone adulterers in some places, though. I can understand why.




    They only stone female adulterers, and in many cases, they do so without evidence or cause.  You are sick making.


     

     

    I didn't say I condoned it; only that I understood it.

     

    But liberals like to leap to judgement without considering their words.

  • Reply 219 of 551
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Business owners rights? Like a white and black person water fountain in the store? Or no Black people allowed in the store? Some of you Americans have not evolved in the slightest.

    Homosexuality, just like child molestation {amongst other practices}, is deviant sexuality. So you need to ask yourself, can you deal with the idea that you MUST do business with all sexual deviants no matter how off base they are? Further are you really free if you must do business with people through the decree of any law?

    I really don't see anything wrong with this law. In many ways it gives people that don't have a problem with gays a business advantage. Those that do object are then free to succeed or fail.
  • Reply 220 of 551
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

     

    Discrimination is illegal also. If it was not why would Indiana need to change the law with this bill.


    Indiana actually doesn't have to do anything. Have you read this law? It prevents things such as lawsuits. Even before this law was signed, it was already legal to refuse service to gay people. 

Sign In or Register to comment.