Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 31 Mar '15 16:01
    Irony: "In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Monday night, Gov. Pence defended the law and his support of it, writing: "If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore.""

    http://abc7chicago.com/politics/indianapolis-star-calls-for-law-protecting-rights-of-gays-lesbians/594116/

    Also at

    http://fox59.com/2015/03/31/i-stand-by-this-law-pence-appears-on-fox-and-friends-to-defend-religious-freedom-law/

    What do you think of a governor exemplifying (recommending?) economic boycott against "religious expression" that he just endorsed by signing into law?

    Is this what they call back-paddling over the falls?
  2. 31 Mar '15 16:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    Irony: "In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Monday night, Gov. Pence defended the law and his support of it, writing: "If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore.""

    http://abc7chicago.com/politics/indianapolis-star-calls-for-law-protecting-rights-of-gays-lesbians/594116/

    Also at

    http://fox59.com/2015/03/3 ...[text shortened]... at he just endorsed by signing into law?

    Is this what they call back-paddling over the falls?
    If a restaurant refused to serve you is one thing, but if they served you but simply refused to bring you a gay marriage cake, is another.

    From what I've heard, the establishments that refused to make the gay marriage cakes gladly sold them other things like flowers and such. The issue is that they refused to make a cake that they deem to be an abomination.

    I suppose those who are religious and that make cakes will either have to refuse to make marriage cakes altogether, which would kill their business, or find some other work.

    In other words, if you are religious you will not be permitted to run a business that makes cakes, which is in itself bigotry.
  3. 31 Mar '15 16:34
    Originally posted by JS357
    Irony: "In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Monday night, Gov. Pence defended the law and his support of it, writing: "If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore.""

    http://abc7chicago.com/politics/indianapolis-star-calls-for-law-protecting-rights-of-gays-lesbians/594116/

    Also at

    http://fox59.com/2015/03/3 ...[text shortened]... at he just endorsed by signing into law?

    Is this what they call back-paddling over the falls?
    I found hilarious that the loud protests against the Indiana law come often from people who passed similar laws in 20 other States, including BHO.

    Wish I could find the audio.
  4. 31 Mar '15 23:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I found hilarious that the loud protests against the Indiana law come often from people who passed similar laws in 20 other States, including BHO.

    Wish I could find the audio.
    Pence chose to say, “If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn’t eat there anymore” instead of “If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I'd ask our state attorney general to investigate against state and federal law.”

    It implies that under the statute of interest, he'd not see the prevention of such discrimination as a "compelling governmental interest." He was obviously trying to give the impression that the law would satisfy the hypothetical restaurant owner, his refusal to serve gays creating only a potential economic cost.

    As to why it got national attention, I'd say it's all about the sports media looking for a way to expand their influence on the rest of the news cycle. Edit: I know our local sports reporters are going on about it, and we have no local dogs of any significance in March Madness. Maybe that's why.
  5. 31 Mar '15 23:51
    I see nothing wrong with the right to discriminate in a free society. In a free society you are free to deal with whom you wish to deal.

    We allow discrimination for consumers, but not providers.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  6. 31 Mar '15 23:54
    Originally posted by JS357
    Pence chose to say, “If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn’t eat there anymore” instead of “If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I'd ask our state attorney general to investigate against state and federal law.”

    It implies that under the statute of interest, he'd not see the prevention of such discrimination ...[text shortened]... g on about it, and we have no local dogs of any significance in March Madness. Maybe that's why.
    Obviously the motivation for twenty States adopting this type of rule, is the ramrodding of the gay lifestyle, and the forcing of a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. When one person's right to make choices are infringed upon by political correctness, there will be kickback.
  7. 31 Mar '15 23:56
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I see nothing wrong with the right to discriminate in a free society. In a free society you are free to deal with whom you wish to deal.

    We allow discrimination for consumers, but not providers.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    Stated much more simply than I did.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Apr '15 00:09
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I see nothing wrong with the right to discriminate in a free society. In a free society you are free to deal with whom you wish to deal.

    We allow discrimination for consumers, but not providers.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    Herr Hoppe would be proud to hear that.

    So you think all those silly civil rights laws are an infringement on the "right" of people owning businesses to do whatever they please?
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Apr '15 00:11
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Obviously the motivation for twenty States adopting this type of rule, is the ramrodding of the gay lifestyle, and the forcing of a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. When one person's right to make choices are infringed upon by political correctness, there will be kickback.
    And the motivation of many States to have laws that said blacks couldn't sit on the same part of the bus or go to the same school as whites was a reaction to the "ramrodding" of the silly idea that they should have the same rights as whites.
  10. 01 Apr '15 01:44
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Herr Hoppe would be proud to hear that.

    So you think all those silly civil rights laws are an infringement on the "right" of people owning businesses to do whatever they please?
    Those civil rights laws were not silly, they were a huge government intrusion on individual freedoms. They were a huge mistake.

    Public means owned by the government in the US, at least that's what it meant until the civil rights laws.

    I have absolutely no problem with applying the civil rights to the government, but using the government to apply it to force morality on other citizens is immoral.

    I would no more want to see the government used to make sexual immorality illegal (homosexuality and all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman) than force other forms of morality on others.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Apr '15 02:08
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Those civil rights laws were not silly, they were a huge government intrusion on individual freedoms. They were a huge mistake.

    Public means owned by the government in the US, at least that's what it meant until the civil rights laws.

    I have absolutely no problem with applying the civil rights to the government, but using the government to apply it to ...[text shortened]... sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman) than force other forms of morality on others.
    So saying black people have to be allowed to eat in your restaurant or stay at your hotel is "forcing morality" on you?
  12. 01 Apr '15 02:19
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So saying black people have to be allowed to eat in your restaurant or stay at your hotel is "forcing morality" on you?
    If I were at a restaurant that did not welcome my race I would rather know about it so as not to show there and eat God knows what when they bring it out.
  13. 01 Apr '15 02:21
    Originally posted by Eladar

    I have absolutely no problem with applying the civil rights to the government, but using the government to apply it to force morality on other citizens is immoral.
    All laws have a moral aspect to them.

    The bigger question is, do laws increase the morality of the said nation?

    Presently the government passes around 40.000 a year, but I don't perceive we are any better for it.
  14. 01 Apr '15 02:22
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So saying black people have to be allowed to eat in your restaurant or stay at your hotel is "forcing morality" on you?
    In fact it is. The owner of a business or property ought to be able to accept or reject business. Turning down paying customers is costly to the bottom line, but is within the right of any owner of a business. That is natural law at its best.
  15. 01 Apr '15 02:23
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    And the motivation of many States to have laws that said blacks couldn't sit on the same part of the bus or go to the same school as whites was a reaction to the "ramrodding" of the silly idea that they should have the same rights as whites.
    The making of race, and sexual preference to be parallels is abhorrent.