Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

Thank you,
Inquiring Minds

(03-30-2015 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 05:49 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

This...but...that is what these people do. They go out looking for problems.

Did you see who was behind Gov Pence when he signed the bill? Please, go look at the photo of him signing the bill and look up their records before you accuse people of going out and looking for problems.

This would not be an issue if the gaystapo was not running around looking for little old ladies to put out of business.

people like *YOU* tom have created this impasse.

(03-30-2015 12:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

Thank you,
Inquiring Minds

Actually, yes. It should be no more legal for a business to refuse service to a Baptist Preacher than it should be for them to deny business to a LGBT person. Currently in Indiana, religious persons are protected from discrimination, but LGBT persons are not.

The market can't clear this. There are strong costs to discrimination that are borne by the target of that discrimination. Wedding venue cancels at the last minute. There are costs. Other competitors can charge Gay persons a premium knowing that they don't have to compete with others.

There are places where substitutes are more expensive or less of a fit or might not exist at all. Terre Haute isn't going to have a florist that just does Gay weddings for example. The market isn't that big.

By the way, perhaps I might feel different if those claiming religious freedom actually tried to exercise it consistent with their religious practices. Zero divorced persons are denied services when attempting to procure wedding supplies in the commercial sector. You see this law isn't about exercising religious freedom unless their religion is only about discriminating against Gay persons. In practice, the only people ever denied service under these laws are Gay persons. Its targeted at us.

(03-30-2015 12:27 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 05:49 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

This...but...that is what these people do. They go out looking for problems.

Did you see who was behind Gov Pence when he signed the bill? Please, go look at the photo of him signing the bill and look up their records before you accuse people of going out and looking for problems.

This would not be an issue if the gaystapo was not running around looking for little old ladies to put out of business.

people like *YOU* tom have created this impasse.

We are going to fight discrimination. Period. They'll always be blowback from bigots.

Do you think the anti-Gays are winning this argument? No.

Either non-discrimination laws exist or they don't. If they aren't enforced, they don't exist.

The point of the Indiana uproar is

1) To try and stop other states from implementing these laws. Outcome - looking really much better now. We were going to lose a lot less states than we would have otherwise.

2) Raise the issue of the lack of non-discrimination laws in states where they don't exist. Change the discussion from 'religious freedom' to 'Gays have no protection from discrimination'. Outcome. Success

3) Drive a wedge between the tea party (which votes almost 100% anti-Gay) and the business community. Outcome. Success.

(03-30-2015 12:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  By the way, perhaps I might feel different if those claiming religious freedom actually tried to exercise it consistent with their religious practices.

No. You wouldn't. Any claim you make which says "perhaps" or "maybe" is aimed at making you seem reasonable on this topic. The truth is you are *not* reasonable on this.

Quote:Zero divorced persons are denied services when attempting to procure wedding supplies in the commercial sector.

Evidence? or is this just speculation?

Also you've been told that divorce is *past sin* as such a past sinner can enter into a Christian marriage. Same for fornication. There are pastors who won't marry divorced people, and there are those who will.

In my church some of the pastors won't perform a wedding involving divorced people while some of the pastors will. We believe past sin is past so long as there has been repentance. We leave the logistics of who will perform those marriages up to the conscious of individual pastors.

Gay marriage, by its nature is *FUTURE* and *ONGOING* sin and a distortion of the institution to many Christians. You cant have a repentant ceremony when you're an unrepentant sinner.

Quote:You see this law isn't about exercising religious freedom unless their religion is only about discriminating against Gay persons.

The law covers *ALL* religious issues. You just don't see divorced people suing bakers and photographers. It's true that the gaystapo brought this to a head but the law itself is silent on what the objections must be.

Quote:In practice, the only people ever denied service under these laws are Gay persons. Its targeted at us.

Can I get facts and evidance to back this up?

So, Tom, what rights does a Christian who is deeply and genuinely offended as a legitimate matter of faith have? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance the equities?

If the person refused to provide the same services to divorced people getting a second marriage, how does that change things, since you seemed to imply that it would be different?

Do you simply believe that being gay trumps all other rights, or do you believe that other people have rights too?

(03-30-2015 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We are going to fight discrimination. Period. They'll always be blowback from bigots.

70 year old grandmother who service gay customers for years but would not do their wedding. To you that's unforgivable. So you'll back taking her business and home away.

Quote:Do you think the anti-Gays are winning this argument? No.

I don't know who these "anti-Gays" are that your talking about. I do know more and more states will be passing these laws and eventually the supreme court (which let the law stand in 1997 albeit with a limited scope) will have the final say.

You guys have turned into the bullies you hate and people are waking up to that.

This will all blow over very shortly. Your claims of "winning by losing" sounds a lot like the big labor spin on what Walker did a few years ago. Despite their "PR victory" the beat marched on.

(03-30-2015 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Tom, what rights does a Christian who is deeply and genuinely offended as a legitimate matter of faith have? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance the equities?

If the person refused to provide the same services to divorced people getting a second marriage, how does that change things, since you seemed to imply that it would be different?

Do you simply believe that being gay trumps all other rights, or do you believe that other people have rights too?

If gays really cared about equality in this they would be pushing for an addendum to the religious liberty law which allowed Gays to refuse service to baptist.

(03-30-2015 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:27 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 05:49 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

This...but...that is what these people do. They go out looking for problems.

Did you see who was behind Gov Pence when he signed the bill? Please, go look at the photo of him signing the bill and look up their records before you accuse people of going out and looking for problems.

This would not be an issue if the gaystapo was not running around looking for little old ladies to put out of business.

people like *YOU* tom have created this impasse.

We are going to fight discrimination. Period. They'll always be blowback from bigots.

So, merely disagreeing makes folks bigots? More jousting at windmills.

(03-30-2015 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Tom, what rights does a Christian who is deeply and genuinely offended as a legitimate matter of faith have? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance the equities?

If the person refused to provide the same services to divorced people getting a second marriage, how does that change things, since you seemed to imply that it would be different?

Do you simply believe that being gay trumps all other rights, or do you believe that other people have rights too?

Actually, being Gay should carry the same rights as being Baptist. Baptists are protected against discrimination. Gays, largely are not.

The point about divorced persons is not that I think that they should face discrimination...My point is that those that claim that servicing a Gay wedding violates their religious beliefs are being hypocritical. It isn't about their religion, but rather about them using religion as a cloak to hide what would otherwise be naked bigotry.

Just as Christians cannot use their religious beliefs as an excuse to deny a Jewish couple a room in their hotel (or a meeting room for a reception), they shouldn't be able to do the same for a Gay couple. Period.

(03-30-2015 12:47 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Tom, what rights does a Christian who is deeply and genuinely offended as a legitimate matter of faith have? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance the equities?

If the person refused to provide the same services to divorced people getting a second marriage, how does that change things, since you seemed to imply that it would be different?

Do you simply believe that being gay trumps all other rights, or do you believe that other people have rights too?

If gays really cared about equality in this they would be pushing for an addendum to the religious liberty law which allowed Gays to refuse service to baptist.

Actually, we are being consistent. We oppose discrimination. Period.

The side being inconsistent is the GOP. They support discrimination when directed at LGBT persons by religious persons, but demand special protections for themselves.

(03-30-2015 12:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

Thank you,
Inquiring Minds

Actually, yes. It should be no more legal for a business to refuse service to a Baptist Preacher than it should be for them to deny business to a LGBT person. Currently in Indiana, religious persons are protected from discrimination, but LGBT persons are not.

The market can't clear this. There are strong costs to discrimination that are borne by the target of that discrimination. Wedding venue cancels at the last minute. There are costs. Other competitors can charge Gay persons a premium knowing that they don't have to compete with others.

There are places where substitutes are more expensive or less of a fit or might not exist at all. Terre Haute isn't going to have a florist that just does Gay weddings for example. The market isn't that big.

By the way, perhaps I might feel different if those claiming religious freedom actually tried to exercise it consistent with their religious practices. Zero divorced persons are denied services when attempting to procure wedding supplies in the commercial sector. You see this law isn't about exercising religious freedom unless their religion is only about discriminating against Gay persons. In practice, the only people ever denied service under these laws are Gay persons. Its targeted at us.

This fundamental key is why we will never agree and why I shouldn't even ask this next question.

I don't know what you do for a living, but if you were in the service industry and were asked to produce something you thought was wrong, why should you be required to do so?

(03-30-2015 01:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

Thank you,
Inquiring Minds

Actually, yes. It should be no more legal for a business to refuse service to a Baptist Preacher than it should be for them to deny business to a LGBT person. Currently in Indiana, religious persons are protected from discrimination, but LGBT persons are not.

The market can't clear this. There are strong costs to discrimination that are borne by the target of that discrimination. Wedding venue cancels at the last minute. There are costs. Other competitors can charge Gay persons a premium knowing that they don't have to compete with others.

There are places where substitutes are more expensive or less of a fit or might not exist at all. Terre Haute isn't going to have a florist that just does Gay weddings for example. The market isn't that big.

By the way, perhaps I might feel different if those claiming religious freedom actually tried to exercise it consistent with their religious practices. Zero divorced persons are denied services when attempting to procure wedding supplies in the commercial sector. You see this law isn't about exercising religious freedom unless their religion is only about discriminating against Gay persons. In practice, the only people ever denied service under these laws are Gay persons. Its targeted at us.

This fundamental key is why we will never agree and why I shouldn't even ask this next question.

I don't know what you do for a living, but if you were in the service industry and were asked to produce something you thought was wrong, why should you be required to do so?

I actually told my straight direct reports at one company (they were livid over our company's decision to serve a religious seminary). I said "we don't discriminate...their money is green...that's the end of it".

(03-30-2015 01:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

Thank you,
Inquiring Minds

Actually, yes. It should be no more legal for a business to refuse service to a Baptist Preacher than it should be for them to deny business to a LGBT person. Currently in Indiana, religious persons are protected from discrimination, but LGBT persons are not.

The market can't clear this. There are strong costs to discrimination that are borne by the target of that discrimination. Wedding venue cancels at the last minute. There are costs. Other competitors can charge Gay persons a premium knowing that they don't have to compete with others.

There are places where substitutes are more expensive or less of a fit or might not exist at all. Terre Haute isn't going to have a florist that just does Gay weddings for example. The market isn't that big.

By the way, perhaps I might feel different if those claiming religious freedom actually tried to exercise it consistent with their religious practices. Zero divorced persons are denied services when attempting to procure wedding supplies in the commercial sector. You see this law isn't about exercising religious freedom unless their religion is only about discriminating against Gay persons. In practice, the only people ever denied service under these laws are Gay persons. Its targeted at us.

This fundamental key is why we will never agree and why I shouldn't even ask this next question.

I don't know what you do for a living, but if you were in the service industry and were asked to produce something you thought was wrong, why should you be required to do so?

I actually told my straight direct reports at one company (they were livid over our company's decision to serve a religious seminary). I said "we don't discriminate...their money is green...that's the end of it".

That is the best way to look at it, and how I look at it. I would do some unsavory things for some coin haha. However, not everyone looks at it like that, and I don't think they should be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. Despite how awful their discrimination may be, we have reached the point where it is very easy to ostracize these people with the interwebz.

The whole thing is merely demonstrating how intrusive and idiotic public accommodation laws in general are.

Only a poor business person picks and chooses which clients to serve if they are open to the public. But, being a poor business person shouldn't be against any sort of law or subject one to liability.

These laws have outlived their usefulness and are now just something people can use to bone one another.

(03-30-2015 02:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The whole thing is merely demonstrating how intrusive and idiotic public accommodation laws in general are.

Only a poor business person picks and chooses which clients to serve if they are open to the public. But, being a poor business person shouldn't be against any sort of law or subject one to liability.

These laws have outlived their usefulness and are now just something people can use to bone one another.

But the US is never walking those laws back. You saw the blowback Rand Paul received from just talking about the Civil Right's Act in a hypothetical POV.

(03-30-2015 03:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 02:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The whole thing is merely demonstrating how intrusive and idiotic public accommodation laws in general are.

Only a poor business person picks and chooses which clients to serve if they are open to the public. But, being a poor business person shouldn't be against any sort of law or subject one to liability.

These laws have outlived their usefulness and are now just something people can use to bone one another.

But the US is never walking those laws back. You saw the blowback Rand Paul received from just talking about the Civil Right's Act in a hypothetical POV.

I don't think that is true.

These laws are already weakening. They were intended to be temporary when they were implemented and I think a lot of normal Americans from all sorts of different backgrounds no longer see them as they did 50 years ago.

Should a Muslim sandwich shop owner be for forced to make me a BLT sandwich?

(03-30-2015 04:27 PM)DFWMINER Wrote:  Should a Muslim sandwich shop owner be for forced to make me a BLT sandwich?

No. Unless he provides BLT sandwiches in the normal course of his/her business.

The government cannot tell a business what they have to offer. But if they offer something, they must offer it to all.

Hope that helps.

Should a Muslim chef be forced to cook pork if he offers services as a chef?