About reaction to the new indiana law.

9 years ago

BTW for those that don't know, or haven't checked, THIS is what is happening with the Indiana Pizzeria:

Support Memories Pizza by Lawrence Billy Jones III - GoFundMe

They serve homosexuals. They have NEVER done ANY weddings, and nobody asked ever said a pizzeria was EVER involved with a wedding, but this young woman said that if they WERE asked to support a homosexual wedding, they would decline. The reporter went to a number of businesses trying to get people to say things she could twist to engender hate. So what happened? They were quoted partially, and out of context, so as to amplify the hate. They have gotten death threats, etc... One girl tried to get a bunch of other kids at her highschool to go as a group to burn down the pizzeria! The pizzeria has closed, and they are in hiding. They are even thinking about moving out of the state. The only good thing is a lot of talk shows are calling attention to their site and, though the average donation is about $30, they have gotten close to $800K.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9981583].message }}

Kay King

9 years ago

One girl tried to get a bunch of other kids at her highschool to go as a group to burn down the pizzeria!

Which is a sign of the intelligence to be found on social media? Just sayin...

Indiana has added a codicil to clarify the law. I don't think its' nearly as big a deal as the media is making it out to be but it's the "type" of new story that people get irate about...whether they understand the story or not.

I live 10 miles from the Indiana line and people round here aren't nearly as interested in it as the national media is.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9981593].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Which is a sign of the intelligence to be found on social media? Just sayin...

Indiana has added a codicil to clarify the law. I don't think its' nearly as big a deal as the media is making it out to be but it's the "type" of new story that people get irate about...whether they understand the story or not.

I live 10 miles from the Indiana line and people round here aren't nearly as interested in it as the national media is.

The law isn't really any different than it is for like 30 other states or for the US government. Indiana just wanted a similar statement. BTW The Indiana CONSTITUTION prohibits violating one's religious rights and conscience:

ARTICLE 1. Bill of Rights

Section 1. Inherent rights
Section 1. WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the People; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the People have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.

(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).

Section 2. Right to worship
Section 2. All people shall be secured in the natural right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences.

(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).

************************************************** ****************
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinions
Section 3. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
************************************************** ****************

Section 4. Freedom of religion
Section 4. No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent.

(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).

Well, Alfonzo Rachel spoke about this today, and the irony and hypocrisy. I WOULD post it, but it is a bit TOO political and he is NOT above stating he is Christian, etc... OH, and he is black and heads a band, 20 pound sledge. ANYWAY, I LOVE the way he ended his last video...."OH, and did I mention I was BORN in Indiana?"

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9981615].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

State Gov backing down is weak.

If I didn't want someone in my business I would tell them to GTHO.

[ 3 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9981727].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

As for the homosexuals, etc... They have people in bakeries and the like, RIGHT? Do you REALLY want people feeding you and your friends, like caterers and bakers, or presenting. or recording, anything at a social event you attend, like photographers, hosts, users, clergy, when they are FORCED to do so? And what is the point of a church if you can "change the rules"? GEE, I haven't gotten a job because I was deemed too young or some sort of bias. I haven't gotten deals for several reasons. A LOT of times food and the like was sub par, etc... I one time nearly died because a repair shop didn't put the breaks on right on my car and they LITERALLY fell apart on the freeway! In most cases, a suit would probably just be a lot of trouble, and going back could have just made things WORSE!

NOBODY gets everything the way they want it, and suits aren't the solution for everything.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9981882].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

As for the homosexuals, etc...

[snip discriminatory blather]

NOBODY gets everything the way they want it, and suits aren't the solution for everything.

Steve

I think airlines should be able to prohibit air travel by Christians and I think No Christians should be allowed to eat where non-Christians go or go to movies or sports or any public place where the non Christians go. And I think states should be free to enact laws that allow me to fully discriminate against Christians in public facilities and services.

Do you like that law?

I'm glad the guys with all the pull and all the bucks have taken a stand and all the big conferences and businesses have told Indiana that they can kiss their ass because they won't do business in an intolerant state. If a business is open to the public, the public should be served, whether you like that particular sect of the public or not. If you don't want to be a public establishment, be a members only establishment and have a guard at your door to check membership.

Money talks, doesn't it?

[ 1 ] Thanks
4 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982475].message }}

TLTheLiberator

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I think airlines should be able to prohibit air travel by Christians and I think No Christians should be allowed to eat where non-Christians or go to movies or sports or any public place where the non Christians go. And I think states should be free to enact laws that allow me to fully discriminate against Christians in public facilities and services.

Do you like that law?

I'm glad the guys with all the pull and all the bucks have taken a stand and all the big conferences and businesses have told Indiana that they can kiss their ass because they won't do business in an intolerant state. If a business is open to the public, the public should be served, whether you like that particular sect of the public or not. If you don't want to be a public establishment, be a members only establishment and have a guard at your door to check membership.

Money talks, doesn't it?

I'm wondering that if the IND law was the same as federal law and a bunch of other states - as some folks are saying, then why the outcry?

Are folks just picking on Indiana?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982538].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Are folks just picking on Indiana?

Isn't that the point of these laws? People can pick on whoever they want, including whole states.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982550].message }}

TLTheLiberator

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Isn't that the point of these laws? People can pick on whoever they want, including whole states.

That's funny Suzanne.

I also think some folks feel they are losing a big part of the cultural war - at the federal level, and they are now trying to win those battles on the state level.

You know good ole "states rights".

And some folks are going way too far when they threaten physical violence or destruction to someone's business over this or any issue. That's a bit much.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982557].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

And some folks are going way too far when they threaten physical violence or destruction to someone's business over this or any issue. That's a bit much.

I agree. Boycotts work well. Those idiots on social media threatening violence don't do anyone any favors. You don't like what a company or a state stands for, do what the big wealthy businesses in Indiana did and boycott the state or if it's a local business, boycott and spread the word without threatening violence. If their intolerance makes them go out of business ... good.

That pizza place said it would serve gay people, but not cater a gay wedding. It also said it's never been asked to cater a gay wedding ... so why did they want to publicize their homophobic opinion? Are they so ignorant that they don't realize that the majority of the country is gay tolerant? I only feel bad that violence was threatened. I don't feel at all bad that they have closed the restaurant. They got a fundraiser going so they most likely will be open again sooner or later.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982566].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I'm wondering that if the IND law was the same as federal law and a bunch of other states - as some folks are saying, then why the outcry?

Because they are NOT the same. They are similar. The devil is in the details. For low-IQ voters that don't have an understanding of the words, 'nuance' or 'intent' they subscribe to the horseshoe theory that 'close is good enough.'

If a state feels the need to have their own law then copy the federal law verbatim and not a single complaint would be lodged, by anyone - except for those that would like to do away with the federal law completely.

Cheers. - Frank

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982609].message }}

Kay King

9 years ago

One of the better interviews on the topic was with Carly Fiorino
Furor over Indiana law what

From the Indianapolis Star

Nevermind that it is unlikely anyone would ask a small pizza place to cater a wedding. The backlash that concentrated on the pizzeria revealed the deep, emotional impact felt by those on both sides of the legislation.

The Walkerton Police Department pleaded with residents to follow the law in a statement released Wednesday after a social media commenter threatened to burn down the restaurant.

The owners also received death threats.

If such a restaurant refused to serve a gay wedding - they could (and probably would) be charged under federal law.

Don't think I've ever been to any wedding that was catered by a pizzeria so the entire scenario is unlikely. This woman did not turn away anyone - she said what she WOULD do IF asked to cater a gay marriage.

Having her view criticized and corrected by the legal reality is one thing - threats to burn down the business and death threats are why the business closed.

Sorry - but that is NOT acceptable to me. Being ignorant of the law is one thing but you should not have your family threatened for a stupid comment you made to a reporter who blew it way out of proportion.

Social media is being used as an attack vehicle by some people and media who have their own agenda. I will not participate in witch hunts.

Was this woman wrong? Of course she was but it was only a statement - there was no action to be upset over. There was NO victim! The state has acted to fix the law.

I don't agree state laws always need to follow the fed example. States rights are important and many of those have been eroded. If a state steps in it with a law - they need to correct it. But they don't need to become a rubber stamp for D.C.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982660].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

FRANK, NAME the difference?

At the risk of repeating myself and to solidify which camp you may belong to:

For low-IQ voters that don't have an understanding of the words, 'nuance' or 'intent.'

Just because you can have a state law does not mean that it cannot reaffirm a federal law. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

Cheers. - Frank

P.S. Additionally, unless you haven't noticed by now, I am hardly a member of any 'group.' I am as conservative on some issues as I am progressive on others. Your constant attempt at pigeonholing people based upon your perceptions of them regarding any singular issue is one of your least endearing qualities.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982669].message }}

Kay King

9 years ago

Pigeonholing people is nothing new here, Frank - as we are all aware. Once of my personal favorites was in a recent thread. Someone who continually posts about the folly of labeling people as a group or assuming people in a group are a certain way....posted "people like Kay..." - guess I have my own group?

We all do it - some explain themselves better but we all have our own distortions of reality here and there.

To my mind, Frank is one of those few here who think for themselves and don't follow the "groups".

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982677].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Pigeonholing people is nothing new here, Frank - as we are all aware. Once of my personal favorites was in a recent thread. Someone who continually posts about the folly of labeling people as a group or assuming people in a group are a certain way....posted "people like Kay..." - guess I have my own group?

Yep you most definitely do..but what you are absolutely clueless about is that "People like" is associating people who share the same viewpoint because...they share the same viewpoint - not because they are white or gay or short. Of course I know the distinction will be lost on you since its a mechanism to justify your sad stances.

I think airlines should be able to prohibit air travel by Christians and I think No Christians should be allowed to eat where non-Christians go or go to movies or sports or any public place where the non Christians go. And I think states should be free to enact laws that allow me to fully discriminate against Christians in public facilities and services.

Do you like that law?

Meh nice try but I dunno that that is the same thing as what the Pizza place maintained. They have the right not to have to go to a gay wedding and serve if they don't want to. Now if a gay person steps into the store and they don't want to serve them because they are gay then thats another matter.

In one you are trying to force them to participate in something they are not comfortable with because of their beliefs and in the other you are denying your normal service based on their sexuality.

Admittedly extreme example - You have the right to have a Klu klux klan party but I shouldn't be forced to serve it and I don't think I should be able to force KKK member to attend and serve an NAACP meeting (and I wouldn't want them there anyway).

Sorry I am not getting how one party should be able to force another party to actively participate (as opposed to simply providing product) in something they don't want to. Its practically Un-American.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982805].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I think airlines should be able to prohibit air travel by Christians and I think No Christians should be allowed to eat where non-Christians go or go to movies or sports or any public place where the non Christians go. And I think states should be free to enact laws that allow me to fully discriminate against Christians in public facilities and services.

Do you like that law?

I'm glad the guys with all the pull and all the bucks have taken a stand and all the big conferences and businesses have told Indiana that they can kiss their ass because they won't do business in an intolerant state. If a business is open to the public, the public should be served, whether you like that particular sect of the public or not. If you don't want to be a public establishment, be a members only establishment and have a guard at your door to check membership.

Money talks, doesn't it?

What a COINCIDENCE THAT is what the LGBT crowd, and atheists have been trying to do! And it is interesting, because Christians RARELY suggest going that far! That the photographer, baker, pizzeria, and the couple that even gave up their own HOME as examples! They said the couples could do ANYTHING THEY WANTED! They would sell to them, treat them right, etc... They just wouldn't condone or support things against their religion. And HOW would a membership help? They couldn't specifically keep any out that would disagree with them, and even a rumor would have the same effect.

All the pull and all the bucks? ******NAME ONE******! I mean FOR REAL! TIM COOK, for example, doesn't count, because he is NOT doing that! He is doing it in PARTS of the US so the LGBT crowd can feel powerful, but IGNORING places like the middle east WHERE, if he REALLY made a difference, could SAVE LIVES! So YEAH, be happy forcing them to make you who knows what. Don't blame THEM if they should say something, wince, glance the wrong way, or the cake tastes off. Meanwhile, be happy to know that most of the people that are dying are ELSEWHERE! I once worked with a guy that lost his brother in the war on Iraq! His brother was NOT on the US side. But HEY, if you want to ignore such things, GO AHEAD!

It is funny how your group always denigrates the rich so and HERE keeps running to them, etc...

TL, The US CONSTITUTION says it is a STATE ISSUE. FRANK, NAME the difference? It is a STATE issue! STATE courts are controlled by the STATE! STATES don't want THEIR law changing like the wind, so I believe they ALL have constitutions! BESIDES, THAT IS THEIR JOB, the US constitution even says so! If things swing the OTHER way, your group LOVES this! THAT is why they crow so hard if there is a win in even ONE state EVEN if the federal government disapproves!

TL, You got me! Some are saying it might be to head off Mike Pence as a potential presidential candidate. The attack hurt him to one degree, and his reaction to the attack hurt him to another.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982654].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

It is funny how your group always denigrates the rich so and HERE keeps running to them, etc...

If things swing the OTHER way, your group LOVES this!

Steve

What group is that Steve. I'm not a member of any group. The rest of your post is just too garbled and incomprehensible to respond to.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982675].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

What group is that Steve. I'm not a member of any group. The rest of your post is just too garbled and incomprehensible to respond to.

WOW, you don't realize it? YOU ARE! HECK, your last post could be translated as "I'm glad the guys with all the pull and all the bucks have taken a stand with MY GROUP!" I know of one group you ARE in, one that you are likely in but may not acknowledge, and another that I think you might be in. I was only talking about the first group though.

As for the violence, such things ALWAYS have violence threatened eventually, if it reaches a certain point, and certain people are involved. Godwin never continued, but he could have easily added it. It may even be MORE true than what he said! The violence part predates even the creation of the US, or even European countries. HECK, the FIRST BOOK of the bible talks about it! IRONICALLY such events lead to big breaks where countries/provinces may be started, and many such people actually move into such places to further the problem.

As for their coming back? You can bet it won't be as the same place, it will likely not be in the same place, and it might not be with pizza. It might not even be in the same state. With all that they are getting, they could EASILY give all their employees a nice severance package, sell the building and/or fixtures, move someplace, and live off the interest.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982793].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

WOW, you don't realize it? YOU ARE! HECK, your last post could be translated as "I'm glad the guys with all the pull and all the bucks have taken a stand with MY GROUP!" I know of one group you ARE in, one that you are likely in but may not acknowledge, and another that I think you might be in. I was only talking about the first group though.

NO ... i'm NOT in ANY group. Don't PRETEND that you KNOW what my stance is ON any particular TOPIC or what i BELIEVE in.

I have conservative views on topics that I haven't discussed in this forum. I have liberal views on others and middle of the road views on many. You don't know me but want to put me in some group ... the GROUP that disagrees with STEVE. That's the GROUP i'm IN.

Originally Posted by seasoned

As for their coming back? You can bet it won't be as the same place, it will likely not be in the same place, and it might not be with pizza. It might not even be in the same state. With all that they are getting, they could EASILY give all their employees a nice severance package, sell the building and/or fixtures, move someplace, and live off the interest.

Steve

Steve ... who in the hell cares what that pizza place does or doesn't do? The repurcussions of intolerant discriminatory laws are far greater than some stupid pizza parlor owners.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982802].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

NO ... i'm NOT in ANY group. Don't PRETEND that you KNOW what my stance is ON any particular TOPIC or what i BELIEVE in.

I have conservative views on topics that I haven't discussed in this forum. I have liberal views on others and middle of the road views on many. You don't know me but want to put me in some group ... the GROUP that disagrees with STEVE. That's the GROUP i'm IN.

Steve ... who in the hell cares what that pizza place does or doesn't do? The repurcussions of intolerant discriminatory laws are far greater than some stupid pizza parlor owners.

OH, I would NEVER pretend to know what your stance is on any particular topic! LUCKILY for me, YOU ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR! That I happen to get my assumption validated so frequently is just a happy coincidence!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982809].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

OH, I would NEVER pretend to know what your stance is on any particular topic! LUCKILY for me, YOU ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR! That I happen to get my assumption validated so frequently is just a happy coincidence!

Steve

You get nothing validated Steve. You spin and assign words and meanings to people that they never said. You rant on like lunatic on topic after topic and spin other people's posts to suit your argument.

As for VA's law and Indiana's law:

When it comes to Indiana's law, Shafroth said, the explicit provision that allows any for profit business to assert a right to the free exercise of religion is similar to a 'Get out of Jail Free' card. You may discriminate if you can base it upon the religion that you practice.

But Shafroth said that is not the case in Virginia. There's no such specific grant to corporations in Virginia's or in the 1993 Federal religious freedom law that sparked so many debates on the state level.
...
The "fix" Indiana Governor Mike Pence suggested in a press conference Tuesday deals with that particular wording. As USA Today reported, Pence requested a bill that makes it "clear the law does not allow businesses the right to deny services to anyone."

Many of the protests against Indiana's law have concentrated on discrimination against the LGBT community, but in Arlington one woman said, "It's any group of people, if you threaten one, you threaten all."

"What if suddenly somebody doesn't like short women ... their religion says, 'Oh, women should be in the kitchen,' you get the idea. Religion can say anything," said Lynne Williamson who is disgusted by Indiana's law.

Big differences between Ind. and Va. religion laws

As for business in Virginia ... It's doing fine.

The Loudoun County, Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C. currently ranks as the highest-income county by median household income. New York County, New York (Manhattan) currently ranks as the highest-income county by per-capita income. The Washington suburb of Arlington County, Virginia ranks as the highest-income county by median family income.

As for VA being business friendly, it is well represented in the lists of highest income earning households. Only one county in Indiana is mentioned on these lists.

Six of America's 10 wealthiest counties lie within a stone's throw of the Beltway. Plenty of lucrative jobs are available in tech contracting and other professional services, while other big sources of employment are local school systems and major federal agencies like the Department of Defense.

None of them are in California or Texas, no so Silicon Valley or oil money here. None are in New York, either, although Wall Street money does show up in a couple of wealthy New Jersey counties that make the list, Hunterdon and Somerset.

The most notable change from last year's list: Falls Church has passed fellow Virginia county Loudoun to take the title of America's Richest County. Falls Church, where more than half of the houses occupied by families are valued between half a million and a million dollars, boasts an annual median household income of $121,250. Loudoun is some $2,600 per year behind. Loudoun, sitting 45 miles northwest of the White House, dates back to the pre-Revolutionary War era. It's now a bustling county of 350,000 people and over 80,000 families, where the biggest employer is the public school system.

We rank the nation's wealthiest counties by median household income data from the Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for 2012, the last full year for which data is available. Other D.C.-area counties raking in the money: Fairfax, Arlington and Stafford counties in Virginia and Howard County in Maryland, the home base of Johns Hopkins' applied physics lab. All of those counties boast median household income of at least $95,000 annually.

America's Richest Counties 2014 - Forbes

Falls Church City, VA

Median household income: $121,250
Once part of Fairfax County, Falls Church was incorporated as a city in 1948, giving it county-equivalent status. More than half the city's homeowners reside in houses valued above $500,000, according to city-facts.com

Loudoun County, VA

Median household income: $118,934
Established before the Revolutionary War, big growth since the 1980s has pushed the population of this D.C. suburb to nearly 350,000, Virginia's third-biggest. Largest employer: the county's public school system.

Fairfax County, VA

Median household income: $106,690
Virginia's most populous county with more than a million people. Professional services jobs with the government or government contractors are plentiful. The county is home to the headquarters of the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Arlington County, VA

Median household income: $99,255
Right across the Potomac from D.C., Arlington County headquarters some of the federal government's biggest agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Stafford County, VA

Median household income:$95,927/>
Known as the site of George Washington's childhood home of Ferry Farm, Stafford now houses over 120,000 people 25 miles from the Beltway Major employers include insurance company Geico, followed by a slew of government entities including the FBI, the county government and school system, and the Defense Department.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982877].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Incidentally this whole Virginia is richer in business than Alabama is probably the most infantile thing I see in this thread. It makes no point whatsoever (even for those who don't know VA derives a great deal of its commerce from proximity to DC and other large government facilities/services). Might as well start arguing about whose dad is the best.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982902].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Incidentally this whole Virginia is richer in business than Alabama is probably the most infantile thing I see in this thread. It makes no point whatsoever (even for those who don't know VA derives a great deal of its commerce from proximity to DC and other large government facilities/services). Might as well start arguing about whose dad is the best.

Fortunately, that's their best argument (irrelevancy), lol.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982907].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Incidentally this whole Virginia is richer in business than Alabama is probably the most infantile thing I see in this thread. It makes no point whatsoever (even for those who don't know VA derives a great deal of its commerce from proximity to DC and other large government facilities/services). Might as well start arguing about whose dad is the best.

You have THAT right! And SOME call the DC area DELMARVA! That is interesting because, being there, you would think it is ALL just VA(AKA VIRGINIA! The DEL is for Delaware, and MAR is for MARYLAND.)

So it figures that, for construction, materials, boarding, transportation, the metro, lobbyists, some meetings, etc.... Virginia gets a LOT of business from DC. DC is, for all intents and purposes a district OF Virginia.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983155].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I think airlines should be able to prohibit air travel by Christians and I think No Christians should be allowed to eat where non-Christians go or go to movies or sports or any public place where the non Christians go. And I think states should be free to enact laws that allow me to fully discriminate against Christians in public facilities and services.

Do you like that law?

I'm glad the guys with all the pull and all the bucks have taken a stand and all the big conferences and businesses have told Indiana that they can kiss their ass because they won't do business in an intolerant state. If a business is open to the public, the public should be served, whether you like that particular sect of the public or not. If you don't want to be a public establishment, be a members only establishment and have a guard at your door to check membership.

Money talks, doesn't it?

Move to a 3rd world country, then you won't have to worry about having rights to defend your beliefs & business.

Bye, bye...

It's funny your here complaining about Gov taking away rights but your only picking a gay rights point of view, you obviously could care less about any business because it's not your business.

.................

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982771].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Move to a 3rd world country, then you won't have to worry about having rights to defend your beliefs & business.

Bye, bye...

You move ... that is, if you don't already live in one. I'll live where I want to live, and I live in VA and plan on staying here. The right to discriminate against people isn't a right I want and VA doesn't have one on the books. Companies and people don't need Indiana. Indiana needs companies and people and if they want to alienate them ... they're doing a great job, and I'm not talking about just alienating gay people ... I'm talking about alienating the companies and services that bring big bucks to Indiana, the conventions, the sports held there, etc. Those companies have gay people *gasp* working for them and gay customers *double gasp* and they don't want to subject their employees and customers to ignorance and intolerance. So they dump states like Indiana and go where they don't have to put up with the stupidity.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982786].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

You move ... that is, if you don't already live in one. I'll live where I want to live, and I live in VA and plan on staying here. The right to discriminate against people isn't a right I want and VA doesn't have one on the books. Companies and people don't need Indiana. Indiana needs companies and people and if they want to alienate them ... they're doing a great job, and I'm not talking about just alienating gay people ... I'm talking about alienating the companies and services that bring big bucks to Indiana, the conventions, the sports held there, etc. Those companies have gay people *gasp* working for them and gay customers *double gasp* and they don't want to subject their employees and customers to ignorance and intolerance. So they dump states like Indiana and go where they don't have to put up with the stupidity.

Companies and people don't need Virginia either! Funny how homosexuals want to be called GAY, and they claim to be such a small and hurt group but things like THIS happen, and it is like We're BIG! We're POWERFUL!, We're IRREPLACABLE! We're ANGRY! SUBMIT, or WE'LL DESTROY YOU!

BTW Virginia was started by the same people that wrote the 1st amendment! UH OH! MAYBE You'll want to move now!

http://www.roanoke.com/news/politics...31acac8b9.html

Virginia's law

Marshall called it ironic that McAuliffe attempted to protect Indiana businesses from a law that he said Virginia has had on the books since 2007, without harming the freedoms of gays and lesbians in the commonwealth.

"Virginia has the same law [and] the sky did not fall," Marshall wrote.

"Because even though we have a law just like Indiana's, LGBTQ Virginians have jobs, eat at lunch counters and in restaurants, go to movies and shopping malls, own businesses, buy, drive and own cars, sit anywhere they want on a bus, take vacations across Virginia, buy stock, join country clubs, attend Virginia colleges."

Victoria Cobb, president of the conservative Family Foundation of Virginia, said that with his letter, McAuliffe conceded that there is not discrimination of LGBT Virginians.

"It's very hypocritical of the governor to come to the General Assembly and say we need a law elevating sexual orientation to a protected class and then go to Indiana and say that we don't discriminate," Cobb said.

Virginia is one of 19 states that already have laws like Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Cobb said.

"Our law has served us well, simply providing people of faith their day in court," she said.

Steve

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982803].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

I haven't read the law, so I'm not commenting on the law.

But I own a small business.

Turning down business, because of the customer's religion, sexual orientation, age, gender, race...is just bad business, Someone saying they wouldn't sell to someone because they are gay, (or getting a gay wedding) is...in my opinion, a form of mental instability.

But telling me I have to serve someone I don't want to? No. If I refuse to serve someone, I don't even have to give a reason.

What amazes me, is that some people claim religious freedom as a reason to turn business away. I don't need that excuse. If I have a prejudice, I don't need to wrap it up in religion.

Can't you just hate someone, for your own reasons? Why do you have to justify it?

And, if I went into a store, and ordered a cake, and the guy said, "I'm not selling to you because...you're too fat", I would walk out, and go somewhere that they love fat people.

It's his business, not mine. And he doesn't have to tell me why he won't serve me. It's his right (in my mind) to just say "No".

I understand a law where Government employees can't discriminate. But individuals? How do you legislate stupidity?

If you own a business, haven't you turned down business, because you didn't like the person? I sure have. I don't have to pretend it's because I'm a moral person, and they are sinning...I just don't like them.

The law (as I understand it) is silly. And the reaction is silly...in my opinion.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982817].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Turning down business, because of the customer's religion, sexual orientation, age, gender, race...is just bad business, Someone saying they wouldn't sell to someone because they are gay, (or getting a gay wedding) is...in my opinion, a form of mental instability.

But telling me I have to serve someone I don't want to? No. If I refuse to serve someone, I don't even have to give a reason.

Like you I haven't studied the law too closely but in the case of the Pizza place that got such hate spewed at them they never turned down anyone or said they would. As I understand it they objected (hypothetically) to catering it which I am assuming means they would have to go to the wedding reception.

I can't for the life of me figure out how forcing someone to attend or participate in something is American.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982839].message }}

whateverpedia 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I can't for the life of me figure out how forcing someone to attend or participate in something is American.

Don't public school students have to recite allegiance to the flag? Sounds like "forced participation" to me.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
So that blind people can hate them as well.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984951].message }}
- seasoned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by whateverpedia
  
  Don't public school students have to recite allegiance to the flag? Sounds like "forced participation" to me.
  
  They don't HAVE to, and I don't think many are even given the opportunity to. It USED to be different. But YEAH, FORCING a pledge is really not possible because if you have to be FORCED to recite it, you won't comply with the pledge!
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984956].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I haven't read the law, so I'm not commenting on the law.

But I own a small business.

Turning down business, because of the customer's religion, sexual orientation, age, gender, race...is just bad business, Someone saying they wouldn't sell to someone because they are gay, (or getting a gay wedding) is...in my opinion, a form of mental instability.

But telling me I have to serve someone I don't want to? No. If I refuse to serve someone, I don't even have to give a reason.

What amazes me, is that some people claim religious freedom as a reason to turn business away. I don't need that excuse. If I have a prejudice, I don't need to wrap it up in religion.

Can't you just hate someone, for your own reasons? Why do you have to justify it?

And, if I went into a store, and ordered a cake, and the guy said, "I'm not selling to you because...you're too fat", I would walk out, and go somewhere that they love fat people.

It's his business, not mine. And he doesn't have to tell me why he won't serve me. It's his right (in my mind) to just say "No".

I understand a law where Government employees can't discriminate. But individuals? How do you legislate stupidity?

If you own a business, haven't you turned down business, because you didn't like the person? I sure have. I don't have to pretend it's because I'm a moral person, and they are sinning...I just don't like them.

The law (as I understand it) is silly. And the reaction is silly...in my opinion.

WOW CLAUD! You provide sleeping quarters in your home to people on the street?

And you have SPOKEN AT, or even SOLD vacuum cleaners at LGBT weddings?

WOW, I had your business model all wrong!

Memories pizza has *********NEVER********* been asked to provide pizza to a wedding!

ALL their troubles are because an IDIOT asked them a stupid question:

"Would you cater a homosexual wedding?"

And THEY answered that:
"They have never been asked to cater a wedding. They would be happy to, and DO, sell pizza to homosexuals, etc...."

BUT, and the following is the ONLY thing apparently that they bothered to report:

"They would have to decline catering to a homosexual wedding, as they don't believe it is in agreement with their faith."

BTW "Bernard Whitman" correctly mentioned part of shma, which Jesus said was basically the entirety of the law. He likened Christianity to the KKK. And pointed to Indiana. WHAT A LAUGH! The KKK had two major characteristics. ONE Indiana NEVER met, and the KKK were likely in Indiana ONLY because it was a state, ALL of the KKK were likely in the other group though! The OTHER is currently not very much entrenched in Indiana. Apparently the KKK died out in Indiana in the 1920s. So what of WHITMAN? WELL, he IS FIRMLY in one camp! I wonder about the other! Doesn't he see the similarity of what HE is doing to the KKK?

As for ME? I am not in EITHER group! I have never even MET a person I knew to be, or found out was, with the KKK or a similar group against non whites or non christians.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982856].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

WOW CLAUD! You provide sleeping quarters in your home to people on the street?

And you have SPOKEN AT, or even SOLD vacuum cleaners at LGBT weddings?

Steve; I read your post (a feat in itself).

I've never sold a vacuum cleaner at a gay wedding. But I've been in a couple of hundreds homes where they were a gay couple. So, I've sold plenty of vacuum cleaners to gay people. If they wanted me to present the vacuum at a gay wedding? Sure. Just call me sane.

If I could make sense of the rest of your post, I'd address it too.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982867].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Steve; I read your post (a feat in itself).

I've never sold a vacuum cleaner at a gay wedding. But I've been in a couple of hundreds homes where they were a gay couple. So, I've sold plenty of vacuum cleaners to gay people. If they wanted me to present the vacuum at a gay wedding? Sure. Just call me sane.

If I could make sense of the rest of your post, I'd address it too.

Well, the pizzeria sold pizza to homosexuals and PROBABLY likely would deliver it ALSO! They were asked if they would cater a homosexual wedding. They were never asked to cater ANY weddings!

GEE, if I sold vacuums, and was asked to sell to a group, just ANY group, I would almost be like "WHAT THE HECK!?!?!?!?" Did you hear about the event several months ago where a boy LOVED HOOVER vacuum cleaners, and his mother actually had a hoover vacuum cleaner person come to her sons birthday party and demonstrate the cleaner? WOW! Apparently, it was a blazing success, and the mother got a free vacuum cleaner!

http://wtvr.com/2015/01/19/kirby-vacuum-birthday-party/

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982886].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

So, I've sold plenty of vacuum cleaners to gay people. If they wanted me to present the vacuum at a gay wedding? Sure. Just call me sane.

This is the second time you have tried to interject insanity into this discussion so rationally I guess it was for some kind of point. However its not really rational. If I'm sufficiently successful and don't like pool parties why should I rationally go to one to do business if I don't have to? How would you going make you more sane?

Originally Posted by yukon

Fortunately, that's their best argument (irrelevancy), lol.

I don't think so. I think the mileage they are getting is from the idea that Gay rights trump religious rights. Me? I get scared when ANY basic rights are talked about as trumping another basic right.

Its one freaking slippery slope that can turn around and bite us all in the rear.

For those who think its safe to their viewpoint just remember - thats what starts political push back. The Pizza shop collecting approaching a million dollars is nothing compared to what can happen politically.

You keep saying "these religious people" . These "religious people" and they will rightfully recognize they are being attacked as a group and push back as one too (and they are an EXTREMELY large group that just hasn't been motivated recently to vote in a bloc). Look up and you could see Huckabee being sworn in.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982927].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I don't think so. I think the mileage they are getting is from the idea that Gay rights trump religious rights. Me? I get scared when ANY basic rights are talked about as trumping another basic right.

Its one freaking slippery slope that can turn around and bite us all in the rear.

That's basically my point/s in earlier post.

Some folks are suggesting that a business owner has to kiss potential client ass regardless of the situation or end up in court getting sued which is just wrong.

Really this is all common sense, If I don't agree with a business, I shop elsewhere.

It doesn't matter If a business owner believes in a higher power, they're still being subjected to forcefully accept anything thrown in their face by potential clients/buyers & at the same time being told tough luck, they can't do anything about it.

There's no incentive to open/run a small business If lawsuits are easy to obtain just because some clown is shopping at a business they don't agree with. I have no idea why anyone would even want to do business with someone (client/buyer) they didn't agree with. That's like pissing off a waitress before ordering food, not a smart move for a buyer even If they're served.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982956].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

That's basically my point/s in earlier post.

Some folks are suggesting that a business owner has to kiss potential client ass regardless of the situation or end up in court getting sued which is just wrong.

Really this is all common sense, If I don't agree with a business, I shop elsewhere.

Well let me clarify. Anyone walks into your store should be able to buy anything you sell. To be refused because you are gay is just wrong and bigotry. However that sale or service should NEVER - and this is how the law states it - "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion"

I should not be required to participate in something I do not believe in. Selling to a African American, Gay or any group does not substantially burden the business owner's exercise of religion. However DEMANDING that he attend and participate in something he does not believe in does.

Thats why the rage against the pizza business was such a blatant violation of freedom of speech and religion principles. They never stated they would deny sales but only they would not cater because catering would force their attendance and participation.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982991].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

However DEMANDING that he attend and participate in something he does not believe in does.
.

I haven't read the law, but I think I will now. This sentence is something I'm going to have to think about. This may be the one instance (assuming it's part of the law) where I would side with the "religious freedom" people.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983000].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Actually the law bends back further than that and says the government CAN impose a burden on the exercise of religion but must show a compelling reason

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's
exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates
that application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.

so I dunno what all the hoopla is unless thats new wording (but the burdening on religion was definitely there before the changes as it was reported on).

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983021].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Well let me clarify. Anyone walks into your store should be able to buy anything you sell. To be refused because you are gay is just wrong and bigotry. However that sale or service should NEVER - and this is how the law states it - "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion"

I should not be required to participate in something I do not believe in. Selling to a African American, Gay or any group does not substantially burden the business owner's exercise of religion. However DEMANDING that he attend and participate in something he does not believe in does.

Thats why the rage against the pizza business was such a blatant violation of freedom of speech and religion principles. They never stated they would deny sales but only they would not cater because catering would force their attendance and participation.

It's not as simple as selling to whoever walks in the door.

For instance, say there's a small mom & pop t-shirt business & some clown walks in wanting an offensive t-shirt made, a business owner should have the right to say: Leave, it's not happening in my business. It doesn't matter If mom & pop believe in any religion, forcing something/anything they're against is wrong.

Also keep in mind what one person finds offensive (ex: offensive tshirt) isn't always the same for everyone else.

My point is, a small business owner should have the right to refuse business based on their own decision making.

Like Claude said earlier, a business owner shouldn't have to publicly say why s/he refused anyone business.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983016].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

You move ... that is, if you don't already live in one. I'll live where I want to live, and I live in VA and plan on staying here. The right to discriminate against people isn't a right I want and VA doesn't have one on the books. Companies and people don't need Indiana. Indiana needs companies and people and if they want to alienate them ... they're doing a great job, and I'm not talking about just alienating gay people ... I'm talking about alienating the companies and services that bring big bucks to Indiana, the conventions, the sports held there, etc. Those companies have gay people *gasp* working for them and gay customers *double gasp* and they don't want to subject their employees and customers to ignorance and intolerance. So they dump states like Indiana and go where they don't have to put up with the stupidity.

Your b*tching about Gov taking away rights only to turn around & take away a small business owners right to make his/her business a good role model for his/her family.

The BIG picture is people like you are setting the small businesses up to be forced to do things they would never considering doing in order to run a successful business. Keep in mind, success isn't just about money, it's also about being content. Forcing a small business owner to go against their own beliefs is destructive.

Your destroying any real values, that's the real threat in the US. It's people like you slowly destroying from the inside.

Now go march in your anti-business parade spouting nonsense [meh].

Tip: If you don't like a business, go somewhere else.

...............

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982828].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Tip: If you don't like a business, go somewhere else.

I do like business. That's why I've lived in some of the wealthiest counties in the US, as shown by the charts in my post to Steve. You don't get to tell me where to go ... well, you do, but I do as I wish anyway ... lol.

It's ignorance and intolerance and hatred wrapped up like a pretty package in the guise of religion that I don't like and fortunately for me, not much of that going on in VA as far as businesses go.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982890].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I do like business. That's why I've lived in some of the wealthiest counties in the US, as shown by the charts in my post to Steve. You don't get to tell me where to go ... well, you do, but I do as I wish anyway ... lol.

It's ignorance and intolerance and hatred wrapped up like a pretty package in the guise of religion that I don't like and fortunately for me, not much of that going on in VA as far as businesses go.

Your obviously anti-business, otherwise you wouldn't be bashing a business in this thread, you would simply say go to another business.

My bet is your in it for gay rights & nothing else, but this isn't about gay rights [thanks media]. This is about small business owners making their own decisions & not being forced to do things they would never consider doing.

GO HOOSIERS!

.................

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982905].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Your obviously anti-business, otherwise you wouldn't be bashing a business in this thread, you would simply say go to another business.

My bet is your in it for gay rights & nothing else, but this isn't about gay rights [thanks media]. This is about small business owners making their own decisions & not being forced to do things they would never consider doing.

Actually ... not. I could really care less about Indiana. It was never interesting enough to me to be on my radar. Not a place I'd visit. Not a place I'd ever spend a dime or a minutes time in. I already live in a state that "is open for business" and has a lot of thriving businesses that keep their noses out of people's sex lives and tend to business.

It's people and businesses in Indiana that most oppose the law. So I guess all these Indiana businesses and people are anti-business. Right .....

Indy looks to limit 'religious freedom' damage

Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

Thousands protest 'religious freedom' law in Indiana

9 Ind. CEOs call for changes to 'religious freedom' law

Warren Buffett: Discrimination for sexual orientation is 'wrong' - Mar. 31, 2015

Indianapolis Mayor Orders City Employees to Ignore Religious Freedom Restoration Act

City-County Council to issue resolution in opposition to RFRA - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorg...ments-boycotti

Wilco Cancels Upcoming Show In Indianapolis Because Of Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Law

Indianapolis Star joins chorus against Indiana religious-freedom law

Conservative groups call for Angie's List boycott

Reaction continues on Indiana religious freedom law - The United Methodist Church

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983301].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Actually ... not. I could really care less about Indiana. It was never interesting enough to me to be on my radar. Not a place I'd visit. Not a place I'd ever spend a dime or a minutes time in.

That's what I figured, so your rant is meaningless.

GO HOOSIERS!

..............

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983422].message }}

Joe Stewart

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I think airlines should be able to prohibit air travel by Christians and I think No Christians should be allowed to eat where non-Christians go or go to movies or sports or any public place where the non Christians go. And I think states should be free to enact laws that allow me to fully discriminate against Christians in public facilities and services.

Do you like that law?

I'm glad the guys with all the pull and all the bucks have taken a stand and all the big conferences and businesses have told Indiana that they can kiss their ass because they won't do business in an intolerant state. If a business is open to the public, the public should be served, whether you like that particular sect of the public or not. If you don't want to be a public establishment, be a members only establishment and have a guard at your door to check membership.

Money talks, doesn't it?

Suzanne,

You obviously have the right to believe whatever you like. I'm trying not to get involved in this discussion. However, I will state that you targeting Christians alone when this law is based around "religious freedom", not just "Christianity" isn't fair either. We are NOT all the same. I'm a Christian and my faith bears no similarity to a Muslim, Mormon or other "religion".

I'm not going to comment on my thoughts regarding the law for reasons mentioned above. That, and the fact that I value my membership at the WF and don't want to get banned. I just thought I'd point out that you are targeting one faith to vent your frustration on when there are many religious faiths that cannot condone homosexuality due to their beliefs.

Thanks for understanding.

Kind regards,

Joe

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My New "Share All" Blog Is Coming Soon! Online & Offline Marketing, More!

http://www.UnCENTSored.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983075].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Stewart

Suzanne,

You obviously have the right to believe whatever you like. I'm trying not to get involved in this discussion. However, I will state that you targeting Christians alone when this law is based around "religious freedom", not just "Christianity" isn't fair either. We are NOT all the same. I'm a Christian and my faith bears no similarity to a Muslim, Mormon or other "religion".

I'm not going to comment on my thoughts regarding the law for reasons mentioned above. That, and the fact that I value my membership at the WF and don't want to get banned. I just thought I'd point out that you are targeting one faith to vent your frustration on when there are many religious faiths that cannot condone homosexuality due to their beliefs.

Thanks for understanding.

Kind regards,

Joe

Joe, I'm not really targeting anyone. I was just for comparison saying what if someone creates a religion and has a lot of followers and a core principle of this religion is anti-Christian. Let's say this religion has followers in powerful businesses that most people want to buy or be serviced from. Is this OK then for these businesses to discriminate against Christians because to serve them is against their religion?

If it's ok to be a church like Westboro, is it also to be the opposite kind of church that treats Christians as badly as Westboro treats gay people in the name of religion.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983314].message }}

Joe Stewart

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Joe, I'm not really targeting anyone. I was just for comparison saying what if someone creates a religion and has a lot of followers and a core principle of this religion is anti-Christian. Let's say this religion has followers in powerful businesses that most people want to buy or be serviced from. Is this OK then for these businesses to discriminate against Christians because to serve them is against their religion?

I know you may not have intentionally been targeting anyone, but the term "Christianity" isn't nearly as broad as some would make it.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

If it's ok to be a church like Westboro, is it also to be the opposite kind of church that treats Christians as badly as Westboro treats gay people in the name of religion.

I despise what Westboro Baptist does. Every time something involving Christians comes up all of us are thrown into the same category as those freaks.

There are very few actual Christian churches that are anything like that and those people are not "true" Christians. That's because we're commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves - including homosexuals. You don't go around promoting hate toward anyone if you're a Christian.

That being said, I, too, would have no problem doing business with anyone unless they asked me to do something that was clearly against my beliefs. It's not just homosexuals either. If ANYONE, including another religious group that was clearly in opposition to my beliefs, asks me to do something against my faith, I'd respectfully decline.

It's not my right to judge anyone in any way, for anything. I always do my best to do unto others as I'd have them do unto me. But I won't compromise certain things where my faith is concerned, nor should I or anyone else have to.

Anyone that's being forced by law to perform a service that's clearly against their faith are the ones being discriminated against, not everyone else. All someone has to do is go to a different store to find someone who doesn't have a religious issue with it, but many people jump at the chance to sue a business owner for not doing as they ask. Seriously ticks me off!

This is supposed to be America, the "land of the FREE!" That means that business people should be FREE to do business with whomever they choose - as long as they're not blatently discriminating.

I'll shut up now. I never intended to go this far. Let's just agree to disagree.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My New "Share All" Blog Is Coming Soon! Online & Offline Marketing, More!

http://www.UnCENTSored.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983361].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Stewart

I despise what Westboro Baptist does. Every time something involving Christians comes up all of us are thrown into the same category as those freaks.

There are very few actual Christian churches that are anything like that and those people are not "true" Christians. That's because we're commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves - including homosexuals. You don't go around promoting hate toward anyone if you're a Christian.

That's always been my understanding of Christianity .... love thy neighbor as thyself.

Originally Posted by Joe Stewart

That being said, I, too, would have no problem doing business with anyone unless they asked me to do something that was clearly against my beliefs. It's not just homosexuals either. If ANYONE, including another religious group that was clearly in opposition to my beliefs, asks me to do something against my faith, I'd respectfully decline.

I'll shut up now. I never intended to go this far. Let's just agree to disagree.

I don't think that we disagree as much as you might think we do. I don't think anyone should be forced to do something that is against their religion. But here's where we may disagree. Obviously, serving pizza is not against the pizza parlors religion and baking cakes is not against the bakery's religion. It appears that they want you to think that serving a customer in the same way that you would serve any other customer is against their religion. I doubt that is actually the case.

Now catering a gay event where the caterers are actually there and included in the party, I can buy that one ... but baking a cake ... making a pizza to be picked up by customers ... I don't buy that.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983372].message }}

Joe Stewart

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

That's always been my understanding of Christianity .... love thy neighbor as thyself.

That's how it's supposed to be.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I don't think that we disagree as much as you might think we do. I don't think anyone should be forced to do something that is against their religion. But here's where we may disagree. Obviously, serving pizza is not against the pizza parlors religion and baking cakes is not against the bakery's religion. It appears that they want you to think that serving a customer in the same way that you would serve any other customer is against their religion. I doubt that is actually the case.

There wouldn't be a problem there for most Christians. It mostly lies in catering or working the events. However, other people may be conservative and not believe in homosexuality either. Is it still fair to force them to do something they're clearly not comfortable with? That's a touchy situation. It's some of these people that may play a religious card in order to get out of an uncomfortable situation.

I honestly don't know the best way to handle the situation, but I do know this, Christians are commanded to present themselves as living sacrifices if it comes down to doing something against what God commands. That means that most of these people would willingly and unfairly be stripped of all their assets, and even go to jail, rather than conform. It's that or the risk of hell. Many people would intentionally try to exploit that. That's not right either.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Now catering a gay event where the caterers are actually there and included in the party, I can buy that one ... but baking a cake ... making a pizza to be picked up by customers ... I don't buy that.

As long as I wasn't asked to write anything offensive on the cake, pizza or whatever. Doing business with people is no problem. There are just fine lines that some people can't cross because of their beliefs.

I read an article yesterday(?) that was about an African-American baker that was sued for not baking a racist cake for a local chapter of the KKK based on her religious beliefs. She lost the case because the court found her guilty of violating "their" religious beliefs. The court ordered her to serve them. There are other examples of mom and pop business owners being sued, as well.

That's why these laws need to be clearly defined and be done in a manner that's acceptable to both parties. Discrimination must stop, unfair lawsuits must stop, there must be compromise that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights and fair lines must be drawn, and it must happen soon.

One of the biggest problems is the media. They're promoting religious people as haters, racists and bigots because they feel they must stand their ground on this issue. That's pouring gas on a fire that needs to die down and be extinguished. Still, they run with it and make it worse by doing so. It's newsworthy and the press won't be silenced.

Also, governments being pressured by big businesses is completely out of line. Some of these places do billions of dollars of business in countries where human rights are almost non-existent, yet they'd boycott Indiana without even knowing all the facts? Very sad.

Anyhow, I'm glad we had this little chat, Suzanne. Lol

Time for me to get back to packing. We're moving on the 15th. Ugh.

See ya'!

:-)

Thanks

Signature

My New "Share All" Blog Is Coming Soon! Online & Offline Marketing, More!

http://www.UnCENTSored.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983403].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

That's always been my understanding of Christianity .... love thy neighbor as thyself.

YEP! You can have family you will do almost anything for, but STILL suggest they do differently, or refuse to cosign, etc... So loving someone doesn't mean you do all that they ask. SOMETIMES, it means the OPPOSITE! Jesus said to love god with all your heart, and your neighbor as well, and that that is the crux of the law. Jewish people are to recite the shma often, and it ends in the same way. It starts out basically "HEAR OH ISRAEL, The LORD is our God, the lord is one..." In wikipedia, it calls it the christian shma, but it is really from the old testament, etc... BUT:

Shema is one of the sentences that is quoted in the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark 12:29-31 mentions that Jesus of Nazareth considered the beginning exhortation of the Shema to be the first of his two greatest commandments and linked with a second (based on Leviticus 19:18b): "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." In Luke 10:25-27 the shema is also linked with Leviticus 19:18, only by the questioner, before Jesus' agreement. The verses Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18b both begin with ve'ahavta "and you shall love." In Luke it appears that this connection between the two verses was already part of cultural discussion or practice.

BTW, it is called the SHEMA, because that is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for the command HEAR, and the first word in the shema!

I don't think that we disagree as much as you might think we do. I don't think anyone should be forced to do something that is against their religion. But here's where we may disagree. Obviously, serving pizza is not against the pizza parlors religion and baking cakes is not against the bakery's religion. It appears that they want you to think that serving a customer in the same way that you would serve any other customer is against their religion. I doubt that is actually the case.

Now catering a gay event where the caterers are actually there and included in the party, I can buy that one ... but baking a cake ... making a pizza to be picked up by customers ... I don't buy that.

The baker said they would, and HAVE, baked cakes for homosexuals! They said merely that they wouldn't do anything special to it. The pizzeria said they WOULD AND HAVE served piza to homosexuals! They merely said they wouldn't cater the wedding. Jesus SPECIFICALLY said in various parts not to do such things. Jesus actually ATE with tax collectors, that many others avoided, but he never went out with them collecting taxes, etc... He overturned the change tables and kiosks in the outer temple where they were selling "sacrifices", etc.... So he was AGAINST such things! The pharisees didn't want him dead for being a nice guy and doing miracles. They wanted him dead because he DISRUPTED their perversion of the religion.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983505].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

YEP! You can have family you will do almost anything for, but STILL suggest they do differently, or refuse to cosign, etc... So loving someone doesn't mean you do all that they ask.

Steve

What a crock. Disapproving of your family members isn't the same thing as attempting to persecute and deny basic civil rights to a whole group of people because you don't like the way they live. So, when your family fu%@s up, do you make laws against them? lol.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9985799].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Well I think I have done what most people haven't done and read the law here

Indiana General Assembly, 2015 Session

and a summary here

Unpacking Indiana’s ‘Religious Freedom Law’ - Law Blog - WSJ

So trump up one for the media's ability to distort things because everything I have read indicates this was not an Anti-gay law but was merely feared to be POTENTIALLY applicable in some future legal argument.

So meh.....the whole Indiana should be boycotted stuff is tripe. They amended it not because it was an anti gay law but because they were open to the possibility of it being twisted for that (and of course the outcry).

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982895].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

ABC-57 Hit Pizza Shop: Satire Hits Back \| Scott...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982896].message }}

Kurt

9 years ago

Going by some of the comments on this thread, one irony is that it was BUSINESSES in Indiana that wanted the law changed. The fact is, businesses and people in other states were using their free market rights to boycott Indiana.

The NCAA Final Four for men's basketball is this weekend in Indianapolis. And, next year's women's Final Four is also in Indianapolis. The women's Final Four may have been an even bigger deal, because of the time involved.

The pizza parlor situation is a totally different issue. Threatening violence over a hypothetical is BS. However, to say that the revision to the law is "unfair" to business is kind of funny, as it was businesses in Indiana that forced the Gov's hand. It was BUSINESS that wanted the law changed. Indiana businesses were going to lose a lot of money if it wasn't changed.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983015].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

However, to say that the revision to the law is "unfair" to business is kind of funny, as it was businesses in Indiana that forced the Gov's hand. It was BUSINESS that wanted the law changed. Indiana businesses were going to lose a lot of money if it wasn't changed.

From what I see (and after reading the law and earlier unbiased commentary on it before it was amended) businesses wanted the laws changed because of the hoopla caused by the media not because of the law itself

For instance, say there's a small mom & pop t-shirt business & some clown walks in wanting an offensive t-shirt made, a business owner should have the right to say: Leave, it's not happening in my business. It doesn't matter If mom & pop believe in any religion, forcing something/anything they're against is wrong.

Thats also forcing the business owner to participate

My point is, a small business owner should have the right to refuse business based on their own decision making.

Like Claude said earlier, a business owner shouldn't have to publicly say why s/he refused anyone business.

Heck no. Under that blanket principle you could decide to embarrass women, people of races you don't like and on and on based on your own "decision making". If you have a legit business to sell to the public then its open to the public. You can sell the existing t-shirt with no participation in anything I am into and you should be required to as long as I give you legal tender. If I want words on it that you don't want to participate in putting on it then that's fine on your part. You should be free to decline.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983039].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Heck no. Under that blanket principle you could decide to embarrass women, people of races you don't like and on and on based on your own "decision making".

...or sit back while the media trashes a business for no good reason.

Nobody is suggesting trashing potential clients but trying to tell a business owner they have to say anything is a bad idea that doesn't help anyone, example, look at the pizza business.

I find it hard to believe a town/state trust someone to make all other business decisions for their business but they don't trust them enough to be able to make sound business decisions when it comes to potential client conflicts of interest. That's just silly.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983057].message }}

Mark Singletary

9 years ago

One of the things I want to look into is the answer to this question.

Obviously discrimination is constitutional and allowed across the board when it comes to personal decisions in our homes.

For example, I can say that you can't come to my house and eat because you are black, white, a Jew, a Baptist, gay, ugly, fat, a woman, too old, or more.

This is still protected speech for now.

Now, why does everything change just because I put up a few tables and start charging people to eat my chicken and rice or hamburgers instead of giving it to them free? Do you lose rights by getting a business license?

Mark

Thanks
5 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983436].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

Now, why does everything change just because I put up a few tables and start charging people to eat my chicken and rice or hamburgers instead of giving it to them free? Do you lose rights by getting a business license?

Mark

Your business is open to and has invited the public. Your right to stand naked in your house ends there too unless thats the kind of business it is.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983479].message }}

yukon

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

One of the things I want to look into is the answer to this question.

Obviously discrimination is constitutional and allowed across the board when it comes to personal decisions in our homes.

For example, I can say that you can't come to my house and eat because you are black, white, a Jew, a Baptist, gay, ugly, fat, a woman, too old, or more.

This is still protected speech for now.

Don't get too comfortable with that.

They're working on laws to prevent smoking cigs. in cars. The argument is not allowing adults to smoke in cars when children are present.

Next step is banning smoking in homes, businesses are already out.

The funny part is the same people that pass laws to prevent cig. smoking don't have a problem spending cig. tax money.

Where does the nonsense end?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983499].message }}

TimPhelan

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

Now, why does everything change just because I put up a few tables and start charging people to eat my chicken and rice or hamburgers instead of giving it to them free? Do you lose rights by getting a business license?

See Civil Rights Movement ( or as Seasoned calls it Blacks Trying To Get Free Stuff ). Before the civil rights movement there was racial segregation and open discrimination in public businesses. Jim Crow laws allowed this. Those laws were struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. I think most rational people can see why they were.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983504].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

See Civil Rights Movement ( or as Seasoned calls it Blacks Trying To Get Free Stuff ). Before the civil rights movement there was racial segregation and open discrimination in public businesses. Jim Crow laws allowed this. Those laws were struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. I think most rational people can see why they were.

Well, why don't you say the TRUTH as to WHO fought for the jim crow laws?

Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look under ORIGIN of jim crow laws! BTW FUNNY how so many years later things haven't REALLY changed! ALSO, did I mention blacks here? Even with my mention of the KKK, it waas in response to some idiot comparing christians to the KKK.

As for civil rights? REAL civil rights have NOTHING to do with "free stuff", so you are really twisting things to claim I said ANYTHING of the sort!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983513].message }}

TimPhelan

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Well, why don't you say the TRUTH as to WHO fought for the jim crow laws?

Good grief. Yes, and Lincoln was a Republican. Woopie! That's just a label of course. A description of Lincoln's politics would be progressive. You are really stuck on parties aren't you?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983566].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Good grief. Yes, and Lincoln was a Republican. Woopie! That's just a label of course. A description of Lincoln's politics would be progressive. You are really stuck on parties aren't you?

I'm not the one that seemed to come here ONLY to talk about such things. And certainly NOT progressive in the way YOU mean. He was 100% on the republican party platform which, at the time made CLEAR that they were AGAINST slavery! He made it clear that he wanted to spend reasonably, and was for the constitution, etc... If you could maybe say HOW you feel he was progressive in a way NOT aligned with the party and the constitution, I would love to hear about it.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983596].message }}

TimPhelan

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

I'm not the one that seemed to come here ONLY to talk about such things. And certainly NOT progressive in the way YOU mean. He was 100% on the republican party platform which, at the time made CLEAR that they were AGAINST slavery! He made it clear that he wanted to spend reasonably, and was for the constitution, etc... If you could maybe say HOW you feel he was progressive in a way NOT aligned with the party and the constitution, I would love to hear about it.

Steve

progressive

adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.

2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:

conservative
adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

You will notice the definition of neither one says anything about the Constitution because they both can and usually do believe in it and the same thing with spending reasonably.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983638].message }}

seasoned 9 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983659].message }}
- TimPhelan 9 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983669].message }}

Claude Whitacre 9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

You are really stuck on panties aren't you?

Fixed it for you.

(I still got it!)
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983607].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

One of the things I want to look into is the answer to this question.

Obviously discrimination is constitutional and allowed across the board when it comes to personal decisions in our homes.

For example, I can say that you can't come to my house and eat because you are black, white, a Jew, a Baptist, gay, ugly, fat, a woman, too old, or more.

This is still protected speech for now.

Now, why does everything change just because I put up a few tables and start charging people to eat my chicken and rice or hamburgers instead of giving it to them free? Do you lose rights by getting a business license?

Mark

Actually, if you say ANYTHING against anyone but a white straight christian male, you could have it haunt you. And I could see them suing you if there were others making deals, or someone they wanted to meet. You apparently lose rights by doing ANYTHING to/for the public, regardless of standing.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983508].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Actually, if you say ANYTHING against anyone but a white straight christian male,

Reagan Mondale debate There you go again again...

Its like white and christian are irrevocably linked to you. Pretty similar to how a certain group always make that connection as well.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983518].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Reagan Mondale debate There you go again again 360p22 - YouTube

Its like white and christian are irrevocably linked to you. Pretty similar to how a certain group always make that connection as well.

I COULD have left white out, but it would be less true!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983530].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Reagan Mondale debate There you go again again 360p22 - YouTube

Its like white and christian are irrevocably linked to you. Pretty similar to how a certain group always make that connection as well.

NOPE!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983590].message }}

TLTheLiberator

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

One of the things I want to look into is the answer to this question.

Obviously discrimination is constitutional and allowed across the board when it comes to personal decisions in our homes.

For example, I can say that you can't come to my house and eat because you are black, white, a Jew, a Baptist, gay, ugly, fat, a woman, too old, or more.

This is still protected speech for now.

Now, why does everything change just because I put up a few tables and start charging people to eat my chicken and rice or hamburgers instead of giving it to them free?

Do you lose rights by getting a business license?

Mark

IMHO...

Everything changes because...

...you are running a public business and not a private club and...

Remember, if you run a public business you are receiving tax benefits from the public - on a state and federal level.

Whatever you're into, as it stands now, if you run a public business you can't deny services to anyone because of...

- National origin

- Race

- Color

- Religion

- Sex

- Age

And more.

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexual Orientation Is Not One Of Our Protected Classes:

As it stands now, sexual orientation is not a protected class like the above, but that may end when the SCOTUS makes a rulings - I believe this summer.

So, even if you happen to be taking advantage of the mortgage tax deduction tax benefit (in which all taxpayers chip in) on your home/property...

... you do have a lot of discrimination leeway as to what you can and cannot do or say in your home and on your property.

Now, you may think its OK to run a public business and still have the right to discriminate against one or more of those protected classes I listed above. Do you?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983715].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

IMHO...

Everything changes because...

...you are running a public business and not a private club and...

Remember, if you run a public business you are receiving tax benefits from the public - on a state and federal level.

NO YOU ARE NOT receiving benefits! The federal government thinks it is a superstate. It ISN'T! IT is supposed to deal with trade ONLY to the degree that it crosses a border! Once it crosses the border, it is HANDS OFF! It is supposed to be the STATE'S responsibility. It is ironic, if they got together, and homogenized the licensing and admittance of insurance companies, we would probably have NEVER had the insurance issues we have had. They won't work with things that will help ALL, and....

Whatever you're into, as it stands now, if you run a public business you can't deny services to anyone because of...

- National origin

- Race

- Color

- Religion

- Sex

- Age

And more.

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexual Orientation Is Not One Of Our Protected Classes:

As it stands now, sexual orientation is not a protected class like the above, but that may end when the SCOTUS makes a rulings - I believe this summer.

So, even if you happen to be taking advantage of the mortgage tax deduction tax benefit (in which all taxpayers chip in) on your home/property...

... you do have a lot of discrimination leeway as to what you can and cannot do or say in your home and on your property.

Now, you may think its OK to run a public business and still have the right to discriminate against one or more of those protected classes I listed above. Do you?

SO, if someone asked you to build a house for them, assuming you did NOT have any experience with it, for example, you would AGREE? OK, let's pick an ACTUAL example! You sell tours of your farm, and someone off the street wants to stay in your house for the night, you would let them? Let's make it a tad closer to reality! They are with the KKK and heavily racist! You would let them stay there? If not, give ONE reason why it is different? You CAN'T use the KKK excuse, because that is based on YOU and YOUR belief/fears and whatthey have could be considered a type of club. That is THEIR belief. You would have a hard time scientifically or in an absolute way showing how THAT should not ALSO be FORCED!

BTW outside of the FARM, ****NONE**** of this is about their home or property! A tax DEDUCTION is NOT paid by others!

As for classes, I have to admit, though it IS understandable, based on how they are adjudicated, they are a bit different from what I thought. One site says:

Federal protected classes include:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.

OK, CREED Let's use Tims method! https://www.google.com/search?num=10....0.69ikaSdjJLc "a set of beliefs or aims that guide someone's actions.". OK, the KKK is a protected class! PLENTY VALID in my example!

And what if an insane, and apparently violent, person wanted to stay the night in YOUR house? BTW I seem to recall a number of people doing things against veterans!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984079].message }}

TLTheLiberator

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

NO YOU ARE NOT receiving benefits! The federal government thinks it is a superstate. It ISN'T! IT is supposed to deal with trade ONLY to the degree that it crosses a border! Once it crosses the border, it is HANDS OFF! It is supposed to be the STATE'S responsibility. It is ironic, if they got together, and homogenized the licensing and admittance of insurance companies, we would probably have NEVER had the insurance issues we have had. They won't work with things that will help ALL, and....

SO, if someone asked you to build a house for them, assuming you did NOT have any experience with it, for example, you would AGREE? OK, let's pick an ACTUAL example! You sell tours of your farm, and someone off the street wants to stay in your house for the night, you would let them? Let's make it a tad closer to reality! They are with the KKK and heavily racist! You would let them stay there? If not, give ONE reason why it is different? You CAN'T use the KKK excuse, because that is based on YOU and YOUR belief/fears and what they have could be considered a type of club. That is THEIR belief. You would have a hard time scientifically or in an absolute way showing how THAT should not ALSO be FORCED!

BTW outside of the FARM, ****NONE**** of this is about their home or property! A tax DEDUCTION is NOT paid by others!

As for classes, I have to admit, though it IS understandable, based on how they are adjudicated, they are a bit different from what I thought. One site says:

OK, CREED Let's use Tims method! https://www.google.com/search?num=10....0.69ikaSdjJLc "a set of beliefs or aims that guide someone's actions.". OK, the KKK is a protected class! PLENTY VALID in my example!

And what if an insane, and apparently violent, person wanted to stay the night in YOUR house? BTW I seem to recall a number of people doing things against veterans!

Steve

I don't want to misunderstand you but are you saying you personally feel its OK for a business to discriminate against any or all those groups mentioned above?

Yes or No?

And business folks ARE getting a bunch of tax breaks from the states and from the feds in order to operate a PUBLIC business.

As for the rest of your post...

??????????????????????????????

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984169].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I don't want to misunderstand you but are you saying you personally feel its OK for a business to discriminate against any or all those groups mentioned above?

WELL....

National origin? Probably not.
RACE?.... I wouldn't discriminate, AND HAVEN'T, but BET and BO do to some degree!
COLOR?... I don't think I would want a green or red, or purple person working. It just doesn't look good. The blue man group thought about green and red(As in ALL RED PAINT), and hated them!
Religion?... I would want to stay away from satanists,voodo, and wicca, but oh well. I was in a church once owned by a CONSERVATIVE jewish synagogue that had coworships every year or so. It was actually pretty nice! THEY actually let the church pay LESS than an occult store was willing to pay, because they didn't want the occult store there!
Sex?... Generally not!
Age?... HEY, if they can do the job, and it is legal, I have NO problem with that!

And business folks ARE getting a bunch of tax breaks from the states and from the feds in order to operate a PUBLIC business.

NOPE! They are tax BREAKS! And you aren't even talking about all the expenses and the like they have because of business, INCLUDING some taxes!

As I said long ago. Paying me $100 is NOT paying me ANYTHING if you take $10000 from me! ALL you are doing is taking LESS!

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984201].message }}

TimPhelan

9 years ago

Doris kearns Goodwin, Pulitzer prize winning historian and biographer:"The Republican Party and the Whig Party, of which Lincoln was a member, believed that government had a role in helping to move the country forward through building dams and dredging rivers and making harbors better, and the transcontinental railroad, much like what we call stimulus today. He also believed government had a role in helping people rise to the level of their talent in their discipline, that sort of equal-opportunity role, in that sense he might find the principles of the Democrats congenial."

Tony Kushner, Pulitzer prize winning author and also winner of other awards for his screenplay of Lincoln: "The Republican Party today has turned into a group of people who don’t actually believe that government is a good thing. You can’t have any connection to Abraham Lincoln if you think that. Lincoln was a lawyer who had a profound belief in the conviction that government was a great blessing for humanity, and he certainly wouldn’t have read Ayn Rand. He wouldn’t have had any interest.

He was a progressive, centrist candidate who believed in government, taxation, created the federal income tax, created the federal bank, created the draft, believed in a strong federal government and believed in equality, believed that the government had a role to play in protecting in minorities from the majority and tyranny."

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

– Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities." Lincoln

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984297].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

He was a progressive, centrist candidate who believed in government, taxation, created the federal income tax, created the federal bank, created the draft, believed in a strong federal government and believed in equality, believed that the government had a role to play in protecting in minorities from the majority and tyranny.

WHOA!!!!!!! He lived to be several hundred years old? I was not aware! HECK, many think he had morphans, and were surprised that he died at the publicized age because THAT was old for a morphans person! I mean they spoke of the IDEA of some federal tax in the constitution. So THAT must be what you are talking about! You couldn't be talking about the sporadic periodic taxes to support the wars and recover. And he died, according to Wikipedia in 1865, and we KNOW how the current CONTINUOUS income tax came to be in 1913! Or are you saying they created a séance, and he just showed his support?

BTW Lincoln was BORN 1809, according to Wikipedia.

As for creating the draft? Well, I guess the earlier battle wasn't legal, and therefore not a draft, but they probably expected all supporters to help. STILL, Abraham Lincoln could only expect so many to respond. He believed in THE government being strong. He FOUGHT for EQUALITY, not any kind of superiority. By all accounts I've heard BLACKS fought also! WHICH MINORITY? And he wasn't tyrannical.

And weren't YOU one of the ones CROWING about destroying the ability to vote, or go against you because "There are MORE OF US"? Wasn't that part of a post you recently posted to me?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984513].message }}

SteveJohnson

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

As I said long ago. Paying me $100 is NOT paying me ANYTHING if you take $10000 from me! ALL you are doing is taking LESS!
Steve

Steve, you have to understand the mind of a statist. To them, everything belongs to the state (the 'public' LOL) and any personal freedoms or property you may accrue is a benefit allowed you by the state.

To a statist, the tax level baseline is 100% of the highest tax anyone would pay. If you pay less, the state (public) is 'subsidizing' you.

To a statist, the Constitution's Bill of Rights is a set of rights granted to you by an all-powerful government, not rights inherent to you solely by virtue of your drawing breath.

Through progressive (note the term) *******ization of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause, statists have succeeded - at least temporarily - in moving the US government further and further away from the concepts of federalism toward authoritarian - even totalitarian - statism government.

Any desire to exert control over the citizenry can be justified as 'necessary' by the most whimsical of reasons. The 'proper' part of the clause is left behind.

Likewise, almost any private activity can fall under the label of 'interstate commerce', as illustrated by the fantastical conclusion in Wickard v. Fillburn that "if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat."

Authoritative statism does not believe that the Constitution is sacrosanct, rather that it should be 'interpreted' as a 'living document' according to the times. In other words, the Constitution doesn't mean now what it meant when it was adopted.

Statists would like you to believe that they value individual freedom, but they do not. Never let them fool you, and resist them everywhere you can.

I will be surprised if this post sees the light of day for more than a few minutes even though it is not political or religious in nature.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984408].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Steve, you have to understand the mind of a statist. To them, everything belongs to the state (the 'public' LOL) and any personal freedoms or property you may accrue is a benefit allowed you by the state.

To a statist, the tax level baseline is 100% of the highest tax anyone would pay. If you pay less, the state (public) is 'subsidizing' you.

To a statist, the Constitution's Bill of Rights is a set of rights granted to you by an all-powerful government, not rights inherent to you solely by virtue of your drawing breath.

Through progressive (note the term) *******ization of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause, statists have succeeded - at least temporarily - in moving the US government further and further away from the concepts of federalism toward authoritarian - even totalitarian - statism government.

Any desire to exert control over the citizenry can be justified as 'necessary' by the most whimsical of reasons. The 'proper' part of the clause is left behind.

Likewise, almost any private activity can fall under the label of 'interstate commerce', as illustrated by the fantastical conclusion in Wickard v. Fillburn that "if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat."

Authoritative statism does not believe that the Constitution is sacrosanct, rather that it should be 'interpreted' as a 'living document' according to the times. In other words, the Constitution doesn't mean now what it meant when it was adopted.

Statists would like you to believe that they value individual freedom, but they do not. Never let them fool you, and resist them everywhere you can.

I will be surprised if this post sees the light of day for more than a few minutes even though it is not political or religious in nature.

OH YEAH I know! And they will beg ignorance even while claiming that you have done something after they have clearly said it themselves. Of course, if you call them on it, they feign ignorance!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984523].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I don't want to misunderstand you but are you saying you personally feel its OK for a business to discriminate against any or all those groups mentioned above?

Yes or No?

and you might notice he didn't actually answer your question. He merely cited his alleged preferences without any indication that another set of preferences would be OK with him.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984393].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I don't want to misunderstand you but are you saying you personally feel its OK for a business to discriminate against any or all those groups mentioned above?

BTW I answered your questions truthfully though I note that you have decided not to answer MY question. I forgot to ask you the questions that your post BEGS me to!

1. WHY do you ask me if I will discriminate based on creed, and yet fight for the EXTERMINATION of the creed of one of the largest groups in the US? BTW if it is carried to the nth degree, it will destroy the FOUR main religions in the world, and almost every black on the planet belongs to one of them! ONE was even started for and by blacks. Malcom X was one of the leaders! But YOU are against it!
Going after CHRISTIANS doesn't even make sense, as the muslims react more as a group and more violently. The Christian faith says to not be corrupted, but still love. The muslim faith? Well... They are so nice. And WHY the US? Why not RUSSIA?

2. Since you hate whites and Christians, etc.... why speak to me of such beliefs you attribute to me?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984537].message }}

TLTheLiberator

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

BTW I answered your questions truthfully though I note that you have decided not to answer MY question. I forgot to ask you the questions that your post BEGS me to!

1. WHY do you ask me if I will discriminate based on creed, and yet fight for the EXTERMINATION of the creed of one of the largest groups in the US? BTW if it is carried to the nth degree, it will destroy the FOUR main religions in the world, and almost every black on the planet belongs to one of them! ONE was even started for and by blacks. Malcom X was one of the leaders! But YOU are against it!
Going after CHRISTIANS doesn't even make sense, as the muslims react more as a group and more violently. The Christian faith says to not be corrupted, but still love. The muslim faith? Well... They are so nice. And WHY the US? Why not RUSSIA?

2. Since you hate whites and Christians, etc.... why speak to me of such beliefs you attribute to me?

Steve

The blatherer strikes again.

blath·er
ˈblaT͟Hər/Submit
verb
1.
talk long-windedly without making very much sense.
"she began blathering on about spirituality and life after death"

synonyms: prattle, babble, chatter, twitter, prate, go on, run on, rattle on, yap, jabber, maunder, ramble, burble, drivel, blabber, gab; More
noun
noun: blather; noun: blither; noun: blether

1.
long-winded talk with no real substance.
synonyms: prattle, chatter, twitter, babble, prating, gabble, jabber, rambling;

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984762].message }}

TLTheLiberator 9 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984764].message }}
- SteveJohnson 9 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984770].message }}

SteveJohnson

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

IMHO...

Everything changes because...

...you are running a public business and not a private club and...

Remember, if you run a public business you are receiving tax benefits from the public - on a state and federal level.

What "tax benefits" would those be, exactly? The benefit of paying 50%+ of employees' FICA taxes? The benefit of paying workman's comp insurance? The benefit of paying unemployment insurance?

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984292].message }}

TLTheLiberator

9 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

What "tax benefits" would those be, exactly? The benefit of paying 50%+ of employees' FICA taxes? The benefit of paying workman's comp insurance? The benefit of paying unemployment insurance?

Top Tax Deductions for Your Small Business | Nolo.com

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984759].message }}

SteveJohnson 9 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Top Tax Deductions for Your Small Business | Nolo.com

ROFLMAO!!

The tax payments I outlined are also deductible as expenses - I suppose they're 'tax benefits' too?

Too funny!
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984766].message }}
- TLTheLiberator 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by SteveJohnson
  
  ROFLMAO!!
  
  The tax payments I outlined are also deductible as expenses - I suppose they're 'tax benefits' too?
  
  Too funny!
  
  Since someone delete my original response to you ROFLMAO I'll just say...
  
  Thank you Seasoned 2.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  Signature
  
  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984857].message }}
  
  seasoned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator
  
  Since someone delete my original response to you ROFLMAO I'll just say...
  
  Thank you Seasoned 2.
  
  DEAR THIEVES! TL is fine with your stealing from him! Simply pay him a small portion back so he knows he is "benefitting" from it! HAVE FUN!
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984938].message }}
  
  SteveJohnson 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator
  
  Since someone delete my original response to you ROFLMAO I'll just say...
  
  Thank you Seasoned 2.
  
  There you go again.
  
  A reasoned and well-articulated response worthy of your ideology.
  
  You're welcome.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.
  
  Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9984980].message }}

thunderbird

9 years ago

The term "The lady doth protest too much" comes to mind.

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9983527].message }}

About reaction to the new indiana law.

Trending Topics

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

The Twilight Zone

Should i Index Author pages?

best high quality crypto traffic.

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?