Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
From another article that I read (via George Takei's FB page), it's been said that this bill is very, VERY close to the one that the SC shot down in AZ, with there being some expectation of similar in other parts of the US that have similar laws.

Personally, I see this as being yet another set of "Jim Crow" laws. Personally, if I were a business owner and didn't want to serve certain people, I would turn my business into a "private club" wherein I can control the "membership" of said "club" (Utah has done this with some drinking establishments so they can serve real beer and the like). Otherwise, I feel that if you are an "open to the public" business you should have to serve everyone (except people with no shirt and no shoes, apparently)

I also seem them as another set of Jim Crow laws, and frankly, they have no place in 21st century America.

Being irreligious myself, I would never dare to refuse service to a person wearing a cross necklace, a Star of David, a turban, etc. despite the fact that I don't agree with a single one of their religious views. That kind of tribal thinking has no use in modern society.

Ironically, the proponents of laws like these would be the first to cry foul if a Muslim (or any other minority religion or group) refused to do business with them on basis of "religious freedom."

Asterios wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Asterios wrote:


1: and yet you wish to discriminate against people with religious beliefs, and sadly this has been tested with Hobby Lobby not having to pay for medical coverage that has certain abortion pills because it is against their religious beliefs, yet the supreme court upheld their belief even going against the Affordable care act.

2: you would be surprised how discrimination goes both ways, ?I have friends who are gay/lesbian and I have seen discrimination from gays and lesbians as much as from those who are "straight"

3: religions are discriminatory as long as your not part of their religion, look at the catholic religion and the Islamic religions, then you have the extremists that are just plain ugly. and that comes down to religion is made up of religious people.

just to be clear this is not my stance in regards to refusing service, just that this matter is not as clear cut as some people would think.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Come to cali gencon. We will welcome you with open arms, infact, come to Santa cruz.

if GenCon comes to Cali (which it would be a good chance) it will be too Sacramento, LA or San Francisco/San Jose areas.

1) which is disgusting. Because it wasn't abortion pills it was birth control pills in general that was up for debate for a long time. Birth control pills are used to treat a great number of medical conditions. They are expensive as hell, and they are prescription. Healthcare SHOULD be paying for them and the business should not have a right to discriminate. Lets just be blunt and say what people allow/don't allow is basically insane these days.

2) agree. Anyone who discriminates is a monster and if I ever walked into a place a business that told me I couldn't be there because I was x I would do what i could to take legal action against them because they degrade my community and I would prefer the next generation does not grow up with that garbage around.

3) I was raised roman catholic. The people involved in the church are monsters. The book itself tells you to accept everyone. It is very specifically not your place to judge anyway (he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that). The job of Christians is to be good people. The job of judgment and persecution resides solely in the hands of god. Guess what? Islam, same god. Are their parts in the book that say other crap too? Yeah. Mostly crap edited a long ways back by the same type of people who discriminate today back when the church was running crap in Europe like nobody's business. Religion, at it's core, is about acceptance. People feth that up.

But this is an entirely different discussion (a fun one but not this one).

It's cool that it's not your opinion. Understood. Just saying, it is very clear. If you discriminate... then you discriminate. It is not discrimination to deny someone the right to discriminate. That's just stupid.

By all means, let's move more stuff to the coasts...


Or hows about Minneapolis? Major international airport, nice people, not completely asinine traffic... and hot dish. Sounds pretty good to me.

We have a "able to refuse service to anyone if your religion is against whatever" bill moving through the Oklahoma legislature right now.

Someone managed to attach an amendment that requires every business to post a sign on their window listing all the groups that will be refused service.

They figured that if we are going to have the modern equivalent of "no coloreds allowed" laws, then we should have the "no coloreds allowed" signs to go along with it so everyone knows who the bigots are.

Lance845 wrote:


1) which is disgusting. Because it wasn't abortion pills it was birth control pills in general that was up for debate for a long time. Birth control pills are used to treat a great number of medical conditions. They are expensive as hell, and they are prescription. Healthcare SHOULD be paying for them and the business should not have a right to discriminate. Lets just be blunt and say what people allow/don't allow is basically insane these days.

Why?

2) agree. Anyone who discriminates is a monster and if I ever walked into a place a business that told me I couldn't be there because I was x I would do what i could to take legal action against them because they degrade my community and I would prefer the next generation does not grow up with that garbage around.

Hope you like being a monster. We all make discriminatory choices. Every day.

3) I was raised roman catholic. The people involved in the church are monsters. The book itself tells you to accept everyone. It is very specifically not your place to judge anyway (he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that). The job of Christians is to be good people. The job of judgment and persecution resides solely in the hands of god. Guess what? Islam, same god. Are their parts in the book that say other crap too? Yeah. Mostly crap edited a long ways back by the same type of people who discriminate today back when the church was running crap in Europe like nobody's business. Religion, at it's core, is about acceptance. People feth that up.

Pretty broad fething brush you're using to paint, don't you think? Glad to know that if I wasn't a monster before, I am because I'm Catholic.

I hope they don't move. GenCon is just a few hours drive for me.

Unless they move to Chicago. Then, yay!

 kronk wrote:
I hope they don't move. GenCon is just a few hours drive for me.

Unless they move to Chicago. Then, yay!

I probably wouldn't go again if they moved. 80 minute drive + St. Elmo's at least two nights I'm there pretty much seal it up for me in Indy.

It would have to be somewhere that can host 50,000 people.

That was Milwaukee's problem. There just were not enough Hotel rooms, parking, and other gak you need to make it work.

No one is talking about banning homosexuals from cafes. What this has mostly been about is religious people who run small motels, B&Bs not wanting such couples as guests. There have also been those cases where cake makers have not wanted to deal with cakes of a nature they find offensive.
No one would expect a halal butcher to provide kosher meat, if equality is to exist then both sides have to be reasonable. The LGBT community are being political, they are not being discriminated against in any meaningful way.
Cake shops should be allowed to say no to cake decoration they personally find objectionable - it certainly works the other way.
Christians have been refused by cake shops owned by gay people when they wanted cakes decorated with pro-traditional marriage messages.

 Orlanth wrote:
This is not about 'discrimination' its about allowance of non participation.

The legislation is to give protection to those who would otherwise be forced to provide services supporting an ethos they do not agree with.

According to this article:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/23/indiana-house-oks-controversial-religious-freedom-bill/70336706/

Nineteen other states have similar legislation and it is being consider by others.

Nor is the legislation targeted at homosexuals, it permits non-participation on any grounds that offends the religions concerned.

What Orlanth said actually. It just says vendors' religious preferences will be respected, and they won't be driven out of business by activists because of it.

Gencon can suck it. Just as Gencon has the right to not do business there, the bill just gives people the right to not do business with them.

Computron wrote:
No one is talking about banning homosexuals from cafes. What this has mostly been about is religious people who run small motels, B&Bs not wanting such couples as guests. There have also been those cases where cake makers have not wanted to deal with cakes of a nature they find offensive.
No one would expect a halal butcher to provide kosher meat, if equality is to exist then both sides have to be reasonable. The LGBT community are being political, they are not being discriminated against in any meaningful way.

No one is talking about banning blacks from cafes. What this has mostly been about is religious people who run small motels, B&Bs not wanting such couples as guests. There have also been those cases where cake makers have not wanted to deal with cakes of a nature they find offensive.
No one would expect a halal butcher to provide kosher meat, if equality is to exist then both sides have to be reasonable. The black community are being political, they are not being discriminated against in any meaningful way.

Computron wrote:

Cake shops should be allowed to say no to cake decoration they personally find objectionable - it certainly works the other way.
Christians have been refused by cake shops owned by gay people when they wanted cakes decorated with pro-traditional marriage messages

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide proof of this statement.

And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...

And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...

Nice to see the usual posters attacking other posters on Dakka.

 Frazzled wrote:

And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...

Nice to see the usual posters attacking other posters on Dakka.

I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...

Nice to see the usual posters attacking other posters on Dakka.

I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its bigoted behaviour. No person should be forced to do business with someone else they don't like, especially if its based on religious reasons. Its a basic libertarian position.

Should you be forced to business with the local skinhead party? Should I be forced to suffer cat lovers to live? I think not.

 d-usa wrote:
We have a "able to refuse service to anyone if your religion is against whatever" bill moving through the Oklahoma legislature right now.

Someone managed to attach an amendment that requires every business to post a sign on their window listing all the groups that will be refused service.

They figured that if we are going to have the modern equivalent of "no coloreds allowed" laws, then we should have the "no coloreds allowed" signs to go along with it so everyone knows who the bigots are.

Much as I hate to say it, this is the way to do it because honestly, if I see that sign, Im turning right the feth around. I think the ONLY way I could see myself using a shop owned by an donkey cave is if it's such a ridiculously specialist shop that I couldn't reasonably get whatever Im looking for elsewhere.

 Frazzled wrote:

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its bigoted behaviour.

Actually it does. Its the actual, literal, textbook definition of bigotry:

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

 Frazzled wrote:

No person should be forced to do business with someone else they don't like, especially if its based on religious reasons. Its a basic libertarian position.

Should you be forced to business with the local skinhead party? Should I be forced to suffer cat lovers to live? I think not.

Yes, they should, because we leave in a society where law > religion, thankfully (or at least some of us do).

Also a political party isn't a person and as such isn't protected by the same anti-discrimination laws (and any type of Nazi party is generally verboten over here). But if a skinhead enters a store, he should be served just like anyone else.

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...

Nice to see the usual posters attacking other posters on Dakka.

I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its bigoted behaviour. No person should be forced to do business with someone else they don't like, especially if its based on religious reasons. Its a basic libertarian position.

They're not. They have the option of shutting down the store.

IMO, if you're in the business of selling goods or services to the public then that's what you do; you're not allowed to cherry-pick. It'd kinda like having a hardline muslim bartender refusing to serve alcohol.

Computron wrote:

No one would expect a halal butcher to provide kosher meat, if equality is to exist then both sides have to be reasonable. The LGBT community are being political, they are not being discriminated against in any meaningful way.

You know that's not even close to the same thing right. It's much closer to a halal butcher telling a Jewish person he refuses to serve them due to being Jewish no matter what the Jewish person walks in to buy. No one is expecting people to provide a new service just for gay people they are expecting people who are gay to be allowed the same service as anyone else due to the fact they are gay.

Do you really think people in the lbgt community are not discrimated agaisnt in any meaningful way?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its bigoted behaviour.

Actually it does. Its the actual, literal, textbook definition of bigotry:

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. S.

Thats asinine. Under that definition if you don't like serial kilers you're a bigot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

They're not. They have the option of shutting down the store.

IMO, if you're in the business of selling goods or services to the public then that's what you do; you're not allowed to cherry-pick. It'd kinda like having a hardline muslim bartender refusing to serve alcohol.

Again, so should a Jew be forced to serve a Nazi? Should a Zydeco band be forced to play at a Klan rally?
Should a gay bakery be forced to serve breeders?

EDIT: for the record, I've used your argument as well, because I respect it. I just moon anyone from the Left Coast getting hipster on anyone anywhere else. Indiana will tell them to stick their convention where the sun don't shine.

One would suggest that a dislike of people who murder multiple people is not irrational or unfair perhaps.

should a Jew be forced to serve a Nazi?

In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.

In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.

WHY?

Whats wrong with a government NOT forcing you to serve someone you vehemently dislike? By what do you have to make someone else do that? Thats coercion. Thats dictatorship.
These are private parties free to contract OR NOT CONTRACT. Thats time honored common law tradition back to Merry Old England.

If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.

 Frazzled wrote:

In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.

WHY?

Because your business isn't actually your business. It's the public's Duh.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.

WHY?

Because your business isn't actually your business. It's the public's Duh.

WELCOME COMRADE!!! Line ends two blocks back!!

Edit

WAIT!! I'm sorry Comrade I just now notice the Red Star medal. Front of the line with you

 Lord Scythican wrote:
If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.

I feel the same way. It's the reason that I didn't patronize Starbucks at all during their #racismwithyourcoffee campaign.

I'm of the belief that, in 2015 America, with the proliferation of information, businesses that choose not to serve all potential customers will be less successful than they would be otherwise. But they should be granted that prerogative.

People continue to look at this through the lens of the 1940s-60s, and IMO that's not entirely appropriate because the cultural climate isn't remotely similar to what it was then, despite all the racial tension we still have.

 Lord Scythican wrote:
If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.

What grudge do you have against Chik-fil-A? They don't descriminate against anyone.

 Frazzled wrote:

In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.

WHY?

Whats wrong with a government NOT forcing you to serve someone you vehemently dislike? By what do you have to make someone else do that? Thats coercion. Thats dictatorship.
These are private parties free to contract OR NOT CONTRACT. Thats time honored common law tradition back to Merry Old England.

Oh, England has some great old traditions.

Like, y'know, slavery, and invading other people's countries and taking their tea.

(I love tea).

 cincydooley wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.

WHY?

Because your business isn't actually your business. It's the public's Duh.

Not sure if serious...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.

What grudge do you have against Chik-fil-A? They don't descriminate against anyone.

This probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

Oh, England has some great old traditions.

Like, y'know, slavery, and invading other people's countries and taking their tea.

(I love tea).

Britain the only empire that would kick your ass for a nice afternoon beverage.