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.

 cincydooley wrote:
But shouldn't they be allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves?

If we take that away doesn't that begin to border on being thought police?

There's no law against being a bigot. There are laws about refusing to provide services based on certain reasons. And really this is one of those "corporate personhood" things where the business is a separate entity. An individual person can have beliefs, a business can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Can you guys take this abortion talk to PM's please?

You are dominating and derailing the thread.

Thanks kindly

It's not entirely off-topic because one of the "religious freedom" issues attached to these laws, even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the OP, is conservative Christian doctors/hospitals refusing to provide abortion and birth control because it's against their religious beliefs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But shouldn't they be allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves?

If we take that away doesn't that begin to border on being thought police?

There's no law against being a bigot. There are laws about refusing to provide services based on certain reasons. And really this is one of those "corporate personhood" things where the business is a separate entity. An individual person can have beliefs, a business can't.

Even if it's a business run by Ma and Pa Hinkle and their two kids? I mean, one would think there should be a reasonable standard from which we allow corporate personhood and when we don't, right? There's a pretty clear difference between a Ma and Pa shop and Microsoft.

 cincydooley wrote:
Even if it's a business run by Ma and Pa Hinkle and their two kids? I mean, one would think there should be a reasonable standard from which we allow corporate personhood and when we don't, right? There's a pretty clear difference between a Ma and Pa shop and Microsoft.

I think you would get into major legal and tax problems if you divide businesses into "corporate persons" and "part of the owner". For example, if the family business is no longer a separate entity then the division between business and personal assets no longer applies and any lawsuit against the business can go after the owner's house/car/etc, if the business goes bankrupt then the owner's personal property can be taken to pay the debts of the business, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:


I think you would get into major legal and tax problems if you divide businesses into "corporate persons" and "part of the owner". For example, if the family business is no longer a separate entity then the division between business and personal assets no longer applies and any lawsuit against the business can go after the owner's house/car/etc, if the business goes bankrupt then the owner's personal property can be taken to pay the debts of the business, etc.

That's a good point, but I think in this instance it really needs to be considered, because, lets be honest here, it is those small businesses and those mom n pop shops that would be the ones actually affected by this legislature. I have a very hard time believing any major business would rather discriminate than make money, and quite frankly, I have a lot of trouble believing most small businesses would. Money spends the same.

Regardless, I think we have to protect people's right to be donkey-caves, even in their businesses.

But then again, I don't think I'll ever quite understand the desire to force someone that doesn't want your money to take your money. #whiteprivilege, I suppose.

Peregrine, lets put it this way. According to press reports similar legislation on Religious freedom is already present in neinetten states and is being considered by several more.

With the new law passed this means that 20 states out of 50 now have broadly similar religious freedom laws to Indiana.

So:

either - 2/5 of the USA now has sanctioned gay-bashing and an atmosphere similar to southern states in the 50's towards black people

or - This isnt a problem like some fear it is.

If this legislation had the effects some fear we would have seen it by now, on a large scale.

 cincydooley wrote:
That's a good point, but I think in this instance it really needs to be considered, because, lets be honest here, it is those small businesses and those mom n pop shops that would be the ones actually affected by this legislature. I have a very hard time believing any major business would rather discriminate than make money, and quite frankly, I have a lot of trouble believing most small businesses would. Money spends the same.

But "we're the ones who are affected most" isn't an excuse in other cases. For example, limits on campaign donations by businesses are probably a much bigger issue for Microsoft than for the local family shop, but we don't say "ok Microsoft, I guess since this is only an issue for you then you don't have to obey the limits".

But then again, I don't think I'll ever quite understand the desire to force someone that doesn't want your money to take your money. #whiteprivilege, I suppose.

Two reasons:

1) There isn't always an easy alternative available. If the only pharmacy in your town decides that birth control is against their religious beliefs then your best-case scenario is having to travel elsewhere, and that can be a major inconvenience. If you're busy with work/family/etc it's pretty easy to prefer "force the local business I don't really agree with to take my money" over "spend an extra hour or two every month driving to the pharmacy in another town".

2) Even when alternatives are available having to shop at different businesses still carries the message of "you're not really one of us". That's part of why "whites only" signs were so bad, even when other businesses were willing to accept non-white customers it still established them as second-class citizens. Separate but equal was inherently unequal, and that's why we don't have those laws/policies anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
If this legislation had the effects some fear we would have seen it by now, on a large scale.

So it's ok if the effects are smaller than feared and/or not very many cases are considered newsworthy for you to see them in the UK?

 Orlanth wrote:


either - 2/5 of the USA now has sanctioned gay-bashing and an atmosphere similar to southern states in the 50's towards black people

or - This isnt a problem like some fear it is.

You're certainly onto something here. This is largely a problem with the Southern states when you look at the map of what states passed these kind of laws. Racism was and is more prevalant in the Southern states. There is a lot of cross-over in the bigotry bidness.

The South is also geographically the most religious region in the country. Correlation does not equal causation, but it does make one wonder.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
If this legislation had the effects some fear we would have seen it by now, on a large scale.

So it's ok if the effects are smaller than feared and/or not very many cases are considered newsworthy for you to see them in the UK?

Then you have to account for the flat fact that for every just law someone will try and use it for an unjust purpose. That doesn't invalidate the need for the law.

How many times has mafia boss got his lawyer to get his client off a charge on a technicality.
Quite a bit it seems.
Why do those technicalities exist?
because they are side effects of essential freedoms.


Taking this case in point religious freedom is important and religious people have the right not to be forced into performing services contrary to their creed. I wish we had more protection like that over here.

If anyone tries to misused the legislation I hope that courts are able to see through this.

Open bigotry can hardly be considered a substantial burden, I hope the first genuine bigot who tries to use this new law to persecute homosexuals gets slapped all round the courthouse. As homophobia is socially taboo nowadays I think that is likely.

 Orlanth wrote:
If anyone tries to misused the legislation I hope that courts are able to see through this.

Why do you keep assuming that discrimination is an unfortunate misuse of the law instead of being the entire purpose of it? This is why I keep telling you to look at the context of the law instead of just reading the text of it. This is a law proposed and supported by conservative Christians that want to use it to deny service to people they don't approve of.

 Orlanth wrote:


either - 2/5 of the USA now has sanctioned gay-bashing and an atmosphere similar to southern states in the 50's towards black people

or - This isnt a problem like some fear it is.

If this legislation had the effects some fear we would have seen it by now, on a large scale.

What is the "punishment" angle from the federal laws protecting people from discrimination?

Perhaps some States in the US feel that it is weak, or nonexistent, etc. and felt the need to put a state law with "real" punishment on the books?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
If anyone tries to misused the legislation I hope that courts are able to see through this.

Why do you keep assuming that discrimination is an unfortunate misuse of the law instead of being the entire purpose of it? This is why I keep telling you to look at the context of the law instead of just reading the text of it. This is a law proposed and supported by conservative Christians that want to use it to deny service to people they don't approve of.

Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".

 d-usa wrote:
Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".

And was that his opinion, or was it the opinion of the majority of those involved in the legislative process?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".

And was that his opinion, or was it the opinion of the majority of those involved in the legislative process?

Enough people voted to table it after it became worthless, so interpret that however you like.

Asterios wrote:

 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.

yeah me and a friend of mine were discussing this, what it comes down to is who has what right? where does certain rights end or begin? whos rights deserve consideration? this is a messy situation that will end up going to the Supreme Court.

All of this could be avoided with the proper injection of common sense on both sides. I could care less what anyone else does. But if I happen to disagree with something and you try to force me to provide a service that I don't want to provide for any reason, I fething well promise you I won't do it, damned what any judge says. People on both sides are poking the other trying to get a reaction so they can scream descremination. If someone doesn't want to bake your cake, go to someone else who does. Do you REALLY want to eat it if they were made to do it?

Raven911 wrote:
All of this could be avoided with the proper injection of common sense on both sides. I could care less what anyone else does. But if I happen to disagree with something and you try to force me to provide a service that I don't want to provide for any reason, I fething well promise you I won't do it, damned what any judge says. People on both sides are poking the other trying to get a reaction so they can scream descremination. If someone doesn't want to bake your cake, go to someone else who does. Do you REALLY want to eat it if they were made to do it?

So does this mean you're in favor of overturning anti-discrimination laws and going back to the days when businesses could have "whites only" policies?

What if you live in a rural area, and no one wants to rent you an apartment. Like, no one in the entire area, and a judge says that's a-ok because Christianity forbids cohabitation.

It all seems sort of trivial when we are talking about wedding cakes, but that's not the kind of discrimination that hurts most. Id focus on the kind of businesses that people actually need access to for basic needs.

You're comparing race to sexual orientation. Not the same thing.

You think its ok to force someone to do something they don't want to do because someone else gets offended?

Raven911 wrote:
You're comparing race to sexual orientation. Not the same thing.

You think its ok to force someone to do something they don't want to do because someone else gets offended?

If you don't want to serve black people because lets say your an old school Mormon.... If your business provides public accomodations, it's illegal to turn black people down on the basis of their race, because race is a federally protected class.

Raven911 wrote:
You're comparing race to sexual orientation. Not the same thing.

Of course it is. And let's look at your own words here:

But if I happen to disagree with something and you try to force me to provide a service that I don't want to provide for any reason, I fething well promise you I won't do it, damned what any judge says.

"For any reason" includes race.

You think its ok to force someone to do something they don't want to do because someone else gets offended?

Yes, and that's the reason we don't have "whites only" signs anymore.

Asterios wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 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.

This is the very definition of discrimination. If you want to treat somebody different then you treat other people for any reason that is not breaking the law you are discriminating against them. Done. Nothing else.

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want. Your religion belongs in your house and your church. You are allowed to talk about it anywhere else you want because free speech, but you cannot ACT on it and it sure as hell stays out of law.

This is hate trying to justify itself and gain legal backing. Or maybe if this law passes some KKK members can start a new religion and start to tell black people they don't "serve their kind here" because of their faith. Ridiculous.

but (devil's advocate here) are people not allowed their own religious beliefs on their personal property?

by your own statement, a persons sexual preference or such could only be allowed in their home and specific establishments, why should a persons sexual choice have precedence over a persons religious beliefs?

how many "Blacks" or "Jews" or any other race other then "white" do you see in the KKK ?

not to mention religions are discriminatory by their very being.

no matter how you look at it, this is not as clear cut as we would like it.

my simple solution, nothing forces people to have to go to said establishments either.

This was put way more eliquently that I could put it. Thank you.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".

And was that his opinion, or was it the opinion of the majority of those involved in the legislative process?

Enough people voted to table it after it became worthless, so interpret that however you like.

Table it as in out it forward for vote?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Just look at the video recording of the politician who complained that adding specific language to this bill prohibiting discrimination "made this bill worthless".

And was that his opinion, or was it the opinion of the majority of those involved in the legislative process?

Enough people voted to table it after it became worthless, so interpret that however you like.

Table it as in out it forward for vote?

I think "tabled" in the US is different from the rest of the English speaking world. Here tabling a bill essentially means killing the bill.

 d-usa wrote:
I think "tabled" in the US is different from the rest of the English speaking world. Here tabling a bill basically essentially means killing the bill.

Thank you. I usually associate tabled with tabling a motion, or putting something forward for a vote.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Table it as in out it forward for vote?

Table = kill it, which means that more than just the one quoted person believed that removing the ability to discriminate undermined the law so much that it wasn't worth having.

Just in case it hadn't been posted yet, conservative Marcus Bachmann just got refused service in Indiana after the store owner assumed he was gay.

http://conservativefrontline.com/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-in-indiana-store-owner-assumed-he-was-gay/

Amusing? I think so

Hopefully it's a true article and the people who say the law isn't just there to discriminate against the gay community enjoy a slice of humble pie and/or a tasty foot.

It's sad to report that it was a piece of satire. If only it were true.

 Freya wrote:
Just in case it hadn't been posted yet, conservative Marcus Bachmann just got refused service in Indiana after the store owner assumed he was gay.

http://conservativefrontline.com/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-in-indiana-store-owner-assumed-he-was-gay/

Amusing? I think so

(sorry, this was offtopic)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I really do wish the term thought police would just go away. Regardless, regulation people's actions is hardly "thought policing"; it's what laws do.

That's just what 'they' want you to think, man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Freya wrote:
Just in case it hadn't been posted yet, conservative Marcus Bachmann just got refused service in Indiana after the store owner assumed he was gay.

http://conservativefrontline.com/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-in-indiana-store-owner-assumed-he-was-gay/

Amusing? I think so

I'm the worst when it comes to Poe's law, but after fully reading two other articles on that site, I genuinely wouldn't be able to tell it a satire site from a conservative news site.