First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Indiana: First Amendment Rights or Bigotry?
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 3/31/15
So what do you think?

Does the First Amendment entitle you to refuse publicly offered services to anyone you don't agree with? would an adherent of Westboro have the right to deny service to soldiers?

or is it an attack on the LGBT community. A way to make perceived (not sure how else it would work) gay people second class citizens.

20192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Heroes Associ...
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15
Just because something is allowed by law, doesn't mean it is not bigotry (edited for incorrect wording).

IMO, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse people service based on things they cannot change.

Just because a slip of paper says you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 3/31/15

AzazelOfNexium wrote:

Just because something is allowed by law doesn't make it bigotry.

IMO, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse people service based on things they cannot change.

Just because a slip of paper says you can do it, doesn't mean you should.



But in Indiana it's now law.


49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15
Senate Bill 568
Introduced Senate Bill (S)

Authored by Sen. Scott Schneider, Sen. Dennis Kruse, Sen. Brent Steele.
Co-Authored by Sen. Carlin Yoder, Sen. James Buck, Sen. Amanda Banks, Sen. Liz Brown, Sen. James Smith, Sen. James Tomes, Sen. Greg Walker, Sen. Brent Waltz, Sen. Jean Leising.
Third level navigation links - accordion
Authors












DIGEST

"Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fee." Is this what you're referring to?
81005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 4/3/15
Many businesses post the statement "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". As a business owner, I believe you should have that right. You should also know that when you abuse it, you will lose customers, and not just the ones you refuse service.

I wouldn't refuse anyone service at my business, unless they were rude or disruptive to other customers. That doesn't mean I believe the rights of other business owners to create the atmosphere they want for their clients should be limited to my views.
dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15
The Law is clearly an attempt to cover for discrimination in much the same way as the bills which attempted to defend the Jim crow laws of the past on religious grounds. It didn't work then I sincerely doubt it will pass muster now (In the sense that it will achieve what those lobbying for it hope it will). If you don't want to serve the public don't open a public business go run a private club. That being said however I'm not convinced it isn't counter productive to force people to serve people they don't want, its difficult to legislate basic human decency.
Posted 3/31/15
There is a little part of me that is torn on this issue. I don't think it is right in any way to discriminate against someone because they are gay or whatever the case may be but I also do think they should be allowed to run their business the way they want. In the end I side with the people who want to be customers though because they are being stepped on in the process. I just really don't understand how people just can't respect that people have different lives than they do and just treat them like any other customer. They are doing you a favor by buying from your store so just treat them like anyone else as long as they aren't causing some kind of big commotion or are rude and disrespectful themselves and move on. This just shouldn't even be an issue these days.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 4/3/15
Personally I believe it should be up to the business owners what kind of clientele they want to serve. Let the free market decide if there store is worth remaining open. Easiest way to get a business to change is let the people vote with their wallets. If a business is losing money I guarantee you will see change if not they simply will shut down. In the end its up to the people of Indiana to decide if this law is good or bad.
20192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Heroes Associ...
Offline
Posted 3/31/15

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


AzazelOfNexium wrote:

Just because something is allowed by law doesn't make it bigotry.

IMO, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse people service based on things they cannot change.

Just because a slip of paper says you can do it, doesn't mean you should.



But in Indiana it's now law.




I think I messed up my wording on the first sentence.

Just because something is allowed by law, doesn't mean it is not bigotry. There we go.

Also, that's a stupid fucking law. This is the problem with countries were the government is made up of religious zealots.
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 4/20/15

Kainis42 wrote:

Many businesses post the statement "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". As a business owner, I believe you should have that right. You should also know that when you abuse it, you will lose customers, and not just the ones you refuse service.

I wouldn't refuse anyone service at my business, unless they were rude or disruptive to other customers. That doesn't mean I believe the rights of other business owners to create the atmosphere they want for their clients should be limited to my views.


In a similar vein, I think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people on grounds other than gender, orientation, race, or other social grouping. If an individual is disruptive, sure, throw them out - they clearly don't respect or need the service you provide. However, being able to refuse service to a wide array of individuals on such small grounds is pretty destructive, especially in more rural areas where there may not be any competitors.

The market needs to be regulated to defend those who cannot defend themselves, even if that costs some powerful people the powerful to be discriminatory.
15295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Midland, Texas
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 4/3/15

pirththee wrote:

Senate Bill 568
Introduced Senate Bill (S)

Authored by Sen. Scott Schneider, Sen. Dennis Kruse, Sen. Brent Steele.
Co-Authored by Sen. Carlin Yoder, Sen. James Buck, Sen. Amanda Banks, Sen. Liz Brown, Sen. James Smith, Sen. James Tomes, Sen. Greg Walker, Sen. Brent Waltz, Sen. Jean Leising.
Third level navigation links - accordion
Authors












DIGEST

"Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fee." Is this what you're referring to?


If this is the law then I don't see how this is discriminatory in the first place. I did some research and it looks very similar to a law the feds passed back in the Clinton administration. All this does is protect people from being burdened by the state government due to their religions believes (it doesn't matter the religion). I think people are just making noise and taking out their pent-up aggression on people who simple believe that a religious way of life is one that should be protected. It doesn't have a single phrasing that could be interpreted as bigoted when it doesn't single out a single religion that is being protected. I my opinion people who are against this either (1) are uninformed or haven't read the law, or (2) hate that the state government is passing this law to protect something they want to see gone in the future.
11033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15
Strange how when a person actually reads through this legal gobledigook it is rarely anything close to what you see being hyped up in the news.

It does seem a bit odd that they would bother to pass a law that is pretty much the same thing as a federal law Clinton signed back in '93. I find it much more odd however that a bunch of "explative deleted"s think it is some kind of crime for them to do so. I don't see anything to say people can/should discriminate against others. All I see is that people (ALL PEOPLE) have more defined freedom from possible over-reaches by various levels of government.

Several others commented about what rights people should have as either the business owner or the consumer of their goods/services. I guess this just goes back to upbringing more than anything. I was always taught to respect others and their property. If I go into somebodies house, I do not demand steak, I do not demand champagne, I do not picket outside if these demands are not met. If I want steak and/or champagne I will go someplace I can get it (that would of course be if i could afford it at the time). I guess I just never felt a need to justify my existence my making a public spectacle of myself in an effort to destroy people.


49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15
"It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," Pence said in a press conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday.CNN
27240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15

DarphBobo wrote:

Strange how when a person actually reads through this legal gobledigook it is rarely anything close to what you see being hyped up in the news.

It does seem a bit odd that they would bother to pass a law that is pretty much the same thing as a federal law Clinton signed back in '93. I find it much more odd however that a bunch of "explative deleted"s think it is some kind of crime for them to do so. I don't see anything to say people can/should discriminate against others. All I see is that people (ALL PEOPLE) have more defined freedom from possible over-reaches by various levels of government.

Several others commented about what rights people should have as either the business owner or the consumer of their goods/services. I guess this just goes back to upbringing more than anything. I was always taught to respect others and their property. If I go into somebodies house, I do not demand steak, I do not demand champagne, I do not picket outside if these demands are not met. If I want steak and/or champagne I will go someplace I can get it (that would of course be if i could afford it at the time). I guess I just never felt a need to justify my existence my making a public spectacle of myself in an effort to destroy people.




Yeah, people don't usually examine legislative intent or actually even read the statute. They basically read someone's interpretation of it and go "THIS NEW LAW DOES WHAT? OH HELL NAW!" And it just gets more twisted from there. Trying to explain law to people who aren't used to legal reading is like trying to speak to a foreigner.

Legal writing rarely sounds bad outright. It's an imperfect patchwork of stuff that gets amended and added to constantly. It tries to adapt to changing times and changing ideals.

I agree about the impact on business owners. They should be allowed to control their business how they wish as long as it is not discriminatory refusal of service. Even though businesses are important to the public, they are still the property of their owners. What people don't realize is that discrimination claims are quite hard to win in court due to the heightened requirements, which came about due to the ungodly number of people all yelling about discrimination the moment someone else does what they don't like. If you haven't already, work a customer service job and you'll know exactly what I mean.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/31/15

J-POP187 wrote:

Personally I believe it should be up to the business owners what kind of clientele they want to serve. Let the free market decide if there store is worth remaining open. Easiest way to get a business to change is let the people vote with their wallets. If a business is losing money I guarantee you will see change if not they simply will shut down. In the end its up to the people of Indiana to decide if this law is good or bad.


Until there is only one business or a few that service an area. Boycotts only work over a large area with lots of people willing to do it, small towns are different animals where this idea doesn't work well. No this becomes a matter of law and regulation we as a country have clearly stated you can not discriminate based on race gender or sexuality this means the law is invalid and will lose in the courts if it doesn't get repealed.

On the up side Georgia which had a very similar law going through the process of being passed has dropped theirs. Just to point out we do have a law on the book already at the federal level though I am of the opinion that it flies in the face of the Constitution and the Establishment clause. Within the first amendment. Doesn't pass the Lemon test based on Lemon v Kurtzman.


The Lemon test as designed by the courts for determining if a law violates the Establishment clause.
1. the statute (or practice) lacked a secular purpose;
2. its principal or primary effect advanced nor inhibited religion; or
3. it fostered an excessive government entanglement with religion.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.