Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Grymalkin writes A controversial religious freedom bill has passed the Indianapolis Senate and is now awaiting Governor Mike Pence's signature to become law. Supporters claim that this bill will protect business owners from excessive government control while opponents argue it is just a veiled attempt to allow those same business owners to deny services to individuals because of their sexual orientation. Now, Gen Con has released a statement saying this bill will influence their decision to keep the convention in Indiana. This announcement has tourism officials worried as Gen Con brings in roughly 50,000 visitors each year, contributing $50 million to the local economy. So far Gen Con's announcement has not swayed the Governor who says he is looking forward to signing the bill into law. Gen Con currently has a contract with the Indy Convention Center through 2020. No word yet as to exactly when the convention would be moved should the bill become law.

Comments

Do It, it worked in AZ

[garyisabusyguy]

Arizona was trying to attract conventions while enacting regressive policies

The conventions went elsewhere and Arizona changed the policies to bring them back

Voting with your pocketbook is a fundamental tenet of the free market

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ralphsiegler]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Being homophobic or racist is also a freedom, but has a price, which usually involves being called a douchbag.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[itzly]

It's my bus, so if I tell Rosa Parks to sit in the back, she'd better listen or get out!

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sribe]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

That bullshit argument was rejected pretty soundly 50 years ago. It is reasonable in limited circumstances, for businesses which can only deal with a very limited range of customers. It is not considered reasonable for any business which claims to be open to the public--we decided long ago that you're either open to the public or you're not. You cannot be open to the public except for women; you cannot be open to the public except for blacks or latinos. Etc.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[will_die]

Yes you can and there are probably lots of business that are around you that do it.
Look at gyms, clothing stores, medical centers as a male there are plenty of businesses and even public places that if you enter you will be in legal trouble.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to love the manipulative language used:

"a veiled attempt to allow those same business owners to deny services to individuals because of their sexual orientation."

That sentence turns the entire relationship on it's head.

Literally, these laws threaten individuals with punishment if they simply do nothing and there is a suspicion that bad motives might be behind that idleness.

But the language used by the law's supporters makes it appear as though those business owners commit some act against another person. It's very easy then for the reader to regard the situation as one with a bad actor (the business owner) harming a victim.

It must be that way because otherwise people might see the law for what it really is: involuntary servitude.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

What they hell are you talking about?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Name three.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though. They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[cdrudge]

Please cite specific gyms, clothing stores, medical centers which refuse to business with men for services that would be applicable for men. For everyone you post, I'll likely be able to post an example of the same type of business being sued and winning a discrimination lawsuit.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you living in "Old Southistan?" None of that shit is vaguely tolerated where I live. And the people to whom these prejudices apply are backed up and supported by the pudgy white males like me, who are really well armed.

So, if you find that shit tolerable, stay on your little island of hate, because the rest of us are done with that old-world stupidity.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[khasim]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

Only in YOUR definition of "freedom".

In the USofA, your BUSINESS has to treat everyone the same. Regardless of race/creed/etc.

You can CLAIM that it is an infringement upon your "freedom" to have to serve black people in your business.

You can CLAIM that you should be "free" to only serve white people in your business.

But you would be wrong. And a bigot.

You do not have to invite a black person into your home. But you do have to serve him in your restaurant.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ralphsiegler]

Nope, the bus was public transportation; Rosa was part of the public. Any private transport, say a cab company, that decides to discriminate against groups of people might find their business hurt if enough sympathetic people decide to boycott it for that reason. That's a right way to solve such problems.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Mysticalfruit]

I'm going to instruct my chain of burger joints to check ID's at the door... Anybody with a first name of "Ralph" will be turned away at the door. My holy book over here clearly states that "Ralph shall be name of the demon who will eat the world." I'm disinclined to have people named Ralph in my establishment who're likely to go into a demonic craze and start eating people. Also any "hussies" named "Roberta" or "Rebecca" they're just tricky sluts, they're not allowed in either.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[theArtificial]

Unless you're the Government, or a School, or a Business. Being most everywhere is fixated with Diversity (code for institutionalized sexism and racism) we can play name games with things! Douchebag Google, Douchebag University California Irvine, Douchebag Stanford University. Maybe we can just swap out parts of the name for Douchebag? Douchebagrosoft. Since many sites are also imposing policies, maybe Douchebagdot or Douchebaggit?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Name three.

Hell, just name one.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ralphsiegler]

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally? I'd rather not. You imagine calling names will change someone? You are being silly, would might change a place would be a boycott organized against a business, dropping sales even ten percent would probably wake them up.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ralphsiegler]

Sign up at your local ob/gyn for a vaginal exam. Next join your local women's aerobic healthclub.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[mjwalshe]

Happened in the Uk one town's conservative council (Scarborough) ended up getting black listed by the political party's and Trade unions over something similar something like 70-80% of the towns big hotels went bust due to the loss of conventions.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though. They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

And they have the right to do just that.

It's called "freedom of association". I strongly believe in it.

I think you're free to not serve gays if you don't want to. And I think it's fine should others decide to avoid your business because of that.

Now, the government forcing you to associate in ways you don't want to? That's tricky, because it's not an absolute one way or the other. "No coloreds" wasn't that long ago. Although I admittedly would rather err on the side of too little government enforcement of association.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you saying that racists/homophobes are allowed to say "I refuse to do business with people based on this $race / $sexualpreference", but we are not allowed to say "I refuse to do business in an area where such people are also allowed to do business"? Because I really cannot tell if that is the message you are trying to convey.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Name three.

Hell, just name one.

Starbuck's management.

You ain't white, you ain't getting in.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ralphsiegler]

Not bullshit at all; and at the moment businesses in most places can choose to serve or not serve someone. But maybe people can organize boycotts against businesses who discriminate, ding some sales. If you owned hardware store, and some nazi skinheads came in and wanted to buy spraypaint, talking about how they're going to vandalize a synagogue, would you serve them?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[TWX]

The white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard made a choice to show up in a white hood to publicly demonstrate his racism.

There are no requirements upon the dress or other outward behavior of someone indicating their sexual orientation, and there are few religious groups where manner of dress is dictated by the religion in the United States, and there are not all that many members of those groups either.

The point of diversity-blind requirements is to keep many things beyond the control of the individual from being used against the individual. Gender, race, sexual orientation, and according to some, religion, usually fall into those protected classes. Manner of dress and provocative behavior generally do not; one can deny service to the KKK member promenading himself around in costume just as legally as one can deny service to someone not wearing a shirt.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I would refuse service to a KKK member, but then, it would be within the rights of said KKK member to sue me for prejudicial treatment. Now, I seriously doubt the KKK would win that suit, being that their organization is a recognized hate-based organization. But it would not surprise me if the supreme court did rule in the KKK's favour and said that I refused service to the KKK member because of my prejudice against the KKK and their beliefs.

We are talking about commerce here. It is perfectly within the rights of the buyer to boycott any seller they see fit (which is what the organizers of GenCon are doing, they are threatening to boycott Indianaopolis if they pass this bill. It is not within the rights of the seller to refuse sale based on pure prejudice. Period. You cannot do this, no matter how much you disagree with the buyer. There are many reasons and ways you are legally allowed (and sometimes restricted) to refuse to provide service to a buyer, but prejudice is NOT one of them.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a right way to solve such problems.

So it's ok for the public to use one tool (boycotts) against such bigotry, but getting sick and tired of playing wack-a-mole and switching tools (government) is for some reason right out, is that it?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

No.

Gen Con should be (and are) permitted to take their business elsewhere, for whatever the hell reason they want.

But the narrative that is being pushed that they are standing up to racists or homophobes by taking this action is inaccurate. They're primarily trying to make life painful for people that largely agree with them in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Sign up at your local ob/gyn for a vaginal exam.

Ladies and gentlemen, behold, a moron. For who else but a moron would think that this is a legitimate example of gender-based discrimination?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[operagost]

The bus was public transportation. A child can understand the difference between institutionalized racism FROM THE GOVERNMENT, and prejudiced private citizens and businesses.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Using your logic, shouldn't anybody with a first name of "Ralph" immediately be given all the burgers they can eat? After all, if Ralph is full of burgers, he can't eat the world.

-Ralph

p.s. Don't forget the fries!

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

That's like saying "it is my business, so I have the freedom to shoot and kill anyone that steps through the door without reason." Which is total BS. Being allowed to hate against others isn't a liberty.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there was a word to denote that something isn't open to the general public... some indicator in the English language that an establishment does business with a select clientele. Oh wait, there's a word for that, it's called a CLUB, it's right there in your example, and they are indeed exempt from non-discrimination laws meant to apply to public businesses.

The first example is just plain stupid. If you are a man, you are by definition unable to get pregnant and therefore unable to be served by an OB. As you don't have a vagina, you are unable to be served by a GYN. There's really no charitable way to interpret your example: either you're too stupid to realize this isn't denial of service based on your gender, or you do and are merely arguing in bad faith.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

If you do not have the right to say "yes" or "no" that is not freedom, that is slavery. It is the threat of someone going to a court, ordering me to serve them, under threat of police action. That is wrong, we abolished that over a century ago.

The legal right to do something does not condone exercise of said right.

Not to mention your assertion is very dangerous; a sole proprietorship is a type of business. If a "business" can be required to serve a person, any individual can be required to serve a person.

Now, if I have a written offer of service, say, a price at a supermarket, you can't rescind that offer any faster than you can take the price down. But you can't walk into a bakery and say "I want you to quote me a price on a cake! And it needs to be a similar price to $member_of_some_other_group! And..." etc.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Obfuscant]

You do not have to invite a black person into your home. But you do have to serve him in your restaurant.

With fava beans?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

The white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard made a choice to show up in a white hood to publicly demonstrate his racism.

What if it's her racism? would it be OK then?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anguirel]

Yes, as long as they aren't causing a direct disturbance in the store or harassing other customers, I would. I might also make sure to get good pictures of them with the security system, and depending on how serious I thought they were (people talk about crazy stuff all the time when in stores that they don't actually follow through on), I might report it to the police and/or advise local synagogues that if they are victims of vandalism I might have relevant evidence for them.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Zirbert]

So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?

If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis. If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will). Pick one.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[khasim]

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally?

He would be asked to remove his hood upon entering the store.

If he did not remove it, he would be asked to leave. At which point he is trespassing if he stays.

If he did remove his hood then you'd have a funny story to tell all your friends about who the Grand Wizard is. Want to see it on CCTV?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Em Adespoton]

Please cite specific gyms, clothing stores, medical centers which refuse to business with men for services that would be applicable for men. For everyone you post, I'll likely be able to post an example of the same type of business being sued and winning a discrimination lawsuit.

I'm not going to name names as they're pretty common around here -- fitness centers that advertise that they are only for women. Just google for "women-only" and you'll find all sorts of generic services aimed at women -- and a McGill University issue regarding a fitness gym and arguments for/against having gender-exclusive gyms at a university.

You look at their websites and everything they say (other than "exclusively for women") is just as applicable to men as to women. Unless you believe high-low and yoga classes are somehow incompatible with the male physique.

That said, I have no problem with women-only gyms (or men-only gyms). This is discrimination that in my view is perfectly acceptable, as it's based on real issues in our society, and is preventing negative fallout due to those issues. I'd have issues with a gym that segregated based on skin tone or native language though.

Hey... I've been into lots of high end retail stores in my casual clothes where the clerks have refused to even acknowledge my existence -- I figure they saw a guy in cheap department store clothes and figured I couldn't afford to shop there if I wanted to. Never bothered to press charges, but I guess I theoretically could have -- but it would be hard to prove anything (although security footage would help). Easier just to add them to the list of places not to spend my money, and reward the stores that DO want my patronage.

Where the problem really exists is when (like with Verizon/Comcast) there's really no other alternative service you can use. In these cases, if EVERYONE is discriminating based on sexual preferences/gender/melatonin level/perceived wealth, then individuals are being locked out of service, and that's bad.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus christ, you're a moron.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Zirbert]

So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?

If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis. If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will). Pick one.

*Indiana*. Doggonit. I doubt the city has a governor. Or a govenror, for that matter.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though.

Even worse: Why would they walk away from very people who they say would be harmed by the law?

Unless, of course, they're just grandstanding.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Microlith]

They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

They already have that freedom. What businesses don't have the freedom to do is to treat people differently on an arbitrary basis, and the government of Indiana is trying to change it so people can, via companies, treat others like shit on the basis of their personal superstitions, which is unjustifiable and destructive.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Microlith]

in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.

What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone. Businesses are already prohibited from acting in an arbitrarily discriminatory manner towards people. They're calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to feed a bullshit persecution complex, while enshrining their hateful nonsense into law. If you can refuse business to gays because your religion says so, then you can refuse business to anyone, and that's bullshit.

Well, religion is bullshit, by and large, which is why laws like this are terrible. You have the First Amendment, you don't need to have your superstition put on a privileged pedestal.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

This problem will be going away soon, when the supreme court rules that gay marriage is mandatory in all states, the federal civil rights act will be amended to include sexual orientation.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Microlith]

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally? I'd rather not.

"Klansman" is not a protected class. Of course, would you know if he came in while not dressed so as to call himself out so obviously? No!

And if you knew who he was, you could refuse to sell to him individually.

You are being silly, would might change a place would be a boycott organized against a business, dropping sales even ten percent would probably wake them up.

Or whole towns could adopt similarly hateful attitudes and make it de-facto. Why the fuck are we wandering back down this path? Oh right, because Christian Love^WHate.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Bing Tsher E]

The question is, would you sell said Klansman two dozen three foot long one inch dowels? They are for his fellow klansmen to attach 'signs' to for their rally.

Would you sell him the dowels? He also wants 100 feet of rope. Do you want the law to require you to sell him the dowels and rope?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[FictionPimp]

There is always alternatives to verizon and comcast. You don't' believe me? Just ask verizon or comcast, they will tell you there are always alternatives. Can't find them? You just are not looking hard enough. For example, you could start your own ISP. Can't afford that? Well it's not comcast's fault your too poor, but you still had the choice.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[FictionPimp]

%s/your/you're/g

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Bing Tsher E]

Private cab companies in Minneapolis were refusing to accept passengers with dogs. Even guide dogs. The cab drivers were muslim and would not abide by having dogs in their cabs.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[khasim]

If you do not have the right to say "yes" or "no" that is not freedom, that is slavery.

No.

Slavery is when one person is owned by another.

You are not a slave when your pizza boss tells you to take the trash out. You can refuse and be fired. A real slave does not have the option of being fired. Learn what slavery really is.

Are you done with the emo, now?

It is the threat of someone going to a court, ordering me to serve them, under threat of police action. That is wrong, we abolished that over a century ago.

Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Not to mention your assertion is very dangerous; a sole proprietorship is a type of business. If a "business" can be required to serve a person, any individual can be required to serve a person.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

No. Not "any individual".

Only those individuals who are operating a business and only in the operation of that business.

But you can't walk into a bakery and say "I want you to quote me a price on a cake! And it needs to be a similar price to $member_of_some_other_group! And..."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also make a choice on how you act. Weather to flaunt your life style or act normal.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[TWX]

No, the point is that one does not have to do business with the klansman because being a member of the Klan is not a protected class. Being a member of the Klan is also a choice.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Mysticalfruit]

Like all holy books, it's so vaguely worded you can twist to your means. In your sect of the great burger religion, your temples only allow people named Ralph. In my sect, they disallow Ralph.

Obviously, I'm going to have to start a holy burger war to resolve whose right.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

You cant eat at this diner, as we don't serve people like you. Is that the argument you're going to make?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[TWX]

According to grammar rules, in English, when the gender is unknown or unspecified, it is appropriate to use the masculine.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

Its more than just freedom of association. In many respects, it is freedom of religion too which is supposed to be protected from government interference due to the bar of the first anendment. You don't have to patronize them, but the government should be barred from making themviolate their religious beliefs just like the government is barred from telling CNN it cannot run a story about the president comming in last when people picked their favorite president and names from movies and tv show presidents were listed.

And before anyone chimes in with how it doesn't apply to business, any reading like that would also mean free press and free spech in the first amendment would not apy to businesses either. We already know that is not the case so its a dead argument.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

You are not a slave when your pizza boss tells you to take the trash out. You can refuse and be fired.

If I say no to my boss, I get fired. That's not slavery.

If saying "no" pits me against the government, I get fined or jailed, and anyone who resists is thrown in prison. That is slavery.

Only those individuals who are operating a business and only in the operation of that business.

Any purchase or sale of goods or labor by an individual is a sole proprietorship. Purchasing food from my grocery store, hiring lawn care, and selling baked goods are all the same kind of business conduct.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[TWX]

And that points to an interesting issue, as some mannerisms are misinterpreted. Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a member of the United States House of Representatives, is homosexual, but does not display common stereotypes. Director and actor Quentin Tarantino is heterosexual, but displays many stereotypes commonly associated with homosexuality, like his vocal patterns and the positions he holds his hands in. Given that Indiana's proposed law seems to allow the business to come to their own conclusions about someone, there are going to be examples when those assumptions are completely incorrect. That means that not even accounting for the poor moral implications of it, it's a bad law.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

Wrong. There are several cases recently where the first amendment and religious freedom was ignored and state protections of gays were upheld. As sad as it sounds, this law is meant to avoid that.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 placed restrictions and additional requirements on the behavior of government, who is already bound by the Constitution to provide "equal protection of the laws".

Discrimination is bad, but it's nothing compared to slavery.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes- I would serve the KKK Grand Wizard (provided he was behaving himself like most customers usually are) and I'm a target of these peoples hostility as a homosexual. It's one thing to turn down business when there are other options- but in many cases there really aren't. Put another way if your opinion was unpopular you could get banned from every store in town. It might be acceptable for individuals and sole proprietorships to have the rights to refuse- but certainly not any other type of legal entities.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

There are certain protected classes that you can't discriminate against but with the exception of states where sexual orientation is included as a protected class there is nothing to stop you from doing just that, refusing service.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[khasim]

If I say no to my boss, I get fired. That's not slavery.

So you admit that just because there are REPERCUSSIONS it is NOT the same as slavery.

If saying "no" pits me against the government, I get fined or jailed, and anyone who resists is thrown in prison. That is slavery.

No. Slavery is NOT defined as whether or not you will end up in prison.

Slavery is when one person is owned by another person.

Slavery has nothing to do with being fined for refusing to return a library book on time.

Any purchase or sale of goods or labor by an individual is a sole proprietorship.

No.

The sole proprietorship is the simplest business form under which one can operate a business. The sole proprietorship is not a legal entity. It simply refers to a person who owns the business and is personally responsible for its debts.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Purchasing food from my grocery store, hiring lawn care, and selling baked goods are all the same kind of business conduct.

No.

Once you get out of high school (and maybe leave high school libertarianism behind) you will learn the difference. Maybe.

Simply put, if you are selling a service, you pay different taxes than in you are purchasing groceries for your personal consumption.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

And, knowing what they were planning on doing with the paint, you'd be accessory to the crime.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

What if he sent his interns in regular clothing? If an ordinary person walked in asking for a cake with the words "kill a nig***for baby jesus" on it? What if someone placed an online order for posters that say "sex with kids is great, you should help legalize it so you can try it too- sponsored by your local NAMBLA charter 103"? Would you fill either of those orders?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Bartles]

Shooting anyone is illegal. Hating someone is not.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Em Adespoton]

You forgot the asterisk beside "start your own ISP" -- often, they have special contracts set up with local government that would require you to come up with some novel transmission service (such as packet pigeon) as running new cable or transmitting over new/old spectrum is out of bounds.

But I think there's definitely some good fodder available when comparing internet service in N. America to generic service provider discrimination. Just imagine what would happen if Comcast/Verizon decided that their faith prevented them from serving politicians in Indianapolis....

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[jedidiah]

No. The organizers of a convention that arguably falls under the umbrella of "the arts" want to avoid a venue where many people that work in "the arts" would be treated like an underclass.

Indiana can have the NRA convention.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace sexuality with race or gender. The supreme court has made this quite clear. But if people need a refresher course then by all means. Enact all this kinda crap and watch as it comes undone.

May it take humans another 100 or 1,000 years; altruism will win. Why? Genetics and math, kids. A person's individual hate I'd no match for the Price Equation.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[BarbaraHudson]

You're free not to operate a store or restaurant if you don't want to serve everyone.

If you do open such a business, you're not free to run it outside the rules - zoning bylaws, health codes, taxes, building codes, and yes, laws barring discrimination. It would only be slavery if you HAD to open and run such a business whether you wanted to or not.

A sole proprietorship is still a business. When the owner is acting outside his business, on his personal time, he's free to do whatever he wants wrt being a bigot. But not when he's acting as a business.

tl;dr - your arguments are nonsense.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[jedidiah]

That's easy. Follow the law. You know the law. That's the set of rules that's supposed to govern your conduct.

It's easy to avoid becoming involved with obviously illegal conduct. Death threats and pedophilia are easy and obvious exceptions to the straw man you're trying to build here.

You could even call your local city government or police to get their take on the situation.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Though if they start to try to convert me or disrupt my business or customers with public display; then I kick them the fuck out. If someone on the other side comes in angry that I sold them something; I'll calmly explain to them that I do so because I believe in our laws that protect against discrimination so that they and my families can shop with impunity.

I don't have to like someone in my store, but I'd be stupid to screw myself out of a sale. I believe I'm running a business; not a charity house.

It's not like they'll quit being racist because they can't get glitter for their signs.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

No. Slavery is NOT defined as whether or not you will end up in prison.

Let's ask Google: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them."

If there was ever a modern day, legalized slavery, forcing someone to bake a cake for you sounds otherwise be imprisoned by the government sounds awfully darn like just like that.

Simply put, if you are selling a service, you pay different taxes than in you are purchasing groceries for your personal consumption.

Do you file a 1040? That's sole proprietor income. You're probably working for an employer, no different than the kid next door if I hired them to do my lawn, no different than if I sold baked goods from my own house. Still a sole proprietorship, it's all taxed the same.

Once you get out of high school (and maybe leave high school libertarianism behind) you will learn the difference. Maybe.

Are you trying to start a UID pissing match? And you call me a high schooler? (Well, maybe if I registered when I was in kindergarten... I wish...).

(But if you insist, mine's prime.)

In any event, I practice the Constitution as written by the Framers. Blatant attempts to ignore it is not my fault, but nice try on the victim blaming.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Vinegar Joe]

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally?

He would be asked to remove his hood upon entering the store.

If he did not remove it, he would be asked to leave. At which point he is trespassing if he stays.

If he did remove his hood then you'd have a funny story to tell all your friends about who the Grand Wizard is. Want to see it on CCTV?

If a Muslim woman enters your business, will you require her to remove her burqa or hijab?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[spongman]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

so is the right of the rest of us to tell you go to fuck yourself.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Durrik]

It really depends on who you ask. When I sent out a novel of editing, it used the rules you stated, but the editor came back and said its no longer proper English, and that I should change all of those pronouns where the gender was not specified to they, them, and their.

The one the editor complained the most about was that the crew on the space ship I was writing for referred to the ship as 'she' and 'her'. I personally thought the object was stupid and rejected that change. Especially since there are reasons for calling a ship by the female pronouns. Historical reasons may be nullified by political correctness, but spiritual reasons not so much. Especially since the female pronouns refer to the soul of a ship as any sailor will tell you, and if you treat 'her' right 'she'll' see you home safe.

I sometimes feel like a stick in the mud and I realize that language evolves all the time. To me it will always he, him or his unless you know its female. They, them and their is plural.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[darronb]

Religious freedom doesn't trump any law not in the constitution.

What if, say, a weird religion popped up claiming:

1) their religion believes that beer is sacred and their members should be allowed to drive cars with any BAC level they want. Cars aren't in the constitution... obviously they should be allowed... right? ... right?
2) Sidewalks and lawns are just as good as roads
3) street signs and lights are for wimps and the opposite of the indended action should be taken when possible for the driver
3) hitting trees at speed and walking away unharmed should be a sport
4) cars should be blaring readings from their religious doctrine at 110dba at all times (even parked)

Go ahead, toss your hands up and say that's just the way it is.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Saanvik]

You cannot compare a belief (bigotry) to human condition (gender, race, sexual orientation), so your analogy is fatally flawed.

However, the law doesn't have to change for a printer to choose not to print posters for the KKK rally, since the refusal is for the job requested, not of the person.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

Only in YOUR definition of "freedom".

In the USofA, your BUSINESS has to treat everyone the same. Regardless of race/creed/etc.

You can CLAIM that it is an infringement upon your "freedom" to have to serve black people in your business.

You can CLAIM that you should be "free" to only serve white people in your business.

But you would be wrong. And a bigot.

You do not have to invite a black person into your home. But you do have to serve him in your restaurant.

Not quite.

I can refuse service to anyone, at my discretion, as long as I am not refusing a member of a protected class specifically because of their membership in said protected class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

In other words: I can refuse to serve a black man, however; I cannot refuse to serve a man because he is black.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[amicusNYCL]

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally?

You're really going to compare a leader of the most recognizable hate group in the US with a homosexual?

Here's a question to pose to people saying that they should be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals based on their Christian religious views: would Jesus refuse to deal with a gay person?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[amicusNYCL]

Sign up at your local ob/gyn for a vaginal exam.

Are you trying to claim that a gynecologist would refuse to work with male patients on some sort of moral or ethical ground, as opposed to the fact that said patient doesn't even carry the equipment that the doctor is there to treat?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if the american 1st amendment protects hate speech or if the KKK are considered a terrorist organization (they fit the bill tho, so they should be) but the main difference between your example and what the law is allowing is that the Grand Wizard chose to be a member of the KKK, a homosexual or a black man did not choose to be homosexual or black. In most places people are considered responsible for their own behavior and may suffer consequences for behaving in a way contrary to their societies values (such as driving too fast or hanging other people). America's founding fathers and most modern enlightened individuals did/do not believe that someone should be punished for the circumstances of their birth.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[BoberFett]

"No coloreds" was in many places a law, not a business rule. The argument that many free market supporters make (myself included) is that the market would have naturally moved toward inclusiveness. Sure, some assholes will still be assholes. And thinking people would avoid those stores, diminishing their market presence until they disappeared naturally.

Laws that forced businesses to hide their racism let racism fester. Rather than allow those people to put their stupidity on display for the world to mock, we now had racists making tons of money of "those n*****rs" they hated. They're still racist, but now they are practically legally obligated to make money off of their object of hate. Is that really better in the long run?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lothsahn]

Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Sexual behavior is a choice.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[MatthiasF]

Extremist strawman is extreme.

Any public shop must allow the public to enter and purchase products or services. A merchant doesn't have to do everything the customer asks and they can refuse service if they have good reason. But any shop that discriminates on any stereotypical ground is at least being unprofessional and unethical but at worst breaking discrimination laws.

This law is a thinly veiled attempt to remove all of the civil rights successes of the last sixty years.

Anyone can make a religion and say they aren't allowed to do X or talk to Y, then discriminate against anyone they choose. The entire point of the United States of America (LITERALLY) was to avoid that kind of thing.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

You're free not to operate a store or restaurant if you don't want to serve everyone.

Says who? Which provision of the Constitution grants this authority?

Who determines which classes are protected? It's completely arbitrary.

If a person is denied service, what's their injury? The common law system (not to mention the US Constitution) requires an injured party to bring up a civil lawsuit. If they were extended a written offer to purchase a product, that might be an injury. But if not?

E.g. You want to force a photographer to to work an event they don't want to be at? And then I'm guessing the government will have to investigate if they did a 'good enough' job photographing the event they didn't want to be at.

Or prosecutors have to introspect the inner machinations of the professional to make sure their rationale for accepting a different event was 'good enough' for them to legally decline the one they didn't want to be at. It's absurd, but this stuff has actually happened.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone.

Sure they are. They (and you) want to take away people's freedom to avoid actions that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Maybe you have a good reason for doing so, but don't pretend that there is no restriction of freedom here. There is.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

News just in, they DO have that freedom. Celebrate diversity, or lose your own freedom.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sjames]

No, they're punishing those who are happy to help those homophobes and racists move from talk to action against the groups they don't like.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lothsahn]

would Jesus refuse to deal with a gay person?

It's not clear whether by "gay person" you mean someone attracted to the same gender or someone who has sexual relations with the same gender. In either case, Jesus would interact with them like he would interact with anyone else--with love.
The story of the woman caught in adultery shows his actions clearly:
John 8:11: “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

But this law isn't just about dealing with, talking to, or being friendly toward any group of people. It's about forcing people to participate in activities that they view as evil. http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

If I owned a printing shop, I would refuse to produce material for the Westboro Baptist Church. Similarly, it seems reasonable to me that a evangelical Christian photographer should be able to politely decline to participate in a homosexual wedding.

You should have the right to decline work that compromises your morals. I have a friend who is vegan, and he turned down a website job at a hunting magazine. That was his right.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sjames]

I'd tell him some distant ancestor of mine might have been black and he would voluntarily leave.

If not, I'd tell him to come back in his street clothes and be polite to my other customers.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Chuck Chunder]

They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

They aren't "trying to punish" anyone. They just want to host their convention somewhere where all their attendees will be welcomed.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy, because being a KKK member is an extrinsic choice and therefore a valid reason to refuse service. Race, gender, and sexual orientation are intrinsic aspects of a person and therefore not valid reasons to refuse service. If someones bigotry is such that they are unable to serve someone based on a characteristic that person is unable to change, then they have the choice not to operate a business dealing with members of the public.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[bmimatt]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone without reason.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

That bullshit argument was rejected pretty soundly 50 years ago.

Only by a slight majority of the country. That split is what cause many southern democrats to join the republican party and is currently the most significant difference between the two parties. Less federal government and states rights came out of trying to keep freedom for Jim Crow laws and lynchings.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, as long as people are free to vote for a government which doesn't waste its money protecting the property of businesses which act in such a discriminatory manner. You are welcome to your idiocy but not my defense of it.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

Some of us believe that the government isn't there to ban every single behavior that we find distasteful. That doesn't mean that we are "happy to help" encourage it.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not have noticed, but the Constitution has been amended a few times, so the founders are a bit out of date with many things.

That and a prisoner helps by the state is assuredly not legal property. The way they are treated may not be ideal,but it doesn't claim ownership of anyone.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USofA, your BUSINESS has to treat everyone the same. Regardless of race/creed/etc.

You do not have to invite a black person into your home. But you do have to serve him in your restaurant.

I remember funny (for me as foreigner) article in local newspaper (Spanish language) somewhere close to Chicago ... couple years ago.
In restaurant owner placed information - "We are sorry, but me and my personnel understand only English. Please speak English if you want service"
He explained that he had problems with groups who came, and was outraged that nobody understand them.
Is this racism or ... pragmatism? Before you answer tell us how many foreign languages do you know.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[magarity]

Congrats, you win the Internet Reductio ad Absurdum prize for at least several weeks with that one.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[TWX]

I was specifically taught that using they, them, and their was wrong when referring to a single individual because those are all plural pronouns. This was taught during the eighties and nineties for what it's worth. It was stressed that the only singular gender-neutral pronoun was one, but in practice I find that to be difficult to use.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because your religion is old, practiced mostly by whites, and full of outdated hate, doesn't mean you get special rights as a person.

If so I now create the church of I Get to Run You Over with My Car and Sleep with Your Wife.
Don't like it? Tough, it's my right since it's my religion.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[TWX]

It depends on what you mean by sexual behavior, in some senses. Nearly everyone is driven by sexual desires. How and where we express these desires becomes the question. How amorous should a couple be in public? Holding hands? Occasionally kissing? Cuddling? Canoodling? Heavy petting?

Some of that is situation-dependent. I don't think that it's sexual-orientation-dependent though. If it's inappropriate for a homosexual couple to kiss or cuddle in a given public space or situation then it's probably inappropriate for a heterosexual couple to do the same in the same environment.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[brantondaveperson]

I think you're free to not serve gays if you don't want to.

I literally cannot believe that anybody would seriously hold that opinion. It's certainly not freedom for those being denied service, is it? Oh, they're free to go somewhere else, are they? Sorry - that's not freedom. Freedom itself is a woefully under-examined notion in the good old United States of America.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course everyone in the USA has the freedom to hate homosexuals or be racists, you get to take that away from them because youve decided that its REALLY(tm) naughty.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Cyberax]

Yes, as long as they aren't causing a direct disturbance in the store or harassing other customers, I would.

It's PERFECTLY FINE to cause a disturbance. For example, to force you to walk through a human corridor, while everyone is chanting that you're a slut. Justice Scalia said so.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[brantondaveperson]

That's a pretty good question. The answer of course is that the laws on discrimination are fairly precisely written for a reason.

An organisation is not permitted to discriminate, either when hiring people or when doing business with them, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender or religion. Perhaps there are some other categories too. Whether or not these things are choices - some are, some aren't and some can be under various circumstances - is entirely and completely irrelevant. These are the protected categories enshrined in law, and signed into effect by your country's elected officials.

An organisation is permitted to implement things like dress codes (no KKK hoods...) and other rules about whether or not you are permitted in their establishment. The Klu Klux Klan is not a religion, and so it is not protected. End of conversation, and so no - you do not have to serve him.

It's little different to refusing to serve a guy who turns up naked, or shouting and screaming at your staff, or whatever. You can throw the guy out, and have the cops help you do it if you need them to do so.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[brantondaveperson]

A very intelligent and insightful comment. What are they going to do? Ask you for your gay card?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Cyberax]

My male friend had to go to a breast doctor because of mammary gland inflammation (yes, males have them too).

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

Society has a very clear interest in preventing you from running someone over in your car, which trumps your claim of religious freedom.

It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[brantondaveperson]

but the main difference between your example and what the law is allowing is that the Grand Wizard chose to be a member of the KKK, a homosexual or a black man did not choose to be homosexual or black

I wish this idea would die. The KKK Grand Wizard probably didn't really choose to be a hateful racist, it's probably a combination of an extremely poor upbringing (being taught to hate at an early age is going to be hard to reason your way out of), and poor intellectual character. A black man probably didn't choose to be black, but if a pill existed to change the color of your skin for personal reasons (hey! I want to be blue!) then one should be free to take it. And if one wants to choose to sleep with members of the same sex, then one should also be free to do so. Religion, of course, is almost always a choice.

These categories are protected, not because they are not choices, but because we as a society have agreed that they should be. Because we've seen some of the things that happen if they are not, and we don't want to go back to that world. Except, it seems, Indianapolis does.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

What death threats? The example i gave was a statement not a threat. Its no different of a threat as "hands up, don't shoot" is.

Also pedophilia is illegal, advocacy to legalize it is not. In fact, any law barring the political speech of advocacy on it would be unconstitutional.

Evidently, it is not as easy as you think. Nice attempt to skirt the issue though.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

Sexual orientation is usually not a choice. There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times. There are also a few who change orientation once over the course of their life (perhaps due to hormone level changes, or multiple bitter experiences with a particular sex. Who knows?) That ability to change indicates a choice.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[brantondaveperson]

Michael Conway's sure got a kickass tan.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

Except the courts have already said driving is a privilege not a right so the government can be arbitrary on it.

Personally, i do not care if someone drinks and drives. They will end up killing themselves or likely still be safer than people texting or eating behind the wheel. But is it really practical to invent a religion and compare it to one that has been around longer than the government and had influenced the world for centuries before? It seems a little silly to me.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

"It" is a singular gender-neutral pronoun, although it's rude to apply to a person. "Somebody" can often be used, also "body", "individual", and "person". Technically they're not pronouns, but they do serve as pronouns. I agree that frequent use of "one" is a problem; it sounds stilted.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Venner]

I fall rather squarely into the prescriptivist class of grammarians (as opposed to the extreme corpus linguists who seem to feel that language is entirely fluid and dynamic and should be bound by no rules whatsoever), but find it perfectly acceptable to use the third-person plural forms for persons of indeterminate gender or identity. While it has often been taught that using the 3rd person plurals in that way is incorrect, there are a number of pragmatic and historical reasons why it isn't so. A couple:

1.) It is readily understood by native speakers; we've been doing it that way for a very long time! Shakespeare, Chaucer, Jane Austen, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, George Bernard Shaw, George Eliot, Elizabeth Bowen, C.S. Lewis, Oscar Wilde, all have used 'them' as an indeterminate singular pronoun.

2.) It fulfills a need. Using 'he' causes an assumption, as does using 'she.' Some authors choose to alternate between the two, but that is just confusing. Saying 'he or she' and 'his or her' every time is far too wordy and cumbersome. Considering that English only has a neuter third-person plural, 'they' is a perfectly good stand-in. (Heck, the Germans use 'sie,' 'sie,' and 'Sie' (her, they, You) without any issues. Aside from some fun and intentional linguistic wordplay, ambiguity is resolved through context.)

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

"One" sounds much too stilted, generally.

"Someone is at the door, but I can't see who."

"I wonder what that one wants?" vs "I wonder what they want?"

I'll take the latter!

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

> Businesses are already prohibited from acting in an arbitrarily discriminatory manner towards people.

Sort of. You can discriminate (choose) for any reason except certain prohibited reasons. So they forced some guy to attend a religious service (gay wedding) even though he was a sole proprietor who has individual liberties to consider.

> They're calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to feed a bullshit persecution complex,

So Isis isn't burning people alive right now? Or there aren't atheists who shoot people for their religion/parking spot?

> You have the First Amendment, you don't need to have your superstition put on a privileged pedestal.

Except that's being taken away in certain circumstances, because they found that an individual person, merely because they sell cakes, can be forced to attend religious services they don't agree with.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

One problem is that some people (known as assholes) try to press the limits. If "kill" is rejected, they'll try "spit on", "beat up", "tar and feather", "torture", "behead", "amputate", etc., etc.. Each time their offensive logo is rejected, they'll sue, particularly if they''re lawyers or know someone willing to do pro-bono work to stir up the shit. Many small businesses don't make much money, and it only takes a couple of lawsuits for an asshole to destroy the life of a small business owner.

It's only been a few months since some jerk sued a bakery that refused to ice a cake with a penis decoration.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

No, don't want to take away your freedom, just financially motivate you to quit being a douche.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

You can CLAIM that it is an infringement upon your "freedom" to have to serve black people in your business.

You can CLAIM that you should be "free" to only serve white people in your business.

But you would be wrong.

Your ideas are fascinating. Please elaborate on how forcing people to do things against their will doesn't infringe on their freedom.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

If she refuses to show her face, I'd immediately assume that like any masked person, she's there to commit a robbery (Halloween excepted, maybe.) A face is how people are quickly identified; hiding the face indicates an attempt to hide identity, for which honest reasons are extremely scarce. And there's nothing honest about Islam when dealing with those outside Islam, it says so in the Koran.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[amicusNYCL]

It's about forcing people to participate in activities that they view as evil.

It is? You mean I can just be walking down the street and be compelled to attend a hate rally, or have gay sex? Well, that definitely seems like some government overreach. You might be right.

If I owned a printing shop

OOOOHH, so not just some random person walking down the street, you're actually referring to someone operating a public business, and that person being allowed to decide that they don't want to deal with an entire group of people, even though they deal with everyone else, and the government saying that it's ok for them to do that if that's what God told them to do.

Well, I think that's pretty stupid. Either you want to run a business or you don't. If you do, then when you get your business license you agree to provide your services to "the public". Not "the public who are like you."

I would refuse to produce material for the Westboro Baptist Church.

And I would support the WBC's lawsuit against you, even while thinking they are a bunch of dickheads.

a evangelical Christian photographer should be able to politely decline to participate in a homosexual wedding

By "participate in a homosexual wedding", do you mean "take pictures of the wedding and then charge for the service?" If the photographer doesn't want to offer their services to the public then they have every right to stop being a public business.

I have a friend who is vegan, and he turned down a website job at a hunting magazine.

What does that mean? That your friend operates a public business with a business license and turned away a job that he could have done but didn't want to do because he doesn't approve of the "lifestyle choices" of the people asking for his services? Or the magazine offered him employment and he said no thanks? In one of those cases he would be operating as a public business and I would disagree with his decision.

If I owned a printing shop, I would refuse to produce material for black people.

it seems reasonable to me that a evangelical Christian photographer should be able to politely decline to participate in a black wedding

I have a friend who is racist, and he turned down a website job at a black magazine.

Seriously man, as a country we already went through all of this shit. Changing the group of people doesn't change the issue.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems all too often, the people who demand the "freedom" to be bigots also insist on being free from the consequences.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet the ACLU has worked to enable the KKK to march...

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Personally, i do not care if someone drinks and drives.

I really hope you never have someone forcibly change your mind.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

You would also turn away blacks.

So just admit you are a racist scumbag and live with it.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

This law is a thinly veiled attempt to remove all of the civil rights successes of the last sixty years.

The law is in response to assholes making trouble and causing timid, straight-laced shop-owners to lose heaps of money. Instead of choosing another business to get their goods, the troublemakers insist on bringing grief to one shop.

Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies. This whole subject has come up because a small bunch of homosexuals are trying to make other people miserable.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the American Way! You take their business and do a really half-assed job to the point they'll never come back.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sribe]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone without reason.

Here's a clue for you: just because somebody posts it on a door, does not make it legal.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

we decided long ago...

No, we did not decide. The legislature, courts, and executive of the federal government decided.

You cannot be open to the public except for women.

Within 15 seconds I was able to think of 6 organizations that are sex-restricted, while typing this sentence I thought of 2 others, and all eight are highly respected. I recommend you look for counterexamples before making blanket statements.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

You'd be walking on the borderline of being an accessory before the fact to a serious crime.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

That was not the point of the United States. The point of the US was freedom from the crown, and tenets including religious freedom from the GOVT. Forcing someone to associate and do business with someone they do not want to is completely antithetical in fact.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[XxtraLarGe]

They already have that freedom. What businesses don't have the freedom to do is to treat people differently on an arbitrary basis, and the government of Indiana is trying to change it so people can, via companies, treat others like shit on the basis of their personal superstitions, which is unjustifiable and destructive.

So what you're saying is that you don't want to know who those people are so you can give them your money?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dryeo]

You're never forced to do business with people who you consider evil. Just like the vegan who turned down a job, you can turn down a job where you might be forced to serve someone you consider evil, which includes opening a public business.
As for the photographer, if he is freelance, he should be able to pick and choose, but if he works in a wedding chapel and sells wedding pictures, well he should photograph anyone who gets married in his place of work.
Printers can refuse to print objectionable material but if the West Baptist Church only wanted some parking signs printed or some such innocent material printed, you should have to print it as you are open to the public and the WBC is part of the public
It's pretty simple, the choice to serve the public means serving all the public

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it freedom to demand service a particular way? Wherein lies the creative freedom of the artist told to make cupcakes shaped like crossed penises? Or the religious freedom of ministers told to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples against the strictures of the ministers' religion? In my mind it is more onerous to use law to force someone to do something than to use law to force someone not to do something.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[R3d M3rcury]

I'll ignore the first one as being ridiculous.

The second one, though, is an exception to the rule. "Clubs" can choose members based on pretty much any reason. There can be a club that is only for women, meaning you can't become a member. They are not claiming to serve everyone--only women.

This is somewhat different than a bakery that refuses to provide a service for certain people. Conversely, if they became a "Christian Bakery Club" and charged a membership fee which you had to pay in order to join the club, they would be within their rights to deny membership in the club to homosexuals, divorcees, muslims, jews, and any other people they deem as sinners. And they wouldn't have to make cakes for those people.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[R3d M3rcury]

Besides, it would seem that Gynecologists have no problem helping male patients...

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think being 'forced' to do business is slavery, you need to spend some time in chains and learn what real slavery is. If you operate a public business, you are required to provide that service to anyone regardless of sex, creed or color. You can refuse service on plenty of other grounds - 'No shirt, no shoes, no service'. But if the KKK are stupid enough to pay their money to someone they ostensibly hate, and the content of the product isn't hate literature itself, why the fuck not? Taking their money is thumbing your nose *at* them, you stupid sack of shit.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

"The entire point of the United States of America (LITERALLY) was to avoid that kind of thing."

You don't seem to have carefully studied the events of the American Revolution. The entire point of the United States of America was so that the people who grew rich in the colonies could keep more of their money and become the tax collectors instead of tax payers.

Look up the Whiskey Rebellion. Only ten years after the defeat of the British, the new American government was cracking down on its own for cash. It gets worse from there.

Granted there are noble ideals espoused in both the American Revolution and the American Civil War, but the amount of money to be gained or lost in both those conflicts seriously calls into question the nobility of either.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[mjwx]

So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?

If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis. If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will). Pick one.

Since when were the KKK protected?

Same as if the Black Panthers or ISIS came in and asked you to print up some hate speech. You can refuse service as the job they're asking you to do is borderline illegal.

I cannot refuse to serve a Muslim or black person on account of their skin colour or religion, but I can refuse to serve someone for being unruly, disruptive, drunk, argumentative or would harm the good name of my business. That last one is important, refusing to serve people with ginger hair would harm my businesses reputation, not refusing to serve the grand pooba of the KKK would have the same effect.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

Freedom is absence of compulsion. You don't get to pick what you like and call it freedom.

Freedom is not the right answer in each and every case, but it is the proper default and should only be contravened for the most carefully examined and proven reasons.

For example: It is WRONG to refuse to serve black people, law PROPERLY prohibits you from refusing to serve black people, and it IS a restriction on your freedom.

You are attempting to pollute the language for political purposes.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[amiga3D]

I don't really get any of this. Two things come to mind. First, I find openly flaming homosexuals annoying but not more so than a lot of other things. Given that, if I'm in a business I don't care if my client or customer likes getting his asshole stretched by his butt buddy. Why would I? What does that have to do with me? I just want the cocksuckers money.
Second, if I were queer, why would I want to shop or deal with someone who doesn't want my business? If they can't stand me I'm sure I can find someone else willing to take my money.
Also, why is the state getting involved in this anyway? Don't they have anything to do? Homosexuals are a part of the landscape like a lot of things that people may or may not like. What happened to tolerance? You don't have to like people but you should at least be civil unless given reason to not be. It's the only way for millions of people who have widely varied cultures and ideas to coexist without killing each other.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[amiga3D]

Can I deny service to the idiot with a swastika tattooed on his face?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

Only those individuals who are operating a business and only in the operation of that business.

Do you mean a business registered with the government? Strictly speaking, all trades are business. There is no fundamental difference between a child buying a marble at a yard sale and Exxon buying a tanker of petroleum.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[amiga3D]

I seem to remember reading an article here recently where some language specialist claimed there were no real rules to English. Just sayin.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[amiga3D]

It's a bad law. I think even God wouldn't like it.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

If you do not have the right to say "yes" or "no" that is not freedom, that is slavery

You've chosen the wrong word. Tyranny would be a better choice.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

Try saying "Fuck you" to an angry policeman. You'll soon find yourself in jail, bruised, with a lawyer telling you that you have no case.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[mjwx]

The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though. They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

No they aren't.

They're taking a stand against a law they do not support.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Zirbert]

You cannot compare a belief (bigotry) to human condition (gender, race, sexual orientation), so your analogy is fatally flawed.

First of all, I reject the use of the word "bigotry", which is too often operationally defined as "any convictions different than mine."

But the business owners you're proposing enslaving quite likely don't care about the beliefs of their customer, they object to being forced to do things they find objectionable.

"Please bake me a cake" - sure, no problem.

"Please bake me a cake with two groom figures on it and write 'Best Wishes Elton and David' on it" - now you're forcing the baker to participate, for no reason other than because you can.

However, the law doesn't have to change for a printer to choose not to print posters for the KKK rally, since the refusal is for the job requested, not of the person.

Then you agree that the Christian photographer can decline photographing the gay wedding, since the job is what they're turning down. Now I'm not sure whether you're pro-slavery. I hope not.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though. They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

And I'm sure that a bunch of those people go to Gen Con, right? Which means that Gen Con threatening to leave means diddly squat to them. What would really make a difference to the people is if they saw sports teams threaten to leave or major game venues lose a lot of attendence.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Zirbert]

A merchant doesn't have to do everything the customer asks and they can refuse service if they have good reason.

If you remove the last four words from that sentence, then you're onto something morally defensible.

As it is, you're assuming that you get to decide what constitutes a good reason and everyone else has do to as you say. Sorry, no sale.

People enthusiastic about enslaving others to the popular agenda du jour need to remember that the current prevailing viewpoint might not always be on top.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Sabriel]

Third option: tell the person asking loaded questions to get lost. Assisting in the publishing of a written statement one knows to be false or malicious is already covered by defamation laws.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyone can make a religion and say they aren't allowed to do X or talk to Y, then discriminate against anyone they choose. The entire point of the United States of America (LITERALLY) was to avoid that kind of thing."

Wrong. Issues like taxation without representation is the point of the U.S. And if you read them, you will see that the Declaration and the Constitution are about limiting the roles of federal government vs. the authority of the states, minimizing the impact of government in citizens' lives and providing a level playing field for citizens to earn their place in life. There were no guarantees that you would succeed, but in theory you got the same chance as everyone else.

And of course, the founding fathers wanted to keep the church and the state separated, and they wanted no monarchies.

But in absolutely no way was this country founded to avoid civil rights and gay rights issues.

And if you really look at the definitions in use, the founders of the country considered the parties covered (and rights applicable to) to be free, white, over 21 land owners.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of thought is worth whatever price must be paid. If some big corporate interest wants to impose it's empty PC ideology on others, then it's time to examine the whole idea that corporations are legal entities that are permitted to protect their employees from personal liability. Call people who oppose your views whatever names you like, it comes down to individual liberty. Fascists of every strip try to silence people. In 1939 they called you a jew lover if you expressed concern about krystal nacht. Today its homophobic and of course "racist". If America can only be free by becoming poor, let us be free.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[thegarbz]

you're in favour of slavery

Nice try, but being subject to non-discrimination is not the same as slavery. Slavery would be forcing the printer to do something that he wouldn't otherwise do for anyone else under the same conditions. If the picture of George Washington is the same when given by the KKK member as it is the local black kid, then forcing you to do business with one and not the other is nothing at all like slavery.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[epyT-R]

Then it works both ways. If you associate with gay people, those who don't like gay people might choose not to associate with you. Conversely, if you make it clear you don't want to associate with gay people, they will not want to associate with you. The problem here is that the left wants to dictate who has the right of free association and who doesn't.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Stan92057]

yes your right its about forcing business to except gay marriage. The government can say anyone can get married, a church cannot. For the government its all about the fees it collects for handing out marriage license. Blood testing to make sure family members dont marry each other by mistake. I don't need a government issue license, but i need one to get the Goverment benefits. Like health insurance,IRS marriage tax breaks, life insurance. That's what this is all about. This so not about making attendees happy or whatever excuse they are using. And yes, he "Jesus" would be out of love but he would also say go and sin no more too. As he said to the prostitute.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[approachingZero]

Thank you for saying that.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dala1]

Discrimination based on behavior is the primary way in which society regulates itself. Person works for the wrong company? Discriminate away. Same if they wear the wrong clothes, or print hate literature. Problems start when you discriminate against someone because of traits inherent to that person, rather than what they do. This is because things like race and gender and sexual orientation are immutable and central to who a person is.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[kenh]

And did the conventions ever return to Arizona? I suspect they didn't, so what did Arizona gain by changing? If Indiana realizes they'll likely still lose Gen Con no matter what they do, then what?

And when half the attendees choose to not attend a 'political' convention that conflicts with their beliefs, where will the Gen Con organizers be?

And when the Gen Con folks have to pay a penalty for breaking their contract, who will step up and cover the expense?

Turning a wildly-successful convention into a cudgel to beat the organizers political opponents over the head with will likely hurt the convention much more than it will influence Indiana's decisions on religious freedom.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[kenh]

Pretty sure England was soaking the colonies to help pay for it's war with France...

Then there was that whole 'taxation without representation' thing...

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Bing Tsher E]

It's called Freedom of Association.

You're free to choose who to associate with.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[kenh]

And of course, the founding fathers wanted to keep the church and the state separated, and they wanted no monarchies.

You do realize the prohibitions regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of a federal religion were intended to let the colonies keep their own state religions, the federal government wouldn't try to take the place of the colony/state's religion.

The 'separation of church and state' argument was in response to a letter to Thomas Jefferson from the Baptist ministers from one of the colonies that was afraid the new federal government was going to force the baptists to adopt a new STATE religion.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Paradoks]

Religion, on the other hand, is undeniably a choice.

Unless forced into it by some religious group, of course.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[ultranova]

It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.

You aren't participating in a gay wedding. Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC is. Corporate veil doesn't disappear whenever that happens to be advantageous to you yet shield you the rest of the time.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ultranova]

Sexual orientation is usually not a choice. There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times.

One friend of mine hates onions but is fine with tomatoes. I hate tomatoes but am fine with onions. But one weirdo we know eats both.

That ability to change indicates a choice.

I guess wrinkly skin is just some kind of fashion amongst the elderly, then.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

People don't lose their humanity just because they work for (or own) a corporation.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

LLC does not equal corporation. If it doesn't say "inc." there isn't a corporate veil so your statement makes no sense.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[JumperCable]

http://victorylady.net/

http://michfest.com/

http://www.thealaskaclub.com/c...

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Paradoks]

Let's think about a Muslim slaughterhouse to see how this is a false dichotomy.

A Muslim slaughterhouse can refuse to slaughter pigs. However, they can't just refuse to slaughter pigs that belong to Mormons.

A black or Jewish printer can have a "no racist posters" policy, and deny racist posters. The KKK members could still have non-racist things printed. (ignoring the fact that KKK membership isn't likely to ever be a protected class).

Similarly, a person can have a, "No gay cakes" policy, and still have to sell a generic, "congratulations" cake that they normally make.

And a pharmacist can choose to not dispense certain drugs, and then be fired by their pharmacy because of refusing to do their job.

tl;dr - There's a difference in refusing to do certain things and refusing to serve certain groups of people.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey niggerboy, shut the fuck up. Quit flapping your liver lips, burrhead.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

No law actually exists that says any public business must let the general public enter and do business. Your premise is flawed factually. It's perfectly legal to do business by appointment only, by contract only, etc.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that bullshit to people who have lost family members to drunk drivers.

Christ, what an ignorant arrogant fool.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Dynedain]

Pro tip: look up the words that make LLC an acronym

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[garyisabusyguy]

As a matter of fact they have, Phoenix has gained two Super Bowls and a constant stream of conferences

Arizona got the Super Bowl XXX after Super Bowl XXVII was pulled due to regressive laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

And then it got another Super Bowl after a similar set of laws to those being considered by Indiana went by the wayside
http://www.abc15.com/sports/sp...

In addition that Phoenix Conference Center has increased its floor space many-fold and has a constant stream of conferences in the winter months when Phoenix presents a pleasant climate, Just this year both a global Scrum and PMI conference will be featured here

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Fire_Wraith]

"The law is in response to assholes making trouble and causing timid, straight-laced shop-owners to lose heaps of money. Instead of choosing another business to get their goods, the troublemakers insist on bringing grief to one shop."

Er.

Just what sort of situation do you think is going on here?

We're not talking about a gay couple coming in and wanting to have sex on the countertops.

We're talking about something like this:

Customer walks in, asks to order a cake for a wedding.
Shopkeeper asks relevant questions like what sort of flavor, decorations.
Customer responds, and mentions wanting two groom dolls or two bride dolls, or to have it made out to "Adam and Steve."
Shopkeeper refuses because it's for a gay wedding.

This isn't any different, or any less distasteful, if they were being refused because the Shopkeeper learned it was for an interracial wedding, or an interfaith wedding.

Religious Freedom should be about conducting your private life as you see fit. It should not be about forcing your beliefs onto others, nor about using those beliefs as an excuse to discriminate in otherwise public commerce, or to refuse to do the job you were hired to do (such as fill prescriptions).

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

And when half the attendees choose to not attend a 'political' convention that conflicts with their beliefs, where will the Gen Con organizers be?

No matter where GenCon is this year, expect it to be GayCon. Rainbows and Furries everywhere, but no one spending money on games or game sessions. They'll sell extra badges this year, but fewer vendors will show up next year. Maybe fewer gamers if GayCon becomes a yearly thing. The GenCon organizers invited their own long term doom for a little short term PR.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?

Yes. Who the fuck wouldn't want to? The KKK is irrelevant the day they wish to use black or Jewish printers to make their posters.

If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis.

As a Hoosier, I can wholehearted say I do not agree with that prick.

If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will).

You have an obviously fucked up definition of slavery. People don't choose slavery. People do choose to be printers (or employees of them). Nothing is to stop a printer from refusing service to the KKK but it comes at the cost of refusing service to everyone--ie, to no longer make a business of it. Meanwhile, if they were doing the thing non-commercial, they can refuse people for whatever reason they like.

You see the point? The "commercial" element? We don't recognize a right of people to commercially do things with impunity. It's why we have laws against fraud even though lying is legal. The same thing with counterfeiting, forgery, etc. It's why we have laws that allow health or other inspectors to inspect businesses and refusal equals shutting down the business. Hell, we already have specific anti-discrimination laws in the Civil Rights Act and the ADA.

The simple fact is, no sane commercial enterprise would inherently refuse more business. Sure, it's possible that a short-term gain could lead to a long-term loss, but nothing about "religious freedom" has anything to do with that. If anything, businesses would be demanding "religious tolerance" acts so when religious activities come and ask why your business serves such people, you can say that you're required to and more importantly so is everyone else, so pragmatically even if you wanted to regardless there's no where to run to protest such activities.

Pick one.

We're already so far down that road, the question to me isn't which side we should choose. It's working towards making the right sort of decisions. That's why I can be for government having closer ties with telecommunication companies for wiretapping but be against the NSA's actions. It's why I can be for government involvement in businesses yet not in a fashion that strives to deny people. I seek freedom and liberty. The purest liberty is anarchy, and honestly I don't think those "religious freedom" folk would like to see the consequences of that to their business. Simply hint: suddenly, arson wouldn't be a crime.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[radarskiy]

But you can chose to take up another line of business, therefore you are not being forced to participate in anything.

That's line that gets fed to labor when they have a problem with working conditions, why shouldn't it be fed back to capital and management?

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

I believe i just did tell them . But good job deflecting from the larger point which is inconvenient to the narrative of you have to serve every one in the ways they want else you're a bigoted pig who shouldn't be allowed to be in business.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, religion is bullshit, by and large"

Herein lies an even bigger problem.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[bledri]

The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though.

Even worse: Why would they walk away from very people who they say would be harmed by the law?

Unless, of course, they're just grandstanding.

No, you misunderstand. People from all over the world travel to conventions. If a state passes laws that allow businesses to shun LBGT (and/or other) people, then they may choose to avoid traveling to that state. The conventioneers can't make money on people that are not welcome in the state hosting the convention. Therefore, it is in conventioneers interest to host conventions in states welcoming to everyone.

Got it?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

The conventioneers can't make money on people that are not welcome in the state hosting the convention. Therefore, it is in conventioneers interest to host conventions in states welcoming to everyone.

No, here lies the misunderstanding. The state is perfectly accepting of all people: It's mandated by the state and Federal Constitution.

If we're going to start boycotting entire geographical areas because select businesses within their boundaries - fractions of a single percent - might refuse service, then... I don't even. Should I start walking into clothing stores demanding they stock clothes to fit my unusual size? Should I walk into coffee shops, demanding they accommodate my taste for foreign music and tea? And when they don't, call for a boycott of all business in the entire state? It's absurd.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. So is society denying you special privileges like incorporation, special tax breaks, and limited liability if you act like a jerk.

But you are absolutely free to personally do and believe as you wish. Seriously.

Funny how when economics is not on the side of social conservatives how they start reacting...

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[evilbessie]

Yes there is no reason for a government try to ensure that their people are not discriminated against for things which are legal by publicly operated businesses. Businesses are not people, so they do not get the rights of people. It's also a bizarre notion of most religions, as they don't tend to preach about division and discrimination, more along the lines of be nice to each other, so why this is being sold as a religions freedom I don't know.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[AmiMoJo]

Can you point to specific examples of where pure speech was curtailed by anti-discrimination laws? I don't mean cases where people were forced to provide services or sanctioned for inciting violence because those are not pure free speech issues. I'm talking about something covered by the 1st amendment.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[AmiMoJo]

It's not distasteful behaviour, it's harmful behaviour. It's kinda hard to live if all the businesses in your little tow refuse to serve you because you are gay.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[evilbessie]

Grammar is merely the tool which guides understanding. Language is about sharing information, so as long as the rules you are using are understood by all parties or that you can communicate the information so it is understood by others then it doesn't particularly matter too much. If you rely too much on book learning you miss the many interesting ways language is used which flies in the face of grammar, and history would be the poorer for that.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[AmiMoJo]

That's the deal. Society says that if you want the protections of incorporation you have to abide by the rules, which say you can't discriminate on the grounds of pretty much anything involuntary (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.)

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to instruct my chain of burger joints to check ID's at the door... Anybody with a first name of "Ralph" will be turned away at the door. My holy book over here clearly states that "Ralph shall be name of the demon who will eat the world."

So you're trying to keep Ralph hungry and speed up the voracious apocalypse?

Captcha: sinned. Oh boy.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[AmiMoJo]

Instead of choosing another business to get their goods, the troublemakers insist on bringing grief to one shop.

I guess you were on the bad guy's side when watching Scooby Doo. So what if they were criminals trying to cheat some widow out of her inheritance by haunting the old theme park, it's all the fault of those meddling kids! The audacity of standing up for justice!

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Ihlosi]

So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?

Yes. The KKK would be shooting itself in the foot if they pulled something like this, so it's not going to happen. It would be quite funny to see what the consequences would be, though.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Ihlosi]

A black or Jewish printer can have a "no racist posters" policy, and deny racist posters.

The black or Jewish printer should make every attempt to out-bid anyone else for this job. The resulting ... discussion ... at the next KKK meeting would be highly interesting, since the dividing line between fundamentalists and pragmatists would become glaringly obvious.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish i had mod points for the most truth spoken in fewest words in this thread. Wtf are these anti-freedom idiots going on about anyway?

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

You may not have noticed, but the Constitution has been amended a few times, so the founders are a bit out of date with many things.

The constitution by definition includes its amendments. If you want to mean otherwise, you say unamended Constitution.

That and a prisoner helps by the state is assuredly not legal property. The way they are treated may not be ideal,but it doesn't claim ownership of anyone.

In the ethical meaning, ownership of another person is, of course, impossible. But if the course of events ends you up in prison, that's pretty much ownership.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dave420]

So you are ignoring all the research on the subject and just assuming it's a choice because "gut feeling". Brilliant.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[stealth_finger]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

Which is the exact line this gen con should use should Indianapolis start moaning.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[stealth_finger]

They're calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to feed a bullshit persecution complex, while enshrining their hateful nonsense into law. If you can refuse business to gays because your religion says so, then you can refuse business to anyone, and that's bullshit.

Which is why all affected business owners who disagree with this act should refuse service to Christians. Freedom is two way street. See how they like being discriminated against legally, by the same measures they put in to legally discriminate you.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dfghjk]

Nice troll modded insightful. The law is to protect actions, not thoughts, and the organizers are punishing those who enact the law, not those who have bigoted thoughts.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dfghjk]

When the action of treating people equally conflicts with "religious beliefs" those beliefs are, in fact, bigotry.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

CITATION NEEDED

[not holding my breath ... you're gonna find some fun stuff about hotels and restaurants before the trail goes cold]

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[dfghjk]

Society has no interest in forcing anyone to participate in anyone else's wedding. Recognizing gay weddings under the law is about equal rights and privileges, it is not about regulating what goes on in churches.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dfghjk]

To further this point, those who are enacting this law would in another time be Klansmen and the actions the law protects are those of the KKK. White supremacy is, after all, a "religious belief" ironically justified by the KKK through the death of a jew.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[stealth_finger]

If you are a man, you are by definition unable to get pregnant and therefore unable to be served by an OB.

Where's the foetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dfghjk]

So by answering yes the black printer is forced to do the work for free? You seem to have a problem with logic.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dfghjk]

"Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies."

Wow, you couldn't be any more ignorant.

"This whole subject has come up because a small bunch of homosexuals are trying to make other people miserable."

And an bigot as well.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[tburkhol]

But is it really practical to invent a religion and compare it to one that has been around longer than the government and had influenced the world for centuries before?

Yes. "Freedom of religion" does not contain any qualifiers. Your religion doesn't have to have a specific number of adherents, it doesn't have to have a long and glorious history, it doesn't have to have won wars against any other religion. It only has to be a set of beliefs or principles you take on faith. Those beliefs can change every 20 seconds, based on communication from from $DEITY, personal revelation, or direction of wind. "Freedom of religion" means that Catholicism is just as valid, and has exactly the same privileges as Quakerism, Sikhism, Jedism, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Just because you believe your One True Faith does not negate my One True Faith.

It's worth pointing out that "Freedom of Religion" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. The courts have frequently found that the needs and safety of secular society trump religious practice. Perhaps most notably, faiths that support polygamy may not have multiple bondings recognized as marriage. Even snake-handling is illegal in many states.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[stealth_finger]

http://beta.sheilaswheels.com/... Sheila's Wheels. While they don't flat out refuse men, their service is so heavily geared towards women it's really not worth it if you are breastically challenged, there's another company doing the same but I can't remember the name, something about diamonds. Women only sessions at the swimming pool, they never have a men only time slot. Women's hour on Radio 4. There's no men's hour. Not really the straight definition you demanded but there are times when it's apparently ok to say women only when you can't say men only. This is also UK so another easy reason for you to dismiss it.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dfghjk]

Well, black men are men and homosexual men are men, so if you think service has never been refused to those men by the businesses you list then you are willingly uninformed. As for "winning a discrimination lawsuit" some have and many haven't, but this type of action is already recognized as both unacceptable and often illegal, otherwise there wouldn't be an interest in a law to preserve the discrimination.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is exactly the opposite of coercing someone to do something for you.

Remember when they coerced black people to pick cotton for white people? That was called slavery.

Even when they coerced white people and paid them it was called indentured servitude, not freedom.

So if I go to a black person and ask them to pick my cotton, and they don't pick my cotton, then they are denying me service and violating my freedom?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[JonnyCalcutta]

Bit of a strawman there. Nobody is saying people have to stock specific products for LGBT people - only that they have to serve them whatever they do sell. They can't refuse to serve them just because they are gay.

The coffee shop doesn't have to stock special gay tea, but they have to sell coffee to gay people in exactly the same way they serve it to everyone else.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[tehcyder]

Society has a very clear interest in preventing you from running someone over in your car, which trumps your claim of religious freedom.

It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.

How can you be forced to participate in a gay wedding? Do you mean the priest? I can't believe that a gay couple getting married would want an unwilling priest to officiate.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[mog007]

Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies.

Who do you think were the biggest opponents against civil rights issues for non-whites during the mid 20th century?

The same rhetoric about gay marriage was espoused back then, only it was targeting interracial marriage. Verses from the bible were even used to justify it as a "sin".

Christians, on the whole, have probably come to accept the idea that non-whites should be treated equally under the law, but that wasn't the majority opinion back in the 40's or earlier.

In 50 years it's not inconceivable to imagine that the majority of Christians will accept that gay and bisexual people should be treated the same as straight people.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[tehcyder]

"No coloreds" was in many places a law, not a business rule. The argument that many free market supporters make (myself included) is that the market would have naturally moved toward inclusiveness. Sure, some assholes will still be assholes. And thinking people would avoid those stores, diminishing their market presence until they disappeared naturally.

So racism only existed because of government interference in the free market?

Who knew?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[tburkhol]

If we're going to start boycotting entire geographical areas because select businesses within their boundaries - fractions of a single percent - might refuse service, then... I don't even.

We're talking about a state law here, which presumably represents the general will of the people of the state. If Indiana puts up border signs saying "Welcome to Indiana, Gays may be refused service" it doesn't really matter whether 90%, 1%, or 0% of businesses actually do so - putting it in the law declares it a value of the people of the state.

Should I start walking into clothing stores demanding they stock clothes to fit my unusual size? Should I walk into coffee shops, demanding they accommodate my taste for foreign music and tea?

Orthogonal issues: this is not about stocking a particular product, this is about making a product equally available to any person. If the clothing store refuses to fit you until you pledge devotion to Allah, or if the best coffee shop in town demands you kiss a copperhead snake before you place your order, then maybe you'd have a complaint.

If you really want to push the coffee-tea analogy, would you take a large, diverse group of friends to a coffee shop that explicitly refuses to serve tea, knowing that some of your friends prefer tea? I suspect you would find a different shop/state that is more willing to accommodate your group. You might even tell the store owner that you're sad you couldn't bring your party to his place, but for the discrimination against tea.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[tehcyder]

Obviously, I'm going to have to start a holy burger war to resolve whose right.

That would be a flame war.

*rimshot*

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

And a nice Chianti.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

And if a store puts up a sign that says "WHITES ONLY", how would you react?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting your post with "WRONG" doesn't count as a citation.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this 5 insightful? KKK isn't a protected class.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be willing to bet that anyone dumb enough to refuse service to people based on how they were born will lose "heaps of money" without assistance from anyone.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[silentcoder]

Now imagine this little scenario:
I own a dingleberryjuice bar in California, so I need a regular supply of dingleberries to squeeze for juice.
I am currently getting these imported but I hear that a company in Indian is supplying them and might be cheaper, so I send one of my top quality assessors to Indiana to go look at their product and determine if it's suitable for our needs.
He gets there on his business trip but he can't find anywhere to stay because every hotel is refusing him a room for being gay...

Interstate commerce just got fucked over by this law.

Now this scenario is interesting because if you replace "gay" with "black" you have EXACTLY the scenario that LBJ's administration sketched before the supreme court when the civil rights act was challenged on exactly the same grounds you are using to defend this.

And if it messes with interstate commerce - it's outside the scope of states rights and INSIDE the scope of federal law.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww, a knee jerk statement. That wasn't what he was saying... And his post deserved a better rebuttal if you had one to offer. Stop being the lowest common denominator and step above the inadequate genes you've been cursed with.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[silentcoder]

>There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times.

Erm no they don't. As a bisexual person let me school you: I don't "choose a man sometimes" and "choose a woman" other times - at ALL times I'm attracted to men and at the same time to women.
Who I choose to sleep with on this occasion is determined by availability, individual attraction and circumstance - but it's not a choice about WHAT I'm attracted to, I am ALWAYS attracted to BOTH.
Bisexual is not something distinct from gay or straight - which are not THAT distinct from each other. Sexual orientation is a spectrum and nobody is entirely at EITHER end. The closer you are to the middle the more bisexual you will identify.

> That ability to change indicates a choice

No it doesn't, you have no evidence to back that up and the testimony of most people who make such changes do not support your assertion: the vast majority would say they were lying before that point, usually out of fear of oppression.
Even if you could factor those out - the remaining few may not indicate a choice at all - you yourself gave one reason why not: hormone changes.
Sexual orientation is a physical attribute of our bodies (including our brains) - like all other physical attributes it can change over time - but that doesn't constitute a "choice" anymore than you CHOOSE to have your hair turn gray or your scalp go bald when you get older.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[silentcoder]

>race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonie

But this is a recent development - it was a major issue for them in the past. Slavery was defended on the grounds of Christianity, as was segregation.
Indeed - I would go so far as to say the only REASON why it isn't a major issue with Christianity today is BECAUSE the civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate in the way most Christians 70years ago thought they were supposed to and the churches eventually adapted.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[silentcoder]

Mind you Appartheid was ALSO defended on the grounds of Calvinist Christianity - I should know, it was MY people who came up with that piece of stupid.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lothsahn]

By "participate in a homosexual wedding", do you mean "take pictures of the wedding and then charge for the service?" If the photographer doesn't want to offer their services to the public then they have every right to stop being a public business.

This is the biggest strawman I've ever seen. If you were the photographer here: http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

How exactly would you be able to offer photographic services to people without being a public business? It sounds to me like their options are:
a) Can't work as a photographer
b) Be required to violate their religion

I have a problem with forcing them to do it either way. And if I was a gay couple, I sure as hell wouldn't want them photographing my wedding anyway--their heart wouldn't be in it, and they'd probably do a terrible job.

It's not like they have a monopoly. Find another photographer who cares to do your wedding.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lothsahn]

As for the photographer, if he is freelance, he should be able to pick and choose, but if he works in a wedding chapel and sells wedding pictures, well he should photograph anyone who gets married in his place of work.

The photographer linked in my original post here was a freelance photographer being sued for "picking and choosing".

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lothsahn]

OOOOHH, so not just some random person walking down the street, you're actually referring to someone operating a public business, and that person being allowed to decide that they don't want to deal with an entire group of people, even though they deal with everyone else, and the government saying that it's ok for them to do that if that's what God told them to do.

Specifically, that's NOT what they do. From my linked article: the Huguenins' photography business does serve gay and lesbian clients, just not same-sex weddings.[1]

So it's actually very close to what you say. They provide photographs to all classes of people, but they don't provide photography services for certain events: Gay Marriages, Photographs depicting violence, and nude maternity photos.[1]

In other words, the Huguenins are being sued for being required, by law, to attend and participate in a gay wedding.

Sources:
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dryeo]

It's a border line case but from the article I think the photographers were in the right to limit their business to traditional weddings.
When the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that denying gay marriage was unconstitutional they also stated that priests and such can not be forced to perform them but marriage commissioners, JPs, etc can be fired for refusing.
It's always hard when rights conflict, I'd hate to be a judge in those kind of cases.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[ultranova]

People don't lose their humanity just because they work for (or own) a corporation.

But neither does it extend to the corporation. Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC doesn't have a religion even if its owner(s) and employee(s) do, and thus can't refuse anything on religious grounds. An employee of Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC may feel servicing sexual, ethnical, political or other minorities is unacceptable, and if so Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC must deal with the issue as it sees fit within limits dictated by law; but Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC is not that employee.

You don't get to put down your corporate shield whenever that suits you, yet hide behind it the rest of the time.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.

You are never forced to "participate" in gay weddings. You will never go to jail for refusing to bake a cake. There will be legal consequences to your cake business, because your cake business doesn't have the same rights of free association that you enjoy. You can be a bigot without legal consequence. Your business cannot. If you don't like the ground rules, you don't have to bake any cakes. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Cederic]

No. They're welcome and allowed to hate anybody they like.
They're just not allowed to use that hatred to treat people differently based on involuntary characteristics such as gender, race or sexuality.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Cederic]

Who tattooed it there? Why is it there? What's your issue with a Hindu symbol of auspiciousness?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Cederic]

Heh, yeah - print the wrong date.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

To me it will always he, him or his unless you know its female. They, them and their is plural.

Just use "it" as in "It puts the lotion on its skin."

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Cederic]

"Nice fancy dress. Mind, you should be careful in these parts - someone might mistake you for an ignorant bigoted twat"

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill is identical to a federal law written by Chuck Schumer, passed by a Dem controlled Congress, and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

Once again, "Liberals" only notice "isms" when someone else is doing it. Those are your douchebags.

It also doesn't "allow" discrimination. Read the bill, all four pages of it. It says the STATE cannot compel people to act against their faith through legislative action. You can still sue, and win, if a company violates your rights.

And GenCon has no other cities in the Midwest with facilities that size save Columbus. They won't go anywhere soon. And since they've been looking anyway, the threat is meaningless.

Also, they were in Milwaukee for decades with Fundies screaming about "Satanism" and forcing them to kowtow, so they're hardly on any moral high ground.

Grow up.

And remind the so-called "liberals" that they're just as big of shitbags.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill is identical to a federal law written by Chuck Schumer, passed by a Dem controlled Congress, and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

Once again, "Liberals" only notice "isms" when someone else is doing it. Those are your douchebags.

It also doesn't "allow" discrimination. Read the bill, all four pages of it. It says the STATE cannot compel people to act against their faith through legislative action. You can still sue, and win, if a company violates your rights.

Try not being ignorant. It's a wonderful feeling.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Cederic]

If I'm in a foreign country and can't make myself understood in a shop or restaurant, I'm not going to get upset when the proprietor suggests through non-violent physical cues that perhaps another establishment may better suit my needs.

Why would I expect the US to have a different approach?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, willfully ignorant crackers like you do indeed practice the constitution originally intended by the framers. After all, they all had African-Americans as slaves and, like the GOP and their faithful libertarian lapdogs of today, intended for all ethnic minorities to have no rights. Businesses are open to the public so they must accommodate everyone, not just cracker, homophobic population that insists on dropping out of school at the 6th grade to illegally wed their siblings. Don't want to serve the gays or lesbians? Then don't go into business, that simple.

"Eventu rerum stolidi didicere magistro."
(The stupid have no teacher except their own experience.)

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

So the customer has the freedom to demand service, but the server does not have the freedom to refuse.

In any case, you're wrong, and that's not what the law says.

But being informed is HARD, isn't it?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Or whole towns could adopt similarly hateful attitudes and make it de-facto.

We already have that in Indiana. Look up the history of Martinsville, Indiana sometime...

CAPTCHA: Malice

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

No it is not.

If a person or business wishes to participate in the market it must participate in the entire market, meaning anyone willing to do business with them, customers included. the only permissible reasons for not doing so must be business related decisions, like being unable to take on any further work, unable to agree on a transaction, or so forth.

But denial of service rooted in discrimination ("I don't like your skin color" or "I don't like your sexual orientation") is not allowed, and not a right.

Our country has been through all this before.
It's not new and neither are the concepts.

Title II of the CRA of 1964 spells it out quite clearly when it "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... )

Things like redlining, segregated lunch counters (or just straight up whites only establishments) all serve to produce only one thing: the inability of an entire class of people to participate fairly and equally in the same markets.

What you propose is not a tenet of freedom, but a restriction and deprivation of freedom.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

and

Katzenbach v. McClung
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[thefolkmetal]

You might want to take your own advice. LLC != Inc. Though, granted, the reasons for setting up either one are largely the same, but they are certainly not the same thing.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

1 - Private entities have the right of freedom of association.
2 - Businesses are not private entities.
3 - Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
4 - Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
5 - Katzenbach v. McClung

It's the same arguments all over again, ignoring past and already settled legal precedent/authority.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

This law is identical to one your democrat shitbag buddies passed at the Federal level in 1993. Written by Chuck Schumer, passed by a Dem Congress, signed by Bill Clinton.

Go ahead, tell me how racist and homophobic they are. I want you to admit it.

Also, it doesn't do any of the things you say it does, but straw men are easier than actually reading the bill, aren't they?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

Bingo.

I can't believe people need this stuff spelled out for them.
It's like they weren't taught it in history class.

But then...a lot of people weren't, because the right has been successful at raising a hue and cry when people try to teach it or talk about it.
They say "people would stop being sexist/racist/anyotherist if you just stopped talking about it".

But what really happens when you stop talking about it?
They forget the lessons of the past.
Or never learn them in the place.

And that's how we get stupid laws like these and end up having the same arguments all over again!

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Dynedain]

I never said LLC = Incorporation.

A Limited Liability Corporation IS a type of corporation whereas the AC above claimed otherwise.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

Your argument doesn't make any sense. A corporation is an abstract entity that is made up of people. It doesn't exist in any independent sense. If you force a corporation to do something, you are forcing the people employed by that corporation to do it.

You don't get to put down your corporate shield whenever that suits you, yet hide behind it the rest of the time.

When have I claimed that an employee gets to hide behind this "corporate shield" whenever they like? A person, whether they are an employee (or owner) of a corporation, are still legally and morally responsible for their own actions. You can certainly be prosecuted for a crime committed while working for a corporation.

You are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that the concept of "limited liability" is more all-encompassing than it really is. That applies to the financial liability of shareholders, not to the actions of the corporation's employees.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

You ask him to remove his hood, he says no, you refuse service, he sues because you didn't ask the Muslim woman to remove her hijab.

fortunately, this law doesn't do any of the things you think it does, and is identical to one at the federal level written by Chuck Schumer, passed by a Dem Congress, and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

I keep hammering that point because you /.tards are fucking ignorant.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

The law is that any shop open to the public must accommodate the entire public, and cannot refuse service for any discriminatory reason.
The law is that the right to do business with someone is established from the customers point of view.
The law is that shops don't get to choose their customers.

And you should read up on how Christianity was indeed used as an excuse to discriminate against blacks.
Bills EXACTLY like this one were used to try and get around the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination in the marketplace.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[thefolkmetal]

Sure, I'll grant you that he is wrong. An LLC does offer some of the same protections that an Incorporation does. However, being the pedantic asshole that I am, I am simply pointing out that you told him to check out the words that make the acronym - but you yourself are confused. They spell out Limited Liabiltiy Company, NOT Corporation.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally?

He would be asked to remove his hood upon entering the store.

If he did not remove it, he would be asked to leave. At which point he is trespassing if he stays.

If he did remove his hood then you'd have a funny story to tell all your friends about who the Grand Wizard is. Want to see it on CCTV?

So let me see. You'd ask a Muzzie to remove her niqab when she came into the store?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[amicusNYCL]

It sounds to me like their options are:
a) Can't work as a photographer
b) Be required to violate their religion

Notwithstanding the fact that photographing a gay wedding in no way, shape, or form is a violation of any religion (feel free to support your position with published religious doctrine if you feel otherwise), but, yeah, those are pretty much their options. If they want to work as a public photographer then they lose the right to turn people away based on their own insecurities. If they want to be an insecure photographer then simply don't run a public business. Go word of mouth, you don't need a business license and the government can't tell you how to operate.

And if I was a gay couple, I sure as hell wouldn't want them photographing my wedding anyway--their heart wouldn't be in it, and they'd probably do a terrible job.

There's a major point in that statement which should make much of this discussion moot, which I agree with. If you don't like someone, don't use their services. Problem solved. That starts to break down though when the number of people offering a certain public service is small within a certain area, but in general I agree. I don't necessarily think that anyone *should* be forced to do a certain job, but I have far, far more disagreement with the notion that someone should be able to discriminate wholesale against groups of people based on their hatred. Let's face it, this isn't about religious doctrine, it's about simple hatred. I have never seen a Christian teaching which says that people need to avoid associating or coming into contact with homosexuals. It's not about religious principles, it's about hate. They just try to claim that their hate is based on religion, but the fact is that they are distorting their religion to justify their hate.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[BarbaraHudson]

You're free not to operate a store or restaurant if you don't want to serve everyone.

Says who? Which provision of the Constitution grants this authority?

You know that the Constitution isn't the only law you have to obey. There's nothing in the Constitution about speed limits, no parking and handicapped parking zones, social security,

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[amicusNYCL]

I think you're misusing the word "participate". They are not being required to participate in a gay wedding (as if the wedding could not take place without their participation), and there is no religious doctrine which states Thou Shalt Not Photograph A Gay Wedding.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ralphsiegler]

Look up the word discrimination in the dictionary; it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[pnutjam]

Ha, I'll bite.
Those racists would have hidden it, law or no law. The homophobic are doing it right now:
http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/01/28/mormon-leaders-advocate-gay-rights-protections-religious-freedom/

This, let the free market sort it out, sounds great when it doesn't affect you. It's typical white or wealth privilege telling people that whatever bothers them is just a minor inconvenience and they should ignore it until it goes away. Meanwhile, they would never tolerate something like that affecting them.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ralphsiegler]

Example not stupid at all, it shows discrimination can be fine and legal which was what was requested. Sorry logic fails you.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[pnutjam]

What if my religion prohibited me from dealing with disabled? Should I have to incur expenses for disabled access?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[pnutjam]

That's never stopped a Christian before.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[pnutjam]

Chuck Schumer sounds like a dick, and I refuse to be tarred with my parents brush. 1993 was over 20 years ago. There is a new generation of voters now.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[pnutjam]

I think that's true, but there is no federal law that protects gay rights. There will be someday, but not today.

I hope this causes more reasonable people to go to the polls. This is the kind of shit that happens when you have less then 30% voter turnout. Every year gives them more opportunity to gerrymander and lock real people out of the process (real lazy people, but real people).

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[davester666]

Have you seen what corporations have done? Lots people do check their humanity at the door.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

I haven't even bothered looking for pure speech issues so i couldn't tell you of any.

I'm puzzled to why you ask about speech only. The first amendment protections cover religion also. Its not limited to just speech. I don't know if you knew that. Maybe you had something else in mind.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[whitroth]

That's funny, here I thought there were laws against that, if you're a public accommodation.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and the Civil Rights Movement never happened, and Blacks, Jews, or anyone else can be turned away in, say, a public restaurant, or a motel, or....

              mark "if you don't like an open society, and want to be a bigot, you can leave and start your own country;
                                            I recommend Iran for your tastes...."

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[AmiMoJo]

Religious freedom only covers individuals, not businesses. It also doesn't seem to trump discrimination.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

Lol.. this has nothing to do with a one true faith. An established religion like Christianity or Islam has known values and ideas established long before anyone could be wanting to invent a religion in order to skirt law or regulation. That is why it is questionable to compare them.

As for protections, yup. I agree. But polygamy will likely be made legal because the argument for gay marriage has already been used for it and failed in the past. But if gay marriage is upheld as a right, there would be no reason other than the ones used against gay marriage to prohibit polygam. That being said, the comment was about having state law and courts deny established religious freedom and the necessity of a law like this.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

What about when a Muslim woman wearing a burkha comes in...does she have to remove her veil?

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[baristabrian]

If somebody walks into my store with a T-shirt that says "I HATE Niggers!" I would ask them to leave the store and, no, I wouldn't serve them. Otherwise, it my be hard to tell if s/he were a racist turd that I was serving. Personally, I think homosexuality is distasteful, "wrong," even. No big deal. I know there are some spiritual Neanderthal types who would *hate* on me just for saying it. That's *their* problem. Maybe next life they come back as *straight* or more *tolerant* people. One does not have to like broccoli. One needs to accept that *others* may like broccoli. Fuck you if you say it's wrong to *not* like broccoli. Fuck you if you think it's wrong to *like* broccoli. I do not buy or sell or eat (or encourage others to eat) broccoli. Now, if a person walks into my store and doesn't tell me, how would I know that *he* [for example] sucks cocks or takes it up the ass unless they wear a T-shirt proclaiming something like that? I won't refuse service to people because of what they look like, e.g. Color of their skin, gender, nationality. That's wrong. Period. How they behave? That's another matter. Do they torture kitties? Molest children? That's not something related to appearance, age or gender. Normally, I'm totally and irrefutably ignorant about what people do in their bedrooms---whether close friends or strangers. Straights or GBLT's. None of my concern. In the end, it's an individual's right to follow their conscience. And, yes, it's an individual's right to not patronize my store. Some shit just should not be an issue---like what goes on in the bedroom. And, if my store sold sex toys, I would sell dildos to *anybody.* But I wouldn't perform a wedding for two muff divers or fudge packers if I could avoid it. Just saying. Again, if you are really secure in who the fuck you are and really comfortable with what you allow into *your* orifices, good for you. Then you shouldn't freak out and go "hateful" on me just because I say "broccoli is evil." Some GBLT people really do seem hateful. Just saying. Either way, let's just keep all that shit in the bedroom and we'll *all* be OK.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[baristabrian]

I can believe you *can't* believe. Many people, besides yourself, just don't get freedom. Good luck with that.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

Nay, this is a straw man: There's been no reports of businesses refusing service to people by sexual orientation. (How could they tell?)

There have been businesses who have refused to bake cakes depicting such couples, and refused to photograph events with such individuals, who have gotten themselves in trouble with state laws for doing so.

My point is boycotting an entire state for what select businesses within might do is absurd. It applies to any situation.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

We're talking about a state law here, which presumably represents the general will of the people of the state. If Indiana puts up border signs saying "Welcome to Indiana, Gays may be refused service" it doesn't really matter whether 90%, 1%, or 0% of businesses actually do so - putting it in the law declares it a value of the people of the state.

It's been the law of the land since the beginning, though. Sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Indiana, and the same law already exists in Federal statute, and has been upheld by SCOTUS.

Orthogonal issues: this is not about stocking a particular product, this is about making a product equally available to any person.

A cake depicting a heterosexual couple is a different product than a cake depicting a homosexual couple. In other states, business owners have found themselves in trouble for refusing to sell the latter. Likewise for wedding photography.

I'm aware of no case where people would be turned away because they're known to be a certain sexual orientation. That just doesn't happen (though it could, that is within their right).

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

You know that the Constitution isn't the only law you have to obey. There's nothing in the Constitution about speed limits, no parking and handicapped parking zones, social security,

If the Constitution hasn't granted Congress the power to pass those respective laws, then they're unconstitutional and will be unenforceable in court. (In practice, the President appoints judges, so over time they usually get their way regardless of what it says.)

The point is, I never signed any contract as a business owner compelling me to serve anyone.

If I sit down at a restaurant and the waiter delivers my order, that's an implicit contract.

If I walk into a supermarket and see a cake "on sale until Tuesday, $19.99 while supplies last", that's an contract.

If I walk into a bakery and ask for a quote for catering, they're under no obligation to serve me (until I accept the quote, that's an explicit contract.) They can turn me down for whatever reason strikes their fancy.

But if you really think businesses should serve "everyone", how do you feel about forcing a Jewish bakery to cater for neo-nazis?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

Nice theory but wrong. Or are you going to claim that the freedom of the press only applies to individuals and not businesses too? There certainly is no distinction within the first amendment. It says congress shall make no law, not none of these laws or except in this case.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[JustSomeProgrammer]

In all honesty... I think it might be less about trying to punish those people for being homophobic and more about trying to make sure all guests feel welcome and able to attend the event. There may be gay people who want to go to the event, but businesses like hotels or restaurants may refuse them service thus making them feel unwelcome at the event.

I honestly can't understand why any convention would want to be located someplace where all of their potential attendees aren't welcome.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[athenaprime]

Sure, except Christianity's tenets say fuck-all about serving gays. Not in the Commandments or the Beatitudes. Jesus had a hell of a lot to say about hypocrites and greedy bastards, though. Bottom line--if your BUSINESS uses MY tax money, my civic utilities like roads and cops and firefighters, and my civic infrastructure, then you Render Unto Caesar What Is Caesar's and abide by the same civic rules as everybody else. Be a special snowflake on your own dime and in your own church.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[athenaprime]

Exactly when were you forced to go into business against the tenets of your faith? Did the jack-booted troops come to your door and force you to open a gift shop full of Pagan idols or voodoo supplies?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

AZ vetoed it. Fag.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[BarbaraHudson]

If the Constitution hasn't granted Congress the power to pass those respective laws, then they're unconstitutional and will be unenforceable in court.

The Constitution sets limits on the powers of the federal government, as well as its responsibilities and powers.

Those powers not reserved by the federal government are powers that fall to the individual states. And individual states handle things like incorporating towns and cities, and give them the right to regulate and tax activities and properties within their boundaries.

Or have you forgotten that most of the individual states have legalized same-sex marriage, because they have the power to?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[MatthiasF]

No, the civil rights battles STARTED with religion and continued on to race, women and homosexuals.

This law would literally blow away ALL civil right progress since Philadelphia in 1776, not just Montgomery in 1955.

Completely un-American to support discrimination of any kind for any people and I would even debate un-Christian as well.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

Lol.. bullshit. There are a lot of places in the bible referencing what we would call gays. There are at least seven references with at least one in the new testament.

As for a specific reference to serving gays, it is obvious that you are not supposed to enable or participate sin.

And don't worry, they are not using anything that belongs to you. Once it is taken from you, it is not yours any more. But even if you think you paid for it, you didn't, someone else did.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not replace arms with gorillas and then everyone has a right to bear gorillas?

You can't arbitrarily substitute words in legal documents, amendments and laws included. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Then again, no monkeying with words is required to protect freedom of religion. You do need to combine a supreme court ruling from the 1930s that basically strikes down the first amendment while granting all sorts of powers to the Supreme Court with a very creative mind that is able to dissociate sexual morality from religion and in stead align it with ritual killings I order to make it work.

There is still scientific debate about whether GLBT are "born that way", however it is clear by the way the GLBT lobby is proceeding that they clearly don't believe it themselves by the way they are getting recruitment drives into primary schools. They only suggest it so they can equate it with race or gender.

In all the cases I have seen it wasn't genetics, it was a lifestyle choice made (much) later in life.

Is America willing to throw away religious freedom - a founding value - to grant new rights to a lifestyle choice? Well the GLBT lobby thinks so, and they will throw all sorts of labels around to get their way. Typical schoolyard bullying tactic, and it seems to be working all too well out of school, if you buy into their rhetoric.

BTW before anyone gets all labelly on me - I don't "hate gays", but I really hate the bullying tactics of the militant factions in the GLBT lobby. Any lobby who is willing to attack the people it is supposed to represent because they happen to disagree on a point or two is out of control.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[brantondaveperson]

Thanks. It seems to be going pretty well so far.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

The Constitution sets limits on the powers of the federal government, as well as its responsibilities and powers.

Many of the state constitutions, like Indiana, further restrict the allowed behavior of the state.

Strictly speaking, states don't issue marriages, they issue marriage licenses, and only has effect for legal or statutory reasons (like taxes, inheritance), as well as anyone who asks for such a marriage license when doing so is lawful. So I'm not sure what point you're getting at.

I'll repeat my question: You're comfortable with compelling a Jewish bakery to cater food for neo-nazis, under threat of fine and/or prison?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

The coffee shop doesn't have to stock special gay tea, but they have to sell coffee to gay people in exactly the same way they serve it to everyone else.

This. I cannot grok or fathom why this is such a difficult people to understand. Well, of course, I can (*cough* religion). Why are we even discussing this in the 21st century? I think that we need to start being honest with ourselves as a society. Many aspects of religions are simply incompatible with free societies, including (but certainly not limited to) trapping young children in building and force feeding them bullshit.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lord Kano]

So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?

If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis. If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will). Pick one.

I remember when this happened and none of the hypocrites who are against this law said a thing in support of these people who wanted nothing more than to buy their child a birthday cake.

LK

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lord Kano]

Did these people sue when the bakery refused to sell them a cake?

Where was your outrage then?

LK

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lord Kano]

You are mistaken.

What prompted this law was a bakery in Oregon was driven into bankruptcy because they declined to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

They were willing to sell the couple a different cake but that wasn't acceptable to the couple. They wanted to compel the bakery to make their wedding cake or face financial penalties.

THIS is why religious freedom laws are needed.

LK

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[BarbaraHudson]

They can always sub-contract it out and take their 20%. But do you honestly think that neo-nazis are going to want to eat only kosher? No bacon, no ham, etc.? (And the bakery isn't discriminating by refusing to supply non-kosher food to them because they don't supply it to anyone).

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[cold fjord]

Wow, you couldn't be any more ignorant.
And an bigot as well.

How ironic that you seem to roll that way yourself.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[cold fjord]

Who do you think were the biggest opponents against civil rights issues for non-whites during the mid 20th century?

National Socialists, Fascists, and assorted white supremicists. Whom were you thinking it was?

The same rhetoric about gay marriage was espoused back then, only it was targeting interracial marriage. Verses from the bible were even used to justify it as a "sin".

Acutally no, it wasn't "rhetoric about gay marriage." It was rhetoric about interratial marriage. You should also know (in case you don't) that many African Americans take offense at that comparrison.

So called "gay marriage" is its own topic.

Christians, on the whole, have probably come to accept the idea that non-whites should be treated equally under the law, but that wasn't the majority opinion back in the 40's or earlier.

Where do you think the abolitionist (anti-slavery) movement came from, and when? It was from the Christian church, and well before the 1940s.

You seem to be confusing the positions held by a minor portion of some American churches with that of Christianity world-wide. That isn't a good assumption.

In 50 years it's not inconceivable to imagine that the majority of Christians will accept that gay and bisexual people should be treated the same as straight people.

They are. God loves people that engage in homosexuality or bisexuality and offers them the same forgiveness of sins in Christ as anybody else.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Uberbah]

An Adolf Hitler cake is your counter-example? The dumbfuckery is strong with this one.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Uberbah]

"Then there was that whole 'taxation without representation' thing..."

That's just another part of the farce though. Because people had to pay taxes but couldn't vote unless they owned property. Which is.....taxation without representation.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Uberbah]

Then you know even less about the concept of irony than Alanis Morissette, but you are a very stupid person.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lord Kano]

Your hypocrisy is strong.

The bakery chose to not make a birthday cake for an innocent child.

Where was your outrage then?

LK

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

You did, actually. Might I suggest you show us your law license if you want to continue arguing otherwise?

G

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Rakarra]

But the narrative that is being pushed that they are standing up to racists or homophobes by taking this action is inaccurate. They're primarily trying to make life painful for people that largely agree with them in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.

This sounds suspiciously like the revisionism we hear these days that the South in the US Civil War was never fighting for slavery but instead "freedom" or the southern way of life (despite that the only issue either side gave much time too was slavery).

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Rakarra]

practiced mostly by whites

Have you seen Sub-Sahara Africa? Do you know what religion they practice?
What religion do you think Southern Blacks practice?

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[Rakarra]

You aren't participating in a gay wedding. Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC is. Corporate veil doesn't disappear whenever that happens to be advantageous to you yet shield you the rest of the time.

But if Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC is all of one person (as many llcs and catering businesses are) or a couple, then yes, he is participating in a gay wedding. He is not somehow not participating in the wedding if his company is hired by the wedding party.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's true, but there is no federal law that protects gay rights. There will be someday, but not today.

Seriously? You don't have equal rights in your constitution? And the US is not a signatory to the UN charter on human rights either?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[pnutjam]

I think the current ruling is equal right do not equal gay rights, and don't get the tea-tards started on UN charters.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

Is that your way of saying you have not been paying attention to the news over the last few years nor do you know how to use google?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ruling+bu... >Here, let me help you. Now if you scroll down a bit, you will find at least the bakery and the florist situation. There are a couple others that I know of, one in which a couple offered their farm home to members of their church for weddings because of the "view" and was forced to allow gays to wed there due to state law.

Seriously, google is your friend.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are a list of, as you call them, bigots who signed the identical federal law under Clinton:
Joe Biden (D-DE) (current US Vice President)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) (the “Lion of the Senate”)
John Kerry (D-MA) (current US Secretary of State)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (former mayor of San Francisco)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) (poorly closeted alleged lesbian)
Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Paul Simon (D-IL) (former presidential candidate)
Bill Bradley (D-NJ) (former presidential candidate)

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Uberbah]

"Kano is ten pounds of dumbfuck in a five pound sack"

If a bakery refuses to put that on a cake, which group is is discriminating against?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[cold fjord]

...but you are a very stupid person.

Coming from a brilliant person such as you I'll have to seriously consider that.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

Ya....no.
Not how it works.

Freedom of Association applies to private persons and groups, not to a business operating in the public market.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

you cannot be forced to engage in someone else's discrimination.
you cannot force your own discrimination on others.
it's not fucking difficult.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

most businesses CAN refuse service to someone for almost any reason.
ALMOST... being the key word.
The exceptions being various classes protected against discrimination.

No shoes? Acceptable reason.
Skin color? Unacceptable reason.
Loud agressive posturing? Acceptable reason.
Sexual orientation or gender identity? unacceptable reason.

and since you overhead planning that is criminal in intent, you definitely arent required to enable that either. that's a pretty bad hypothetical.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

business's dont have freedom.
next question.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II: Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

Like the man said: you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

at what point during the purchases of the cake was the person also offered for sale?
Oh thats right, you dont know what youre talking about.

you speak in hyperbole and irrational stupidity, instead logic and fact.
and you have roughly the intelligence of a high schooler, which explains the insistence on using stupid libertarian logic.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dywolf]

You really need to learn some definitions and concepts.

City buses are called "public transportation" because they are typically operated by the local government, ie, public. not because the public at large may use them.
as an extension of government, city buses cannot discriminate under Title III (3) of the CRA of 1964, which "Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.", this really though is just an extension of the already extent Equal Protection Clause, simply being spelled out specifically.

A cab company may be privately owned, but it is still considered a "public accommodation" because it is a entity that does business with the public in exchange for money. And such public accommodations ARE ALSO prohibited from discrimination, but under a different section of the law, Title II (2). this was hte game changed, this was new. This prohibited private business from hiding behind the cloak of being a private entity in order to enable discrimination. This is the part of hte law that says "if you do business with the public, you do business with ALL of it, and cannot discriminate".

Seriously, read about the fucking law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Lord Kano]

Where was your outrage then?

Hypocrite.

LK

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

Two words: "Sole proprietorship"

Even corporations, being owned by multiple individuals, have rights, as this is what allows them to make contracts, and be held accountable to agreements they make. No rights = steamroll over you like a natural disaster, no accountability, no justice.

Next myth?

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

How many sex trafficking victims, pretty much also slaves, were ever offered for sale?

Oh that's right, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

The provision is unconstitutional, as it violates the right to free association and the court's requirements to uphold contracts, which the courts have found also includes duress. That's assuming any jurisdiction at all, most day to day business is intrastate, not interstate.

If a person walks into a bakery, demands an order, demanding a certain price, that's called... a null and void contract. No court in the US upholds agreements made under duress.

I don't hold it against you though, not very many high schoolers are taught about common law these days. (See, I can be condescending too.)

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Phoghat]

"denying to do so to others on whatever whim" illustrates the freedom for your business to fail, because you're an a-hole

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[pabloa98]

Indeed

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[cas2000]

if they're running a cotton-picking business and they refuse to serve you *because* you're white or gay or female or some other class, then YES they are violating your rights.

if you run a business open to the public then you don't have the right to discriminate against classes of people - you can ban specific individuals because of their behaviour (e.g. shoplifiting) but you can't ban all black people or all gay people.

if you try to get around that with a dumb loophole like saying you're a private club or something then you'll deserve it when your IRS takes a long hard look at you.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

5 Insightful? /. has really become a right wing extremist safehouse, where logic is just an abstraction to be used to further one's own ideals instead of actually deduce anything.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, I have no problem with women-only gyms (or men-only gyms). This is discrimination that in my view is perfectly acceptable, as it's based on real issues in our society, and is preventing negative fallout due to those issues.

Where do you stand on the female golfer a few years back, who insisted on joining the male-only club?

You cannot have it both ways.
-Alien Among You

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Em Adespoton]

Ah; but 1) I don't stand on the female golfer at all
and 2) I *can* have it both ways, as these things are open to context and interpretation.

Since there's really nothing differentiating a male golfer from a female golfer other than gender, I see no problem with her joining. On the other hand, there's lots of other clubs she could have joined.

So I'm on both sides, and feel that they should have been able to amicably work it out between them instead of bringing it to court. There are always exceptions to the rules.

Leave then

[WCMI92]

No one should have to perform INVOLUNTARY SERVICE for anyone.

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage". Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?

For that matter a gay baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a real marriage.

Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.

Re:Leave then

[j2.718ff]

For that matter a gay baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a real marriage.

A "real marriage"? Which marriages are real, and which are fake?

Re:Leave then

[ToxicBanjo]

Why does it have to be legislated then?

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

You're only allowed to have freedom when other people like that freedom, otherwise they will take it away from you.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

No one should have to perform INVOLUNTARY SERVICE for anyone.

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage". Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?

And my business shouldn't have to cater to dirty Christians.

Or folks of color... /sarcasm

Anyone besides me see the flaw in the parent post's logic?

Re:Leave then

[Sowelu]

Swap the word "gay" for "black" and try again. The country already learned, rather painfully, that letting businesses refuse to serve whole segments of the population causes one hell of a lot of unrest.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

don't be a twit.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

For that matter a gay baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a real marriage.

A "real marriage"? Which marriages are real, and which are fake?

The traditional one is...

Re:Leave then

[geekmux]

don't be a twit.

Yes, such a silly statement. After all, divorce statistics show that most people live happily ever after, right?

Try not to trip on that steaming pile of happiness on your way out the door.

Re:Leave then

[khasim]

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage".

And a white baker should not have to serve a black customer, right?

WRONG!

Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.

No one is forcing you to associate with anyone.

But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.

You may not like being "forced" to serve black people.

You may believe that it is an infringement of your "freedom" to be forced to serve black people.

Fuck you.

Re:Leave then

[will_die]

So your idea would be to force the baker to do it against their will and produce a poor product or just put a white couple as the figurines on the cake and say the ran out of the black couple?

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace "gay" with "black" and the problem should seem more obvious to you (I hope?)

Restricting service to an individual for whatever nonsensical reason is stepping on their rights to get a cake made or have their wedding photographed. If you don't like it don't sell cakes or take photos.

"Oh sure you can go somewhere else" can you though?

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

No one should have to perform INVOLUNTARY SERVICE for anyone.

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage". Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?

For that matter a gay baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a real marriage.

Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.

Sure and if they would state their bias up-front, then unsuspecting consumers could make an informed choice before approaching the business.

I think it's reasonable that a business which refuses to do business with gay couples should have a sign out front stating that in no uncertain terms.

Re:Leave then

[rjhubs]

Yeah, people are free to associate with whomever they want. Businesses, however, are not people. We as society have set up laws that dictate how businesses need to operate. They do not enjoy all the same freedoms as individuals.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between "Not catering your gay wedding because I don't support gay marriage" and "I won't sell you bread because you are gay" (or "I won't bake you a birthday cake for your son because you are gay"). The first is a statement of belief, the second is segregation. It's a gray area to say the least, but they ARE different.

I didn't read TFA, but for the looks of the reactions it seems it aims more to segregate than to state the right to refuse on religious basis.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

You're free to bake or not bake cakes for anyone you wish.

But if you want a business license, you are required to adhere the requirements and regulations that are mandated by local, state and federal law.

Those same set of laws required businesses to provide wheelchair access to many of our returning vets.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Swap the word "gay" for "black" and try again. The country already learned, rather painfully, that letting businesses refuse to serve whole segments of the population causes one hell of a lot of unrest.

Perhaps if the word swapping helped identify the religious segment that is causing all of this pain.

Just a thought as we try and pinpoint the cause of all this while trying to ignore the smell of death coming from the elephant that died in the middle of the room...

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is forcing these people to perform the service. Gay's aren't forcing the christian baker to bake them a cake, they are going into the bakery (which offers cake baking services) and requesting that the service is performed for them. The baker is then REFUSING to perform this service, solely on the basis that their prospective customer is gay.

This is the essential difference. You cannot as a service provided, decided who you perform services too based solely on the attributes of the customer which society has determined to involve prejudice. Characteristics of the customer which don't involve prejudice can be used to deny service (ability to pay, legal concerns, no shirt/no shoes, etc). Skin color, race, religion, and sexual orientation cannot be used, because they involve prejudice.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Is calling out homophobic derp being a "twit" now? You might be part of the reactionary-dipshit problem.

Re:Leave then

[Fire_Wraith]

So, you think that people should be free to discriminate, for any reason? That it's okay so long as it's just private citizens, and not the government?

So by that line of thinking, it would be okay for there to be a town where:

-The local bus company won't serve ($category) people.
-The local taxi company won't serve ($category) people.
-The local restaurant won't seat/serve ($category) people.
-The local real estate agency won't sell homes to ($category) people.
-The local baker won't bake cakes/pies/etc for ($category) people.

Putting it in the context of "religion" doesn't make it any better. Nor does it make it any better regardless of whether ($category) is Black, Gay, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim, or, yes, even Christian.

Here's an idea. Maybe, if your religion says you can't serve everyone else in society equally, then you shouldn't be choosing to work in a role where the rest of society expects you to treat everyone equally and fairly in public life? If I'm a religious conscientious objector who believes it's wrong to kill people under any circumstances, should I be able to voluntarily join the Army and then be exempt from anything to do with shooting anything or anyone? Of course not.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

"Our" idea - that of the US Constitution - is that all people should be treated equally. If a baker doesn't want to bake cakes for gay couples he/she/they can either do such a shitty job that gay couples don't request cakes be made, or don't be a fucking baker.

If you'd like to continue your bigotry, please try again in a country that will accept it. Thanks.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the real problem. The freedom of religion, apparently, is an existential threat to gay rights, and must be destroyed.

Re:Leave then

[jeffmflanagan]

So the one where the wives are property is the only real marriage? That seems really regressive.

Re:Leave then

[Zakabog]

I understand the reasoning behind this since I've felt the same way in the past, but then this reopens the door to "Well we don't serve blacks at our restaurant, you'll have to eat somewhere else." Any privately owned business that provides services to the general public is not allowed to discriminate as to who they serve.

And seriously what's the big deal? A customer comes in and wants a cake, you bake cakes, why does it matter if you're baking a cake for a straight marriage, a gay marriage or even a bar mitzvah? They're not asking you to officiate the wedding, they're not asking you to get married with them, and unless they're asking for a cake with two guys fucking on it, I don't see why it matters.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage"

You know, I get really tired of the way the term "Christian" has been co-opted to mean "member of the bigoted, extremist Christian right".

I'm a Christian. I have been a Christian all my life, and I bet I read the Bible and pray far more often than a lot of these "Christian" blowhards. (Currently doing one of those read-the-Bible-through-in-a-year thingies.) I've been a camp counsellor at a Christian summer camp, I teach Sunday School, I sing in the choir, I occasionally play piano for the worship services, I have helped advise our pastor on sermon topics, and I was at one time the president of my congregation,

And you know what? Gay marriage doesn't bother me one bit, Leviticus notwithstanding. Being gay isn't a choice, so if someone is gay, God must have made him that way. If that's the case, who am I to condemn it?

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Homophobic derps: The most persecuted minority in America today.

Re:Leave then

[MyNicknameSucks]

Actually, it isn't. The US constitution guarantees the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Freedom of association was inferred via a court decision from, somewhat ironically in this case, the NAACP v. Alabama.

Yeah, look. The legislation in question is horse shit. It's not made to redress any actual wrongs; it's window dressing meant to pander to a certain kind of social conservative. Further, it, pretty much by definition, allows for state sanctioning of particular kinds of discrimination which is, at best, icky, and, at worst OMG wrong.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Black is what you are.

Gay is what you do.

So if someone you knew liked doing 12 year old boys, you'd be happy as punch to serve them eh?

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't a flaw. Certian libertarians don't agree with the civil rights act. The take a principled stand agains "involuntary service." It doesn't mean they are right. Freedom isn't a panacea. We force people to serve in the miliatary. To pay taxes. To serve on juries. Most states and cities have huge list of laws you must follow.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like "No Negros?"

Re: Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you must be referring to that "wives obey your husbands" line while leaving out the "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church" which means to literally sacrifice everything for her including your own life if necessary.

Very oppressive arrangement to women there...

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

And grocery stores and gas stations should be allowed to never sell to you or your family legally.

So much for the last chance gas stations in death valley being an option, guess you can just sit in your car and wait for AAA.

Re:Leave then

[Sowelu]

When you run a public business, the government gives you nice shiny benefits in exchange for you following certain standards. You can't kick out service dogs, you can't advertise sales on things you don't have, and as a public business, you have to serve the public. That's what your business license says!

When your city says "yes, you can own this land and open a storefront"--they sold that land to you because it's zoned for businesses that sell to everyone. They don't sell land on main street to warehouses, they sell it to companies that bring foot traffic and make that area into a commercial hub. Again--you own (or rent) the land because you agreed to serve the public.

If you're baking cakes out the back door of your house and selling them on Etsy (never mind how that works), fine, the government probably didn't support you, and you didn't promise them you'd participate in the economy they set up. But if you have a storefront, or if you pay taxes as a corporation, then society gave you special consideration and you MUST return the favor by doing what you agreed...serve everyone, regardless of skin color or orientation.

Re:Leave then

[bobbied]

No, I don't see a flaw. Except in YOUR logic.

There are things which are protected as a matter of law and you cannot discriminate based on these things. Then there are things which you CAN discriminate on. I say we let the free market decide on everything not currently enshrined in our laws about how to do business..

Allowing people to express their sincere religious belief in how and who they choose to do business with SHOULD be allowed regardless, as a matter of law. If you don't like how a business is run or who it does or refuses service to, you are free to take your business elsewhere and share your views with your friends, neighbors or even the random person on the street if they will listen.

Let the market decide and if the majority of people think like you and take their business some other place, so be it. Just live your life and do your business and let others do the same. Seems like freedom to me.

Forcing people to do business with people in situations where they object, does NOT seem like freedom to me.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for reminding people that god is hate...
The more fundamentalists spread The Word the faster people will leave the various houses of worship and I can get one to turn into a condo

Re:Leave then

[OrangeTide]

For that matter a gay baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a real marriage.

Only marriages performed by the Roman Catholic Church are real. Protestant marriages aren't real.

But I'll make your kids a birthday cake, I mean assuming they've been baptized.

Jehovah's Witnesses would have a real tough time as a baker, not being able to celebrate birthdays and all. We should probably make a law to offset the amount of money they lost not being able to be competitive in the birthday cake business. Would be easy to structure it as a tax on all baked goods that is split among Jehovah's Witnesses.

Re:Leave then

[puzzled_decoy]

No one is forcing you to associate with anyone.

But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.

So, as a business, you are being forced to associate with people.

I personally wouldn't use a service or purchase a good from a business that actively discriminates. But I don't think anyone has the right to dictate who they can or cannot refuse service to.

At the end of the day, discrimination is bad for business. All you need to defeat it is someone who is greedy to open a competing shop, and discriminatory business will wither and die- unless, of course, you are living in a region where everyone discriminates, in which case you having deeper problems than simply legislating a belief system.

Re: Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery is such a dream job. Why don't feminists get that?

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

And the same libertarians in question would tell you:

• that conscription is morally wrong, and should be verboten.
• that taxes are theft.
• that people have the right to refuse to serve on juries

Any law which doesn't also have an actual demonstrable victim (and "society" is not a victim) are immoral and should be repealed.

Re:Leave then

[ShanghaiBill]

After all, divorce statistics show that most people live happily ever after, right?

Actually, they do. Half of all marriages end in divorce, but more two thirds of all people that get married don't get divorced. How is that possible? Many people get married and divorced repeatedly, and that throws the numbers way off. Second marriages have a 75% chance of divorce.

Re:Leave then

[Gavrielkay]

The old homophobic argument that somehow being homosexual is similar to being a pedophile. If you can't see the difference between consensual adult activity and taking advantage of a child then the deficiency is yours.

Not that it matters, but being homosexual is also considered to be 'what you are' by folks who study such things scientifically. And even if it was purely a choice, in as much as it's a choice that hurts no one and isn't illegal, public businesses should not discriminate based on it.

Now if a business owner wishes to declare their business closed to the public and open only to select customers based on the owner prejudices then I'm all for it. Make those conditions known up front and let it play out.

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

In an ethical society, nobody needs a license/permission to sell the fruit of their own labor to others.

Re:Leave then

[itzly]

Allowing people to express their sincere religious belief in how and who they choose to do business with SHOULD be allowed regardless, as a matter of law.

Why 'sincere religious belief' ? Why not any other arbitrary made-up criterion ?

Re:Leave then

[Austerity Empowers]

The laws vary by state, but generally speaking those libertarians do not have to do any of the things the poster mentions. Various interactions withe the government ARE protected (by the civil rights act, and others), but when it pertains to private businesses in many, possibly most cases, they are free to be as biggotted and shitty as they want. And I personally agree that they should retain that liberty.

Provided they understand the consequences to their actions, and understand that governments won't interact with them, many public businesses won't interact with them, and generally a lot of people are going to legally, correctly, call them out on their BS.

The only mess worth talking about is when "christian" values interfere with employee well being, and our decision to leave health care in the hands of corporations. In this case now we're in to the land where government is obligated to step in: the overall health and well being of its population. If we had chosen to provide health care at the government level, and relieve corporations of something they don't entirely seem to want to provide properly, then this mess would all be cleaner. As it stands its' confusing and things like this make it all worse.

Re:Leave then

[DaHat]

Businesses, however, are not people

Why so few people have read and/or understood the I will never understand as it says in part:

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that this is a non-starter right? Black != Gay. One is a protected distinction, the other is not. At any rate, NEITHER should be afforded anything but EQUEAL protection and standing under the law. Which is totally different than what PRIVATE businesses are required to do (or at least what they should be required to do under the law).

Besides, how on earth could I know you are gay unless you tell me? Don't tell me and I won't know (Not that I care to start with) but if I don't know there's no chance that I can discriminate against you for it. But that's not how this is usually done... Gay people march into a business that they KNOW has an issue with them and make a stink about getting service from THAT business. There usually is a similar business in the area that doesn't care, but it's about the confrontation and not about getting their wedding cake made (or what ever service or product they say they wanted.)

That is wrong headed in my book. If I don't like your views enough, I just don't do business with you. If I'm in the majority, your business suffers. That's how this kind of thing should be handled, not this legal judo move where you take somebody to court for this kind of thing..

Re:Leave then

[Howitzer86]

In the past, serving a black customer anywhere other than the back door could cause you to lose all your white customers. I can imagine a similar situation, where a baker may be unwilling to advertise that she worked for a gay couple for fear of losing business from religious couples and good standing with the local churches.

But only in the deepest darkest South.

Re:Leave then

[ShanghaiBill]

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage".

Correct. Under the law, he doesn't have to. He can sell doughnuts, cupcakes, danishes, etc. instead. But if he offers wedding cakes to the public, then he has to offer them to the entire public.

Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?

No, a Muslim photographer should not be forced to photograph a gay wedding, because he always has the option of getting out of the wedding photography business. He can photograph dogs or nature scenes instead.

Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.

The Constitution also gives the government the power to regulate commerce. The courts have ruled that absolute freedom of association does not apply to commercial services offered to the pubic. You are free to disagree, but unless you are appointed to the Supreme Court, your opinion doesn't matter much.

Re:Leave then

[jsepeta]

Because Christ's central message was "Fuck you, that's not how I want to rule the world."

Wait, no, that was HITLER'S message. I believe Christ's was "Love your neighbor as your brother."

Re:Leave then

[Stormy Dragon]

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage". Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?

But an atheist baker has to indulge a Christian cashier who think company policies don't apply to them. Because Evangelicals are fine with forcing involuntary service on everyone else.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

It does sanction government sponsored discrimination which is why the SCOTUS is going to (my prediction) 1. strike the rule as unconstitutional and 2) elevate the scrutiny level of legislation based upon sexual orientation to strict scrutiny. Sorry for those anti-gay folks that think this type of legislation is actually about freedom or any semblance of justice or law. It's about discrimination period.

Justice Kennedy struck down anti-gay legislation in Romer v. Evans in which Colorado passed Amendment 2 which banned cities, counties, and the state from making a law or even including sexual orientation into existing law to prevent discrimination. Kennedy said such legislation was based upon animus and nothing more. He also wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which was about why supposedly even-handed anti-sodomy laws only applied to gay people. He again struck it down, while overturning the previous holding in Bowers v. Hardwick. Kennedy also wrote the opinion in US v. Windsor which struck down Section 3 of DOMA. Again, he said the only reason we have this law is to be discriminatory against gays. There is almost 0 chance that Kennedy somehow reverses course now, and since he's still the swing vote it will be a 5-4 loss, for, I guess, Jesus himself personally or something.

I think Kennedy will include the strict scrutiny, because we've seen so many discriminatory anti-gay bills that are the same as Amendment 2 and DOMA that I think he's reasoning will simply be that the discrimination against gays is so pervasive and persistent that strict scrutiny is warranted. It worked the same way for the other classes like race and alienage.

Re:Leave then

[HiThere]

Real marriages are the ones that give you a tax advantage/ health care saving/etc.

Re:Leave then

[Howitzer86]

That is a heinous crime. To even get to that point is to let it happen in the first place.

Re:Leave then

[Crashmarik]

Oh come on now.

It's a far cry from I would like a cake. To I would like a cake with one groom blowing the other groom on it.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not being forced: you can leave the job. Close your business. NOBODY is forcing you to stay. Don't like the terms of running a business? Don't run a business.

It's the same option you give your workers, it's good for them, it applies to you too.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why businesses have different tax codes, right? Oh ooh, where can I sign up to have limited liability in all my day to day activities? I've yet to see a business executed by the State of Texas, and they'll execute just about anyone, from the mentally ill to the innocent. So uh... yeah, clearly there's some differences.

Re:Leave then

[sexconker]

It allows people to behave in ways you don't like, but there is no logical flaw.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

You've read the entire US Code? That's impressive. However, I think you're point was that people haven't "read/understood" the Constitution which you didn't cite to. There was no official US Code (what you cited) until the 1870s. The US Code is below the Constitution and you cannot augment the Constitution by simple legislation it has to be an amendment. That said, the issue of business as person when it comes to Con law is varied. Like incorporation doctrine it's not all or nothing it's piecemeal. The Court didn't hold your implication in Hear of Atlanta Motel, so I don't know what you're point is.

Re:Leave then

[operagost]

When you run a public business, the government gives you nice shiny benefits

Oh. Well, what if I want to run a business without their "nice shiny benefits"? Can't do that, eh? I have a natural right to run a business. Since when is government "giving" me rights?

If you're baking cakes out the back door of your house and selling them on Etsy (never mind how that works), fine, the government probably didn't support you, and you didn't promise them you'd participate in the economy they set up.

Actually, you'd probably be running afoul of many, many laws by doing that. You'd be lucky if you were allowed to GIVE away food.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

And those libertarians are idiots. Quite frankly there is a reason the laws exist currently. There are many examples of government overreach. These are not them though. We tried the no taxes thing, we found it was quite difficult to maintain a government that has no resources.

Refusing jury service is a new tact I've not seen. I am amazed anyone could argue it. If you allow people to refuse everyone will refuse because its inconvenient and then no one gets a fair trial. A society takes some work to maintain.

Conscription hasn't happened since Vietnam and is unlikely to happen again as we have a standing army that is paid for their services. So it is a moot point, should we experience a Red Dawn scenario I'm pretty sure most people will not have a problem with conscription.

Re:Leave then

[Sowelu]

In a city that wants to make any kind of design sense at all, zoning and licensing don't need to be about ethics at all. If you want to be in the business district, you have to sell to the public. If you don't sell to the public, you get kicked out of the business district, because you're screwing up the city layout and taking up valuable space. Go sell weddings cakes from your website. Nobody will care.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

>I personally wouldn't use a service or purchase a good from a business that actively discriminates
Good luck! It's not like you actually need to buy groceries.

>All you need to defeat it is someone who is greedy to open a competing shop, and discriminatory business will wither and die-
Ah. the fallacy of the free market. Please, move to the real world before you make such idiotic remarks. In case you aren't just trolling, go look up regulatory capture for a quick reason this isn't a solution. Then think a bit about how much paperwork is involved in opening, say, a restaurant and how much a person in city hall can fuck you over if they decide that gay people shouldn't have things.

> unless, of course, you are living in a region where everyone discriminates
Like Indiana? (And the whole of the South too)

Re:Leave then

[OrangeTide]

During hurricanes and floods the grocery store could choose to sell to the blonde and blue-eyed families first.

Doesn't seem like you have to have any hard rules, you can change why you refuse people service whenever you'd like without any announcement.

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

Zoning is also unethical, telling people what they can do with their own privately owned property.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

You are free to attempt to create an ethical society where all street lightning is managed by private entities, all roads are built and maintained by private entities, police and fire fighting forces are private enterprises, etc. Given the number of loud mouth libertarians on the internet and the complete lack of any type of long-term viable communities that operate thus, I can only assume that either it's too hard or you're too unwilling to actually live by the principles you wish everyone else to abide by.

Re:Leave then

[khasim]

So, as a business, you are being forced to associate with people.

I'm sure that, maybe, YOU would be able to think of a business (profitable) that did not have customers that could be referred to as "people" but as for me ... I have no idea what you're talking about.

But I don't think anyone has the right to dictate who they can or cannot refuse service to.

Then think about taxes.

Black people pay taxes. Those taxes are used to pay for the road in front of your business. And the cops who keep your business safe. And so on.

And you are going to take the services provided by the black taxes and then REFUSE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE PAYING THOSE TAXES BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE THEIR SKIN TONE.

Fuck you and your fucked up ideas about YOUR "rights".

Read a history book.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

This discussion is about the USA rather than some idealized ethical society you are imagining.

Your posting is exactly the inverse of the argument at hand. Nobody is being penalized for selling the fruits of their own labors (though this expression is overbroad. Say for instance the fruit of my own labors was, just for the sake of this argument, weaponized anthrax. Would an ethical society allow me to sell it to everyone? anyone?) People here instead are asserting their right to selectively withhold sale of their labors to specific groups. That's discrimination and it's wrong, and that has been a settled legal issue for decades in America.

Re:Leave then

[neoritter]

Strawman! HO!

Re:Leave then

[Sowelu]

Aww, look at the cute college Libertarian! Shouldn't you be in your poli-sci 102 class right now? I know arbitrary grading criteria are unethical too, but sadly your professor is a tool of the Liberal Conspiracy and will fail you if you keep skipping lectures and failing tests. And for the love of God try to pronounce Ayn Rand's name right in your next rant, you're only embarrassing yourself.

Re:Leave then

[smooth wombat]

So you have no problem with a smelting company opening next door to your house? A garbage dump? Fat rendering?

Zoning is done for a common sense reason, one you obviously fail to grasp.

Re:Leave then

[bws111]

Because you can ALREADY choose to do business or not depending on arbitrary made-up criterion. You CAN'T currently do it based on religion (or race, color, national origin, etc). Don't want to serve someone based on how they are dressed? Your right. Only want to serve people of a certain income level? Your right.

Re:Leave then

[Sowelu]

I would LOVE to send internet Libertarians to Somalia, and see what kind of paradise they can build with the sweat of their brow.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Because any other made-up criterion isn't protected under the Constitution.

Every damn fool thinks it says "separation of church and state" which couldn't be further from the truth.

What it says is this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first clause prohibits them from favoring any given religion or establishing a state sponsored religion like the Church of England.
The second clause prohibits them from interfering with the free practice thereof.

The Fourteenth Amendment EXPLICITLY applies it to the States and below in toto.

Conflating it with "black" and the like is bullshit.
Conflating it with the statement you made is bullshit.

Why? Because it's not said that way. Don't like it? Get your own Amendment to change it. Best of luck.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up because you're no better than the racists, misogynists, misandrists, etc. you claim the others are, even though they're not so.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly like that.

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

I would have a problem with it and I might even move away if it happens, but my moral convictions tell me that I have no authority to tell them what they can do with their land.

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

Awww, look at the cute little Statist making all kinds of unfounded and inaccurate assumptions. :-)

Re:Leave then

[SAN1701]

Oh, that's easy. The real ones are when two people love and care for each other and hope to leave the remaining of their lives together. The fake ones are motivated by economic, politics, or even when two teenagers are bullied to it by their parents.

It always amazed me that (most) religions are fast to discard the former if the couple are from the same gender, but absolutely have no problem whatsoever with the latter if it's between a man and a woman, even when it's obvious there's no love. You know, that "God's gift".

Re:Leave then

[Sowelu]

I've got a sneaking suspicion you've never, not even once in your life, had those particular moral convictions run up against your personal convenience.

Re:Leave then

[linuxrocks123]

To be fair, it's hard to pretend not to be black, but it's usually pretty easy to pretend not to be gay. You don't even have to pretend; you just have to not bring up your sexual orientation.

So a business wanting to discriminate against gays would have to have some sort of policy that you have to make out with the cashier to prove you're straight, or something. That might prove very popular with some customers, but they'd probably have trouble hiring cashiers.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

All people should be treated equally *by the government.* The Constitution isn't a set off rules to limit the power of the *people.* If an individual wants to discriminate that's perfectly constitutional.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you're wrong because there are loads of women's only gyms. You don't have to serve the public. You can serve certain segments of it. Fuck, the LEGO store won't even allow you in to the discovery centre if you're an adult.

Re:Leave then

[KermodeBear]

I have a natural right to run a business.

That may be true, but that right has already been stolen from you. Want to run a business? You need a license. You need to conform to a litany of regulations. You have to pay employees at a certain rate. Etc., etc.

It is a sad state of affairs when 12 year olds running lemonade stands are being shut down over this crap, much less a legitimate business run by an adult.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage". Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?

For the baker, it's simple: "I don't have/make cake toppers with two figures of the same gender. I can either give you a topper with a man and woman, or I can give you a cake with no topper. If those options are not acceptable to you, I'm afraid you will have to find another baker." Refusal to provide a non-gay-themed cake (that they normally make) to a gay person is discrimination and should be unlawful; refusing to provide a gay-themed cake (that they don't make) is not.

For the photographer, it's a little more tricky. Photographers turn down jobs all the time for reasons as simple as they don't believe the client is a good match for them. Sometimes after meeting with a prospective client, they believe that client will be a pain in the ass to work with, so they politely turn down the job. I've seen it happen all the time. Likewise, someone who focuses on family portraits may not want to accept a job photographing for a tattoo artist because it doesn't fit with their branding. Is that unfair discrimination?

But if the ONLY reason is because of the client's race/gender/orientation/etc, it's difficult. I'm not sure what the right answer is. The closest I can come up with is "Sorry, I don't photograph gay weddings. If you (gay person) want to hire me to photograph your heterosexual wedding, I will be happy to do so." Is that still discrimination? In that case, the photographer is not refusing to provide service because of who a client is, but is refusing to provide a specific service (photograph a gay wedding). They are still willing to provide a service (photograph a heterosexual wedding) to the same person. It's stupid, but there's a slight difference in theory, even if not in practice.

In either case, I personally think anyone who refuses such a service is a dirty bigot.

Re:Leave then

[Kjella]

No one is forcing you to associate with anyone. But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.

Funny, that never seems ot work when the elementary school teacher also dances at the local strip club. Then it's never about non-discrimination based on job performance and all about your employer's right to not associate with you anymore. Let's face it, you've picked some attributes that have hardly anything to do with your job performance like race, religion, sex etc. and "blessed" them while other equally irrelevant attributes can get you fired on the spot.

And a white baker should not have to serve a black customer, right? (...) You may not like being "forced" to serve black people.

I'm not sure why you need to put "forced" in quotes. If you're a white supremacist running a self-owned bakery and wouldn't serve a black customer voluntarily, then clearly it's involuntary aka forced. As forced as the health and safety regulations and paying your employees minimum wage I guess, but it's something the government tells you that you must do. Now I know certain libertarians try to make great leaps of logic to act like they're different, but fundamentally they're not. If you want to throw out all government regulation, you also throw out what keeps the baker from refusing to serve the black guy.

Re: Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

The Christ loved the church? What church?

Re:Leave then

[NoKaOi]

If you're baking cakes out the back door of your house and selling them on Etsy (never mind how that works), fine, the government probably didn't support you, and you didn't promise them you'd participate in the economy they set up.

How do you bake cakes without the help of the government? Ingredients were produced with the help of government farming subsidies. Those ingredients were delivered to your wholesaler on roads built by the government. Water and power are delivered to your kitchen using government built and/or subsidized infrastructure. The stuff contained in your bakery is protected from thieves by laws created by the government and enforced by police provided by the government. If your neighbor's place catches fire, it's prevented from spreading to your bakery by the government funded fire department. The list goes on and on...you get the idea.

Re:Leave then

[AlCapwn]

Bravo, but you're not the kind we're worried about when such legislation passes. If every Christian was as accepting, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. But, keep at it. Lead by example. I'm pretty sure that's a Jesus thing, right? Your religion needs more like you to be taken seriously by the secular folk.

Re:Leave then

[Coniptor]

One word.
Amway

Re:Leave then

[Coren22]

You could put a male and female on the cake topper and explain that that is the way they are sold to you and you have no choice.

Re:Leave then

[Coren22]

How about if the Bakery charges double the price to put two male figures on the top, as it costs the baker more...

Re:Leave then

[William Baric]

There's no such thing as a natural right to run a business. The only natural right is the right of the strongest. Every other rights are just a product of society.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if their pollution ruins the value of your land?

Re:Leave then

[jedidiah]

1870 is calling. It wants it's specious quasi-constitutional argument back.

What you are pining for hasn't been the case for a long time, likely since BEFORE YOU WERE BORN. We simply aren't that backwards as a nation anymore.

Your vision of Sharia law isn't any more tolerable than Jim Crow.

You and the state of Indiana need to stop watching Fox News.

Re:Leave then

[tepples]

Characteristics of the customer which don't involve prejudice can be used to deny service (ability to pay, legal concerns, no shirt/no shoes, etc).

So how does someone bootstrap his ability to function in society if the shoe stores have such a no shirt/no shoes policy?

Re:Leave then

[tnk1]

If Red Dawn happened, we wouldn't have conscription. Actual conscription takes a lot of planning to make happen. It wouldn't work in an immediate invasion scenario.

What would happen is some some people would form militias/resistance groups, some people might be forcibly enlisted, but most would either become refugees or hope the new boss is not too much worse than the old boss.

The full-on "almost zero" government libertarians are not necessarily wrong, but they are certainly arguing for the end of coercive government. Obviously, that's a lot to swallow and would need a lot of study and would garner a lot of resistance.

For the purposes of this debate, I don't think you need to be that sort of libertarian, however. The question is whether you have to do business with people who you don't like, for whatever reason.

Ideally, I think you should have the right to not serve someone for any reason.

Realistically, it means that a few store/service owners could freeze a segment of the population out of goods and services. And that doesn't really fly, because we saw how that worked with segregation. Being able to own a store and operate it does depend, to some degree, on the sufferance of the community.

I think we should define certain types of businesses as "public interest" or "critical infrastructure" businesses who must sell to anyone who is not breaking the law, for posted prices.

Perhaps we could then exempt businesses where the owner needs to be up close and personal with those they don't care for, or for businesses where serving that person might imply some sort of approval of the people who they need to serve. Those business owners need to state their rules publicly and at the beginning of any business relationship so that the people who are turned away are not too far into the process to be able to recover from their vendor pulling out.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, you set up a hypothetical business without access to roads, telephones, police, and fire. People rob everything from you.

There. That's great, without all those shiny benefits, isn't it?

Lovely thought game. Now explain to me how you have the right to run a business?

Re:Leave then

[spongman]

please, please try those kind of double-think tactics when addressing real legal circumstances in your life. send us a letter from jail, K?

Re:Leave then

[pjw2072]

The 50% of all American marriages end in divorce statistic gets referenced all the time. The problem is that it isn't true. Although there are different ways of measuring the divorce rate, a good average seems to be somewhere around 30% and it's getting lower.

The first google hit.
The NY Times has a more credible article.

Re:Leave then

[tnk1]

Having government health care fixes some issues and opens other cans of worms. If we went to public health care, the churches would not have to worry about abortion or birth control coverage mostly because if their tax exempt status. Which is to say, they're not required to pay for those services that they don't agree with.

However, then you find that individuals are now forced to pay for those benefits that they disagree with due to tax money being collected and used to pay for those services. That makes heath care super political.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG...have you even READ the legislation? IT IS AN ALMOST WORD FOR WORD COPY OF THE FEDERAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT WHICH THE SCOTUS JUST RECENTLY UPHELD IN A CHALLENGE TO THE ACA!!!!!!

From the SB 101's Digest: "Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest." (Emphasis mine.) See: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101

This thing won't come within a country mile of the SCOTUS.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Running a business without their shiny benefits is called running a club, country clubs discriminate on membership all the time. Feel free to start the Ayn Rand No Parasites Allowed Bakery Club and let me know how that works out for you.

Re:Leave then

[tnk1]

The reality is that you *don't* have a right to run a business naturally. Natural "laws" like natural "rights" are a figment of our imaginations.

You operate a business at the sufferance of the community. Which no one likes to hear because it tells the truth that our liberties are limited.

Mostly the government operates to keep people from killing one another in the streets. Pissing off some segment of the population because you don't like them will cause that sort of fighting and the government needs to step in and enforce order. That's the reality of things.

Liberties are there because we found that having our overlords tell us what to do wasn't really cutting it. However, we're still not actually "free" and actual freedom of the sort that some espouse makes for a very, very chaotic place that this population is not at all able to comprehend nor is it prepared for it.

I'm not a big fan of government bureaucracy or overreach, and I'd like to split things up more, but ultimately we're doing many of these things so we don't end up with another Civil War. Ignoring that result is blinding yourself to reality. We can only have the freedoms that most of us can handle.

Re:Leave then

[BevanFindlay]

Or the corollary: gay rights are an existential threat to religion and therefore must be destroyed? Are you aware of what you just said? Anyone saying "group A should be eliminated because they disagree with us" has no place in civil society. We all have a right to disagree - and the GP has a point: you are only as tolerant as you are to the person you most despise, and we are starting to see a little too much forced compliance in the name of supposed "tolerance" (i.e. believe anything you like, as long as it's this). It means you have the right to hold a repulsive opinion. Doesn't mean you should, and doesn't mean you should be a dick about it, but means you can.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

A real marriage is where one woman marries one man.

Sorry if that's difficult for you.

Re:Leave then

[sumdumass]

Where is this in the constitution? I don't think you have even read it or understand what it is. Do they not teach government and civics in high school any more?

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between selling to a person and selling for a cause. If the gay wants a cake, sure sell it to them, but if the gay specifies they want it for a purpose for which you don't agree, then you shouldn't have to provide it.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Being something is not the same as acting on something. Someone may be a kleptomaniac, it doesn't mean we support their right to steal. If the gay wants a cake, sell it to them. If the gay wants a cake for a purpose you don't agree with, you shouldn't have to sell it.

Re:Leave then

[Chuck Chunder]

Half of all marriages end in divorce

To be fair, the other half end in death.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but I'm sure you don't seriously believe that race and sexual orientation are in any way comparable, though you find it helpful to further your cause to demonise those who don't think like you do.

Hint: It was never morally wrong to be black.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Why 'sincere religious belief' ? Why not any other arbitrary made-up criterion ?

Why not any other arbitrary made-up criterion?

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

At the end of the day in 1950 discrimination was a standard practice of many businesses. The who libertarian ideal that "if you do bad things you won't get business" is just bullshit. It turns out that most people are prejudiced and self-righteous assholes - and so are the businesses they start.

Allowing that to proliferate is very bad for the rest of society. /.ers seem to think everything is down to "rights." It's not. You have a duty to others in your society.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

A valid position, to be sure, but please consider this:

If someone is a paedophile, polygamist or cannibal, did God make them that way too?

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are people, my friend!

Granted, corporations and those who run them are amoral sociopaths that should be tried for their many crimes before being led to the guillotine for execution, but it's really hard to get a corporation to fit through the lunette.

Re:Leave then

[sjames]

Actually, such overt prejudice is much more on display in the North these days. I'm not claiming there is no predjudice in the South, but it tends to be a bit more subtle than that.

Re:Leave then

[Austerity Empowers]

These same people also pay for police and military (some 50% of the federal budget goes to the military, last I looked). The military is presently actively engaged in killing people, but at all times at least engaged in thinking about how to do it, that is a strong violation of judeo-christian values. Additionally soldiers have been known to rape and murder innocents. You can't take responsibility of what someone else does with your tax money, it stops being yours when you fork it over. You vote for the person who will best represent your morality, and hope for the best. Jesus set that precedent in the bible ("Render unto Caesar...") over very similar concerns brought up by Jews.

Rational Christians would not have any issue with this. Rational Christians would has a more sensible view on abortion (i.e. the unfunded mandate that all children must live....to suffer in poverty? that children born with detectable birth defects must be born, and left without medical care?). They may not support abortion, but they certainly would not allow an innocent to suffer through apathy. In any event, that's not the group doing the talking. Rational Christians, I could probably find a middle ground with, even if I don't believe in their magic.

However when you put the decision in their own hands, yes, some will not want to fund abortions, and will not want to fund contraception, etc. In this case you're asking them to actively pay for what they don't like, but not giving them the tools to properly rectify the problem. I still think they're wrong, you can't chop logic morality, but it's in the defensible region of "things I can control, and things I can leave to God". As far as I'm concerned the rhetoric of "You are all sinners" is less a condemnation of mankind, and more a statement of fact: we cannot help but sin, we lack the tools. We can however choose how to sin and try to manage the consequences. But not being religious, I am not sure how that matches the various world-views of all sects. It seems like choosing not to commit the sin of murder may be the greater sin when the victim was about to walk in to a school with an assault rifle, for example. Not paying for the abortion may be the greater sin then bringing children in to the world who will suffer, and who will spawn more children who will suffer.

Re: Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

> Being gay isn't a choice, so if someone is gay, God must have made him that way.

The Old Testament states very cleary that man-on-man homosexual intercourse is equally outrageous as human-animal coitus and perpetrators are to be executed by the community. If a person is gay, he shall lead a celibate life to avoid the most serious verdict in this life and/or the eternal life.

(The Bible considers woman-woman sex an insignificant topic, because that does not affect fertility: if a lesbian is raped by a platoon of GI Joes, she is equally likely to deliver a baby as a heterousexual woman. Lesbianism is essentially just mutual masturbation, a mere private sin, rather than the utmost outrage against nature that sodomy anal coitus represents.)

Whoever condones man-on-man coitus or denies that marriage is the union of exactly 1 man + 1 woman, as Jesus Christ personally blessed that institution at Canaa, is thereby not a christian and be anathema!

Re:Leave then

[sumdumass]

I really wish people would stop trying to compare gays to black people. They are not the same. First, the civil rights act is a law, not a constitutional provision. It is enabled due to the 14th amendment powers in section five in order to enforce section one of the same. Congress has chosen not to include gays within the class of protected persons. Second, congress uses the interstate commerce clause in order to apply the civil rights act to certain businesses large enough or operating across state lines. Finally, congress has declared that in order for the 14th amendment to be enforceable, an even smaller set of businesses not covered by the interstate commerce clause that provide public accommodations would have to comply to ensure the 14th amendment powers can be effective.

While you can certainly make the case that congress should include gays as a protected person (or class of people ), you also have to look at the 9th and 1st amendments which prohibits government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion and states that no right or privilege enumerated shall be used to deny rights or privileges held by the people. So in essence, a constitutional amendment would likely need to be made to square any conflicts that would prevent the free exercise of religion. Laws do not override the constitution.

So gays are not remotely the same as blacks legally or constitutionally when it comes to protections. And it varies from state to state as to if their civil rights legislation does include gays, but that would be a state rule which wouldn't override the constitution.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole conversation isn't even about misogyny or racism disguised as libertarian values, it's about ethics in game gurnalizm. Oh, wait. Hmm.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

So, civil unions, in other words?

Re:Leave then

[Sique]

The tradition in my country is that a marriage is whatever the public servant according to the current law performs as marriage.

Churches and other religious affiliations are not allowed to perform marriages in general. They can perform a church wedding afterwards, but that's a private decision of the couple and has nothing to do with the legal marriage.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

There are something like 30,000 denominations of Christianity. Each of these follows it own rules and interpretations of the Bible, many mutually exclusive, but all are Christian.

It is entirely possible to be a Christian as you describe yourself, while someone else like Pat Roberts can also be Christian. You don't get to make the rules for other people, and they don't get to make the rules for you.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a Muslim photographer should not be forced to photograph a gay wedding, because he always has the option of getting out of the wedding photography business. He can photograph dogs or nature scenes instead.

Excellent! Next time the Illinois Nazis hold a rally, shoving Jew dolls into an oven and celebrating the deaths of millions, that Jewish photographer they wanted to hire is REQUIRED to accept their offer. In addition, the Jew has to do a good job, or be subject to contractual penalties.

Nothing wrong with that - the Jew can always be driven out of business instead, right?

Re:Leave then

[Livius]

Allowing people to express their sincere religious belief

The world has a *lot* of insincere religious belief.

I gather you are advocating for thought police, as they would be the only ones capable is distinguishing the two.

Re:Leave then

[Macgrrl]

Means for identifying is a marriage is real:

Step 1 - is the bride Brittany Spears?

There is no Step 2.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you can ALREADY choose to do business or not depending on arbitrary made-up criterion. You CAN'T currently do it based on religion (or race, color, national origin, etc). Don't want to serve someone based on how they are dressed? Your right. Only want to serve people of a certain income level? Your right.

No Shoes No Service: Nice plain and simple Uncle Sam sponsored discrimination.
ROAR (Right of Admission Reserved): Sneaky way of saying that if you're ($category) people then you'll have to wait outside.
Over 21 Only: Up front way of saying that if you're not old enough to pay for the expensive drinks then we don't want you in our bar.
No voters under 18: Up front way of saying that Uncle Sam doesn't care what you youngsters think.
No pictures of girls under 18: Up front way of thinking of the children.
Discrimination is everywhere, it's part of our culture. Own it.

Re:Leave then

[Macgrrl]

I assume you will be happy to take the hit on not being able to sell your property without suing anyone? Zoning laws are mostly about protecting property value through assuring amenity of neighbouring properties.

Re:Leave then

[bobbied]

No, I'm advocating for common sense in religious freedom.

Remember "Hobby Lobby" ? Go read that opinion, you will better understand why I used the terms I did.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

> Which marriages are real, and which are fake?

Those for the purpose of raising children. Which is the whole reason we have all those legal and tax things set up in the first place.

Yes, that does mean that two people who get married and have no kids don't have a real marriage. I've said the same to my brother, who has such a marriage.

Re:Leave then

[TechyImmigrant]

>I really wish people would stop trying to compare gays to black people. They are not the same.

Are you saying there are no gay black people?

I have friends who would be surprised to find that they are not what they think they are. You should let them know quickly. Don't delay. You are in possession of special new knowledge.

Re:Leave then

[TechyImmigrant]

You may be afflicted with Christianity, but you should not seek to afflict others with it.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

You are nothing like your peers.... honestly you'd find better company elsewhere.

Re:Leave then

[JackieBrown]

Those businesses pay taxes too. It's not like they are getting a free ride and they are not free to create their own road system. They also pay for those police in addition to any other security they have.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

"Marriage" is a word describing a union of a man and a woman, removing them from their parents' households and joining them as the foundation of a new family unit. This word, and the corresponding words in other languages, have been understood this way for thousands of years.

Any other type of union is not a "marriage". People just use "marriage" as a short-hand term to describe homosexual unions. Basically, they're saying "marriage, but for homosexuals". As of yet, there is not an accurate, single word for one of those in the English language. Bastardizing the word "marriage" to this meaning is an abuse of the language just as much as it is an insult and an affront to heterosexuality.

If you want a generic term for a union, then the word "union" will have to suffice. Deal with it.

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

I'm completely fine with that, actually.

If I want to control the neighboring properties, I should buy them.

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

In my "utopia"? If they pollute, it's effectively property-damage of neighboring properties, no different from littering or vandalism.

If they can keep their pollution on their own property without it leaking anywhere else (actually damaging someone else's property) then that's their business.

Obviously, that's not going to happen that often, so they'd be on the hook for making me whole after any damages were caused.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

A valid position, to be sure, but please consider this:

If someone is a paedophile, polygamist or cannibal, did God make them that way too?

Not really sure with regard to all of them, but I suspect pedophilia probably is a compulsion of some kind. I'm sure predisposition to violence can be genetic, as can be psychopathy/etc.

That doesn't mean that people should be allowed to molest children unrestrained. A key difference being of course the fact that gay sex is consensual and molesting children is not. Non-consensual sex of any kind is rape, plain and simple.

For actual criminals I am a believer in rehabilitation. There may very well be people who can never safely be allowed to enter society, and they should be kept locked up for the duration of their lives, but it shouldn't be treated as some kind of punishment. For those who can learn to control their compulsions, there should be opportunity to live in society.

And frankly, this kind of attitude towards both criminals and those who are outcasts strikes me as far closer to the teachings of Christ than some of the nonsense I see coming out of the religious right. Do you think that Jesus would refuse service to somebody who is gay? Heck, he'd probably attend their wedding whatever his thoughts on gay marriage might have been.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

That oft-trotted-out "half of all marriages end in divorce" statistic is decades old and is inaccurate. In fact, it wasn't statistically significant at the time. It was a spike that lasted for a single calendar year (1992), within one country (the USA), and was unprecedented and unmaintained (1991 and 1993 did not have a "ramp up" or "ramp down" to explain the spike in 1992, it was basically the "wow signal" of divorce statistics).

The average divorce rate is more like 30-35% annually, not 50%, and it has been steady for about 45 years now.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think doing business with you right now will harm my ability to do business in the future" is valid. But somehow, telling people why can be illegal.

Re: Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

> Being gay isn't a choice, so if someone is gay, God must have made him that way.

The Old Testament states very cleary that man-on-man homosexual intercourse is equally outrageous as human-animal coitus and perpetrators are to be executed by the community. If a person is gay, he shall lead a celibate life to avoid the most serious verdict in this life and/or the eternal life.

Presumably you follow Leviticus in executing misbehaving children as well? And surely you must refuse to work one year out of every seven, and give away your house to a native american every 50 years? I better not catch you eating bacon either!

Re:Leave then

[Paradoks]

On the bright side, at least people don't assume you're a terrorist.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Any marriage God ordained ends only in death, despite what the spouses might believe.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Pravda, Tovarich!

Re:Leave then

[sumdumass]

What I said was pretty damn clear if you bothered to read past the sentence you quoted. Of course i did not say there are no black gays. Are you saying all gays are black?

See how silly that is?

Re:Leave then

[frank_adrian314159]

Hey, who am I to argue with happiness?

Re:Leave then

[frank_adrian314159]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the extra $5 or so wouldn't be an issue in court if you could actually show increased costs. Stop being an asshat.

Re:Leave then

[dfghjk]

Bigotry proudly displayed!

This is why we should invest more in public education.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that definition is what's taken to be true for you. Not someone else. And since you're not the one being made to marry, it doesn't matter what you think marriage is.

Feel free NOT to marry someone of your own sex. All the freedom of the world. You are entitled to your opinion.

However, gays and lesbians are also entitled to their own, where real marriage is where they get married.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution also gives the government the power to regulate interstate commerce.

FTFY

Re:Leave then

[strikethree]

You may believe that it is an infringement of your "freedom" to be forced to serve black people.

Fuck you.

I run a tanning salon you insensitive clod! ;)

Re:Leave then

[houghi]

So we are back mixing chruch and business again. I thought that was settled 2000 years ago.

Re:Leave then

[T.E.D.]

A "real marriage"? Which marriages are real, and which are fake?

I think he meant "traditional marriage". That's where neither spouse has actually met (except possibly at an extended family gathering), and an exchange of goods between the two families is involved to balance out the transfer of female property. Quite likely arranged while one or both parties are infants. If the man wants romance, he takes a concubine (of his preferred gender).

You newfangled Victorians with your love-based marriages just don't understand traditional values.

Re:Leave then

[fgouget]

Then there are things which you CAN discriminate on.

If you don't like who a business [...] refuses service to, you are free to take your business elsewhere and share your views with your friends, neighbors or even the random person on the street if they will listen.

Let the market decide and if the majority of people think like you and take their business some other place, so be it. Just live your life and do your business and let others do the same. Seems like freedom to me.

Wonderful community you want to build. One where minorities can be ostracised, denied service by the majority, forced to either supply themselves from shaddy sources who will overchage them or to die or leave if they can. Members of that holier than thou majority can try to hide behind the veil of religious mores all they want. The truth is it is they who don't have one shred of morality.

Re:Leave then

[bobbied]

No, we are not discussing mixing church and business. We are discussing an Individual's right to express their religion when they do business, to believe something and actually act according to what they believe.

Hobby Lobby is a recent example of businesses which are run by people with specific beliefs that have affected how they do business, Chick-Fil-A is another. Both businesses are closed on Sunday out of deference to their religious beliefs. Are you implying they should NOT be free to do that?

We either have freedom of religion or we don't. I believe that almost 200 years ago that question was settled for the people of the United States.

Re:Leave then

[bobbied]

Then there are things which you CAN discriminate on.

If you don't like who a business [...] refuses service to, you are free to take your business elsewhere and share your views with your friends, neighbors or even the random person on the street if they will listen.

Let the market decide and if the majority of people think like you and take their business some other place, so be it. Just live your life and do your business and let others do the same. Seems like freedom to me.

Wonderful community you want to build. One where minorities can be ostracised, denied service by the majority, forced to either supply themselves from shaddy sources who will overchage them or to die or leave if they can. Members of that holier than thou majority can try to hide behind the veil of religious mores all they want. The truth is it is they who don't have one shred of morality.

And YOUR answer is to legislate that people must violate their religious beliefs because YOU don't think what they are doing is moral? I'd say the pot is calling the kettle black here but in reality the people who have your view are missing the point.

We either do or we don't have religious freedom here and if that freedom doesn't extend into how people can conduct business and what activities they choose to be involved in and what they refuse to do, then we really DON'T have the freedom, We have government interfering with religion which is expressly forbidden in our constitution..

Don't like it? Sorry. Get the constitution changed, but I warn you that you won't like the results.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Every marriage is a same sex marriage, because after the first year the sex is the same all the time.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

no the idea would force the baker to produce a product to the best of his abilities and not care about WHO the end customer is. afterall if you are a baker why would you not want to make great cakes so that more people want your super awesome cakes and you make more money. I fail to see where race/gender/beliefs have anything to do with anything when selling cakes!

Re:Leave then

[TechyImmigrant]

You said black people are not the same as gay people. That was pretty clear.

That mumbo jumbo about how laws don't count, only the constitution does is what I found hard to match up to reality.

Re:Leave then

[Cederic]

So.. what's a woman? And what's a man?

Gender isn't binary, you ignorant bigoted twat.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

And you know what? Gay marriage doesn't bother me one bit, Leviticus notwithstanding. Being gay isn't a choice, so if someone is gay, God must have made him that way. If that's the case, who am I to condemn it?

You've got an excuse. I'll give you that. You're a guy I don't even know, and I'm sure you're a great person.
What really confuses me, is that the _pope himself_ says the same thing. Christianity as the world understands seems broken to me.

Don't we all have a genetic predisposition to be evil, in some way? (Forget homosexuality, just plain old evil.)
Maybe you watch too much TV, because you really dig it. Maybe you're the Green River killer. Or anything in between that is obviously not good for you.
Yes, I have these feelings, but for whatever reason, not all of them are good.
Jesus asks us all to be better than we were when we were born. Why else did he preach?
He could have saved a lot of time and gone straight to the cross.
A big part of it is tolerance, and a big part is changing ourselves to be better people.
I don't think I can give up on either of those things.

Can anyone in your church lay down the law?
I don't mean picketing a wedding, or bigotry on signs.
I'm not saying that we have an excuse to be jerks. (And certainly neither did Jesus.)
I would not kick a gay couple out of my store. I would not preach to a gay person in my store.
I can't condemn either, because I'm just some guy, just like you. I believe vengeance belongs to the Lord.

Do we really know how much how much of being gay is nature, and how much is nurture?
If you were going to die, wold you let a gay couple adopt your children? Do you think it would change the odds? Would that be the hand of God at work?
Are you (or anyone reading this) looking for answers to these questions?

I'm sure you've figured it out, but I call myself a Christian too.
Since it hasn't failed me in other ways, I've decided to try to stick with the Christian doctrine and try to understand it.
I've decided to draw the line at adoption, because despite the "God made me this way" arguments, there is nothing natural about homosexuals having children together, unless you're a snail, or certain kinds of frogs apparently. Along with that, adoption is where it starts to affect other people in an unstoppable way, even though there are worse things that can happen to children, I know that.

But then, how can you call them real marriages, if you're not allowed to adopt children? And that's where people start calling me a jerk.
But yeah, it doesn't feel right to me. The cake isn't a problem, but we need to figure this out.

Re:Leave then

[j2.718ff]

A real marriage is where one woman marries one man.

Sorry if that's difficult for you.

So only certain types of legal marriage (where I live anyway) are "real"? Yes, it is difficult for me to know which state-sanctioned things are real, and which are fake.

Re:Leave then

[j2.718ff]

"Marriage" is a word describing a union of a man and a woman, removing them from their parents' households and joining them as the foundation of a new family unit. This word, and the corresponding words in other languages, have been understood this way for thousands of years.

I'm not a part of my parents' household. Does this mean that for me, "marriage" is impossible?

Re:Leave then

[macs4all]

Forcing people to do business with people in situations where they object, does NOT seem like freedom to me.

Sure it is.

Those people who are offended by having to serve persons who's private behavior does not comport with their world-view have the FREEDOM to not engage in business with the PUBLIC.

If they want to exclude certain persons, then they need to open a PRIVATE CLUB, not a PUBLIC BUSINESS.

And, isn't it odd that Conservative Republicans (who, make no mistake, are the driving-force between this regressive legislation) are always trumpeting the phrase "Less Government Regulation; Smaller Government!" and "Let the Free Market Sort It Out!", are the first to run to the Legislature to ram-through this barely-Constitutional steaming pile of Government Entanglement in Religious Matters?

Oh, and this is brought to you by the ONLY State in the U.S. that STILL has a ban on Sunday Alcohol Sales (which just got defeated YET AGAIN a few weeks ago).

I am ashamed to be a Hoosier at this point. But I gotta tell you, I wouldn't want to actually EAT the cake that was baked by a baker who didn't want to be baking it...

The possibility of all kinds of "interesting" extra-ingredients comes immediately to mind...

By the way, one of the facts that probably isn't making the National News, is that there is actually some push-back from certain Government officials. For example, the Mayor of Indianapolis has stated publicly that he does NOT want Governor Pence to sign the bill into law today. but alas, just checking a local news site, I guess the bastard did just that. Sigh.

Re:Leave then

[macs4all]

Hobby Lobby is a recent example of businesses which are run by people with specific beliefs that have affected how they do business, Chick-Fil-A is another. Both businesses are closed on Sunday out of deference to their religious beliefs. Are you implying they should NOT be free to do that?

Entirely a different argument.

In the case of those two businesses imposing their own private "blue laws", there is absolutely NO DISCRIMINATION against a CERTAIN CLASS of the population. NO ONE can shop at those two businesses; it isn't just the "heathens" that are excluded.

In the case of the Religious Bigotry Protection Act, we have actually CODIFIED an Entanglement between Religion and Government, without even the slightest scintilla of "Overriding Public Interest" in endorsing this discriminatory behavior UNDER COLOR OF LAW.


Can't Buy Alcohol/Cigs until Age/Sell Alcohol/Cigs to those under that Age: Public Health Interest.

Can't Vote Until Age of Majority: Fits in with longstanding doctrine of many proscribed behaviors by Minors.

Don't Have to Serve Someone who Doesn't Agree with Your Religion (without having to CLEARLY POST your Religion): Where's the Public Interest?

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Or substitute the word "Nazi". Good is not equal to evil, and never will be. Black is not evil. LGBT is the new Nazi.

Re:Leave then

[sumdumass]

If you do not understand the constitution is the supreme law of the land, there likely is nothing i can do to help you other than suggest you stay in school. Maybe your mom can help you with that mumbo jumbo.

Re:Leave then

[Cederic]

I'm fairly sure the courts would support the photographer declining to photograph that event.

That's very different to the photographer refusing to take a family portrait of someone because they happen to be white and not a Jew.

Re:Leave then

[TechyImmigrant]

I'm doing all right with it. I don't suffer from excess dogma though.

Re:Leave then

[bobbied]

How is one's "private business" now "public"? If it's MY business, it's my business how it is run and if I don't want to serve people w/o shoes or who wear pink underwear it's legal. (or it SHOULD be legal). If I choose to only serve people who have specific beliefs, why is that a problem? It is my PRIVATE business and if I want to say open a place that is segregated by gender based on my religious belief that men and women should not be together in public unless they are related, why do YOU care?

I can tell you are not thinking clearly about the unintended consequences of what you are advocating. Yea, you might solve something that YOU define as a problem, but once you get the camel's nose in the tent on this the whole thing is coming in and all you need to do is open a business and you forfeit all your rights to holding and acting on your religious beliefs while you are doing your business. Do a bit of critical thinking about what regulations like you would advocate for would actually do to the free practice of religion and remember our forefathers paid for this freedom in blood. We should be VERY careful not to just give it all away because some nut case abuses his freedom on religious grounds.

I'm not saying this is a PERFECT approach, but it certainly was inspired genius that brings us to this "more perfect union" where your right to practice religion is codified in the constitution.

Re:Leave then

[bobbied]

Hobby Lobby is a recent example of businesses which are run by people with specific beliefs that have affected how they do business, Chick-Fil-A is another. Both businesses are closed on Sunday out of deference to their religious beliefs. Are you implying they should NOT be free to do that?

Entirely a different argument. In the case of those two businesses imposing their own private "blue laws", there is absolutely NO DISCRIMINATION against a CERTAIN CLASS of the population. NO ONE can shop at those two businesses; it isn't just the "heathens" that are excluded.

So I cannot say, not do business with people who have pink underwear? Private businesses are FREE to discriminate based on you appearance, your smell, or even your gender as they see fit. They also have the right to refuse entry to individuals if they run a retail store. (No kids in the china shop for instance), "No shirt, no shoes, no service!" etc. Yes there are protected classes codified into law (as well there should be) but the first amendment is abundantly clear that government does NOT have the right to insert itself by law into the religious beliefs or expression of these beliefs and that includes how a business chooses to conduct it's business. You don't give up your religious freedom just because you have a business.

In the case of the Religious Bigotry Protection Act, we have actually CODIFIED an Entanglement between Religion and Government, without even the slightest scintilla of "Overriding Public Interest" in endorsing this discriminatory behavior UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

Actually what is wrong is those who UNDER COLOR OF LAW attempt to force businesses to act or do things outside their religious values. That Gay couple that sued the bakery for refusing to make them a wedding cake (you've heard the stories) when the owners objected to participating in the wedding in any way. Having the courts order them to violate their moral values is doing exactly what you say shouldn't be done. My religious freedom trumps your right to force My business UNDER COLOR OF LAW to do what you decide is right. Or we really have no religious freedom...

Don't Have to Serve Someone who Doesn't Agree with Your Religion (without having to CLEARLY POST your Religion): Where's the Public Interest?

It's in the constitution, first amendment actually. It's also discussed in the declaration of independence. But Just so you know what I'm talking about:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which was promulgated to include the states by the 14th which states in part: " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Seems pretty clear that what I'm advocating for is constitutional. Where I wish laws like this where unnecessary, unfortunately there are those who UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW seek to limit others religious rights and I don't see a constitutional issue with making a state law that protects such rights.

Re:Leave then

[sumdumass]

You sure? You just fooled me.

Oh, there isn't any dogma in what i said. The bottom line is the only reason minorities are a protected class is because the 14th amendment gave congress the power to make law for the purpose of equality in rights and privileges afforded to others. Gays simply are not listed within the law so they are not comparable to blacks in respect to discrimination in public accommodations. Right or wrong, it is not the same thing.

Re:Leave then

[ebvwfbw]

But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.

Indeed. Understand that race, creed, religion ARE protected. Sexual orientation isn't. People (and judges) seem to forget that. Not saying it is right or wrong. They should get it protected before shoving it down people's throat through the court system. Before violating a businesses right to religion - that IS protected.

In this case I think they should be bigger than that. The state is doing it, not the people who depend on those services. They probably have no problem with gay issues.

Will say that I think it was really really stupid of the Governor to sign that bill. Maybe he was smoking weed or something.

Re:Leave then

[ebvwfbw]

I understand the reasoning behind this since I've felt the same way in the past, but then this reopens the door to "Well we don't serve blacks at our restaurant, you'll have to eat somewhere else." Any privately owned business that provides services to the general public is not allowed to discriminate as to who they serve.

And seriously what's the big deal? A customer comes in and wants a cake, you bake cakes, why does it matter if you're baking a cake for a straight marriage, a gay marriage or even a bar mitzvah? They're not asking you to officiate the wedding, they're not asking you to get married with them, and unless they're asking for a cake with two guys fucking on it, I don't see why it matters.

Not true. You can't discriminate against a protected group. Homosexuality isn't protected. Race is. If they want that, get it through Congress.

Re:Leave then

[JimFive]

And if they could keep all of the externalities on their land then you would be correct. However, the mere fact that you wouldn't like it indicates that they CAN'T keep the externalities on their land. If they could, you wouldn't care. So, since they can't keep the sight, sounds, smells, pollutants, etc. confined within their property, society has created zones to separate unseemly activities from residential and retail neighborhoods. The fact that commons are involved means that society has a say.
--
JimFive

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

So why didn't Indiana pass a law to ban divorces as well?

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

Nonsense. I might not like the view of a smelting plant, even if they could keep all the externalities there. I might think the risk was too high. I might think it was too loud.

There's plenty of non-externalities that might make it less desirable to live there.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russsia, Pravda Tovarichs you?

Re:Leave then

[brantondaveperson]

Those business owners need to state their rules publicly

You mean, like a sign over the door saying "whites only"? Is that what you mean?

This is why:

Ideally, I think you should have the right to not serve someone for any reason.

Is backwards. Ideally no-one would be refused service for any reason, whereas realistically one might be refused service because one is not behaving ideally. In an ideal world, no-one gets turned away.

Re:Leave then

[brantondaveperson]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, in any reasonable forum, would be the end of the debate.

However, this is the internet. So. Carry on.

Re:Leave then

[JimFive]

You say, "Nonsense," and then proceed to agree with me.

The view, the sound, the smell, the risk, increased traffic, etc. Those are the externalities I was talking about. It is clear in your example that the smelting plant next to you affects the value of your property. It affects its value to you, or you wouldn't move, and it presumably affects its value to potential buyers. Therefore, the smelting plant has reduced the value of your property, that is a sign that the smelting plant is imposing a hidden cost on you and your neighbors. That is an externality.

To put it within your stated moral framework. You aren't telling them what they can do with their land. You are telling them that whatever they do can't affect the commons in such a way that it is detrimental to their neighbors. (For the purposes of this argument, the commons includes visual scenery, the air and intangibles such as danger, if you have a better word, feel free to propose it)
--
JimFive

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

"Property Value change" isn't "actual harm". I gambled that my property would have equal or higher value later. It didn't. That's on ME, not anyone else.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

So ... all of them that are recognized by the state, which includes gay marriages in the majority now, I believe?

Re:Leave then

[JimFive]

The expression "You're right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose" is apt here.

Property value is a proxy for "fitness for purpose". It is possible for your neighbor to use es property in a way that makes your property less useful to you. Your neighbor in that situation is infringing on your right to use your property as you see fit. Resolving these types of conflicts between personal rights is one of the purposes of government. Most local governments use zoning and permitting to set equitable standards for land use to prevent those disputes up front.
--
JimFive

Re:Leave then

[fgouget]

We either do or we don't have religious freedom here and if that freedom doesn't extend into how people can conduct business and what activities they choose to be involved in and what they refuse to do, then we really DON'T have the freedom,

So it seems your view is that religious freedom must trump every other freedom or right. But that cannot work. Not everyone follows the same religion (if any). Ensuring that is the whole point of religious freedom. But each religion has its own idea of what its followers must do. Some say unmarried women who have sex must be stoned. According to your argument, making that illegal would be denying these people their religious freedom. Sure you may not agree with their religious mores, but you cannot question or deny theirs while refusing your right to discriminate based on yours to be questioned or made illegal.

the only way out is to hold that religious freedom must stop where other people's freedoms start. That means the right to go about their live peacefully, and not to be discriminated against.

Just like doctors should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason, people running stores open to the general public should not be allowed to discriminate. If selling to some categories of the population goes against their religion then they should run a private store, one that requires a membership card from their congregation or something, or they should find themselves another job where they can choose their clients.

We have government interfering with religion which is expressly forbidden in our constitution..

I think you were more specifically thinking of the Bill of Rights. It's a good document but it's not the absolute unambiguous answer you make it out to be. For instance, the first amendment, the one you care about because it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", immediately continues with "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Well, lots of religions consider blasphemy to be a religious crime and want it to be forbidden and punished. But that would go against the very same amendment's protection of freedom of speech. So which is it? It seems like according to you religious freedom should trump freedom of speech but I'm not sure your fellow citizens would agree with you on that, or that you'd really like to live in such a country.

Don't like it? Sorry. Get the constitution changed, but I warn you that you won't like the results.

Don't need to. I already leave in a country where discrimination is illegal. Works just fine. Thank you very much.

Re:Leave then

[fgouget]

Let me rephrase because I think you missed the point. Discriminations are generally wielded by a majority against a minority. Your argument that we should let the market decide makes no sense: the majority will not feel the impact of a minority of their customers going elsewhere and thus will not have any reason to change their behavior. So it's a hypocritical way of say minorities should continue to be discriminated against "until the problem goes away".

And here are some parts of the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US helped draft, that you don't seem to be aware of:

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Re:Leave then

[T.E.D.]

Swap the word "gay" for "black" and try again. The country already learned, rather painfully, that letting businesses refuse to serve whole segments of the population causes one hell of a lot of unrest.

You don't really have to imagine this. I've personally been refused service in Indiana due to the fact that some members of my group were black.

This is just an attempt to codify the existing practice of discrimination in Indiana. That's why it passed and got signed. These are in fact the people's representatives doing what the "good people of Indiana" want.

Re:Leave then

[bobbied]

We either do or we don't have religious freedom here and if that freedom doesn't extend into how people can conduct business and what activities they choose to be involved in and what they refuse to do, then we really DON'T have the freedom,

So it seems your view is that religious freedom must trump every other freedom or right. But that cannot work. Not everyone follows the same religion (if any). Ensuring that is the whole point of religious freedom. But each religion has its own idea of what its followers must do. Some say unmarried women who have sex must be stoned. According to your argument, making that illegal would be denying these people their religious freedom. Sure you may not agree with their religious mores, but you cannot question or deny theirs while refusing your right to discriminate based on yours to be questioned or made illegal.

What a jaded view. Let's discuss another right we have and then apply the same logic. What of "freedom of speech"? This right says that you have the right to have and express any opinion you choose. Where you are "free" to say something, you are not free from the consequences of what you say. There ARE limits to this freedom too. The classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" comes to mine, as does inciting riots. These boundaries have usually been carefully defined by our courts and ALWAYS error on the side of freedom. Indeed, proving that someone actually crossed the line into non-protected speech is extremely hard.

Now, lets discuss freedom of religion. I've never said there are "no limits" to what you can do in the name of religion in this country. There ARE limits. However, these limits are clearly defined and must error on the side of freedom. You cannot kill somebody say sacrifice your first born male child, or kill your sister for being pregnant out of wedlock. Both will get you a murder charge and a "it was my religion" is not a valid defense. However, other things are not so clear cut. It is these "other things" that we are discussing. In these cases my right to freely exercise my religion and conduct my life according to MY moral values must be protected and the burden of any laws upon this must be the minimum necessary to achieve a valid governmental purpose. (Reference the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS majority ruling).

Oh, and I'd like to point out that the law we are discussing was passed and signed into law by the FEDERAL government way back during Clinton's terms in office, was also adopted by 20 individual states including Illinois where B. Obama was serving at the time (and offered no objections to at the time). The only reason we are discussing this in Indiana is political theater....

On that note, I'm pretty much done with you on this.... I have better things to do than argue about your definition of what cannot be religious freedom in your view, because in reality your framework of reason is really more of an authoritarian "Government knows best" solution that is not about preserving freedom, but about something else....

Re:Leave then

[fgouget]

What of "freedom of speech"? This right says that you have the right to have and express any opinion you choose. Where you are "free" to say something, you are not free from the consequences of what you say. There ARE limits to this freedom too. The classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" comes to mine, as does inciting riots. Now, lets discuss freedom of religion. I've never said there are "no limits" to what you can do in the name of religion in this country. There ARE limits.

And yet while you'd be the first to get up in arms if a shopkeeper refused to sell you bagels on the basis of your religion, you're the one claiming that forbidding you from doing so on the basis of a customer being gay would infringe on your freedom of religion! So forgive me for getting the impression that you're employing double standards there and not seeing what kind of restrictions you're willing to accept to your freedom of religion.

Oh, and I'd like to point out that the law we are discussing was passed and signed into law by the FEDERAL government way back during Clinton's terms in office, was also adopted by 20 individual states including Illinois where B. Obama was serving at the time (and offered no objections to at the time).

So? Is that supposed to magically make legalizing discrimination a good thing?

The only reason we are discussing this in Indiana is political theater....

No, the reason we're discussing this is that many people find it incredible that there are still some, including high ranking politicians in your country, who would claim in this day and age that discrimination is good. Sure you're the first one to say that discrimination based on religion is wrong and you even concede that discrimination based on race and sex is illegal, but to you discriminating on other criteria not being explicitly outlawed means it's morally ok? So discriminating against albinos is fine. Against blondes, absolutely no problem. Against single mothers? Sure. Against gays? A duty? Have you really learned nothing from history?

I have better things to do than argue about your definition of what cannot be religious freedom in your view, because in reality your framework of reason is really more of an authoritarian "Government knows best" solution that is not about preserving freedom, but about something else....

Oh sure. Claim all others really want is a dictatorship when it is you who wants to put a new law on the books, pose as the victim when it is you who wants to victimize others. That makes total sense.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?

No, a Muslim photographer should not be forced to photograph a gay wedding, because he always has the option of getting out of the wedding photography business. He can photograph dogs or nature scenes instead.

And the $minority_group_discriminated_against can tell everyone what asshats $business is. Just fucking go somewhere else. In the 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s this shit wouldn't have made the news. Now you have the internet.
Like they said on SNL: "You can tell what stores adopt the new Indiana law because they will have a helpful sign out front **GOING OUT OF BUSINESS**

-Alien Among You

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm a religious conscientious objector who believes it's wrong to kill people under any circumstances, should I be able to voluntarily join the Army and then be exempt from anything to do with shooting anything or anyone? Of course not.

NO.
Unless you're gay, or a tranny or $special_in_your_own_mind_group.

Actually the US Army DOES allow conscientious objectors to serve. Chaplain Corps, Medical Corps, or even the band (though the band also doubles as the General's guard).

Let the bigots be bigots. Listen to them, hear them out. Then spread the word. I am on the side of you gays. But be reasonable. Don't take their rights -- just don't do business with them! And tell people like me so we won't do business with them.

BTW: where was the outrage in the gay community over Brandon (the Mozilla CEO) retroactive firing?

-Alien Among You (need to get my pw back -- damn kWallet!)

bring it to Toronto Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring the convention to Toronto Canada, we don`t even have no fly lists, no Obama and our cops don`t shoot you - just give you a stern talking too.

Re:bring it to Toronto Canada

[MyNicknameSucks]

Yeah, they do shoot -- http://www.thestar.com/news/cr...

Canada has a no-fly list -- http://globalnews.ca/news/1801...

And I'd take Obama over Harper in a heartbeat.

That said, hells yeah, big gaming convention in town? My kids and I would be all over that.

Re:bring it to Toronto Canada

[Minwee]

Bring the convention to Toronto Canada, we don`t even have no fly lists, no Obama and our cops don`t shoot you - just give you a stern talking too.

Um... I hate to be the one to break this to you but... Perhaps there are a few things you don't know about Toronto. Or Canada in general.

Re:bring it to Toronto Canada

[cbhacking]

Hey, at least your cops actually go on trial for shooting people. Around these parts, it usually doesn't even make it *to* the prosecutor's office, much lest through it.

That said, while Canada is lovely in many ways and would be a relatively small cultural shift for me, it's several places down on my "where I'd emigrate to" list. The Nordic countries are nearly all more appealing, for example.

Buh-bye Gen Con

[turkeydance]

c ya

It's the only way to change the system

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote with your pocketbook.

Make some noise

[Fiznarp]

Indianapolis resident here. Most of us who live here are not as dense as Governor Pence.

Please get the word out and help us to help him realize how much of a financial loss our state could suffer should Indiana become a place where discrimination is the legalized.

Re:Make some noise

[Anonymous Coward]

Also an Indianapolis resident.

I hope this backfires on the governor and legislature. Would serve them right for being so narrow-minded.

Stop trying to push your personal beliefs on everyone else.

Re:Make some noise

[davesque]

Hear hear. Also, that's one killer user ID :).

Re:Make some noise

[Anonymous Coward]

+1. Everyone I meet from Indiana tells me this. We elected The Terminator, so I can sympathize.

Re:Make some noise

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone from outside the capital here.

This shit is a disgrace to the Hoosier state. Pence and the state legislature are a joke, but nobody's laughing. That you can actually get elected here on a platform that supports this kind of garbage is an indictment of all Hoosiers, and further evidence of the religious right destroying our common decency and our common sense. It's disgusting, it's absurd, and above all else, it's wrong.

Leaving the state behind isn't an option for a lot of us, even if 'liberal' cowards seem to believe that's the best way of dealing with the problem. Fuck that noise, I plan on leaving this place better than I found it. If this is the Augean Stable of the Midwest, then hand me a shovel.

Re:Make some noise

[Dunkirk]

Regardless of who "wins" this argument, one side will have pushed their "personal beliefs" on the other. If "pushing your beliefs on someone else" is the basis of your argument against, that's hypocritical. I'm not defending the proposed law here; just pedantically pointing out the logical flaw.

Re:Make some noise

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the other 91 counties are.

We ran a family out of town for having an adopted black son. I graduated in 2001.

I got the hell out. Indiana was worrying about its brain drain a decade ago and it was because a lot of us wanted the hell out.

Re:Make some noise

[ChrisMaple]

Do you discriminate between food and poison? Thieves and clerks? Clergy and murderers? Rapists and teachers? Wisdom and stupidity? Discrimination is a necessity of life.

Re:Make some noise

[Anonymous Coward]

You make the false assumption that there are only two sides, but that appears to be the way you wanted to frame it.

For example:

"My god says the way you feel about a man or woman means I don't have to serve you."

"My god says that I should treat others the way I want to be treated."

"In America, you should not be able to discriminate based upon sexual orientation."

Re:Make some noise

[frank_adrian314159]

Pushing beliefs (up to a limit) is what people do. Governments do what is necessary to ensure that fairness is balanced with justice. Discriminating against a subset of people who's behavior is not heinous, nor voluntary, to most of us seems to be unjust.

And I'm afraid my thirst for justice trumps your "right to discriminate". I'm sorry, but it just does. Unless you're a total asshat. You can try to obfuscate the asshattery by appealing to ideals, but we live in a boots on the ground world, where reality tends to trump ideology. We, as a society, try to limit asshattery.

The folks who are pushing this law are asshats, period. They're not even following their own religion's tenets, because they are not loving their fellow man as themselves (but I guess that part doesn't matter). Not to mention the fact that these asshats assume to speak for the entire Christian community, many of which do not share their beliefs on homosexuality. These people don't act like Christians, they act like asshats. I am not sorry that our society tries to limit the actions of such. Good Indianans, control your asshats.

Re:Make some noise

[AmiMoJo]

Not being allowed to discriminate is the will of democratic society, a collective belief rather than a personal one. That's the key difference - the law is arguing that individuals should be free to act on their personal beliefs when operating as part of a business, where as society has collectively decided (at a federal level) that businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on the personal beliefs of employees/owners.

Re:Make some noise

[Heathren-bert]

I voted for Rupert....

Re:Make some noise

[cdrudge]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Discrimination is unjust treatment due to some characteristic. In the case of poison, thieves, murders, rapists, and stupidity, the justness of choosing the alternative is deserved.

Re:Make some noise

[T.E.D.]

Indianapolis resident here. Most of us who live here are not as dense as Governor Pence.

I beg to differ. Your governors are elected there via MAJORITY vote, right?

It may not be your fault that there are idiots among you, but it most certainly IS your fault that you elected one to lead you.

Re:Make some noise

[ebvwfbw]

It would be nice if the gay community would stop trying to push their beliefs on the rest of us. Want to be gay, fine. Don't think I should participate or approve. I don't approve of some heterosexual activities either. Get a room.

Re:Make some noise

[uncanny]

Today i learned that being gay is a belief. I didn't realize these people were trying to force you to participate in homosexual activities. Have you been sodomized yet as a result of this "pushing"?

Idle threats?

[cdrudge]

Put up or shut up. Instead of saying that the law will factor in to the decision making process, directly tell them that it will not be in Indianapolis or anywhere else in Indiana if the law is passed. Tell them that the law will automatically disqualify the city and state from consideration. And then follow through with it if not also try to get out of the existing contract should Pence sign the bill. Anything else is just an idle threat and won't be taken seriously.

Re:Idle threats?

[mbone]

Most hotel and convention contracts (and, I have dealt with such) have enough wiggle room in the "Force Majeure" clauses that they will be able to void them. (IANAL, and TINLA.) However, it is the deposits that would be at risk; they could be soaked up in fees, etc., as could things like hotel commission payments for the last meeting. For a sufficiently large meeting on an annual cycle, there is generally no or almost no time where there is not money either deposited or owed; those payments would be at risk.

To say more, you would need to know just what the contracts said, and those are generally not made public.

Re:Idle threats?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll need a while to scout new venues, but if their attendance tanks and participating guests/publishers/vendors/etc begin cancelling/boycotting they might just be able to get an early out on their contract.

Re:Idle threats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not how business is done. Nor do you give ultimatums to governments. You let your intentions be known but do not threaten (businesses should not threaten government passing laws.)

Re:Idle threats?

[mbone]

Not how business is done. Nor do you give ultimatums to governments. You let your intentions be known but do not threaten (businesses should not threaten government passing laws.)

You obviously don't have much experience in this area.

Re:Idle threats?

[Anonymous Coward]

When Arizona was passing its own batcrap crazy laws like this the NFL flat out told them they would be taking all of their business out of the state if it was signed into law.

Re:Idle threats?

[ShanghaiBill]

Put up or shut up. Instead of saying that the law will factor in to the decision making process, directly tell them ...

Ultimatums to elected officials tend to backfire. The last thing they want to for their base to perceive that they "caved in". A more subtle approach, that would allow this bill to quietly die in some committee, would be more effective.

Re:Idle threats?

[Lumpy]

Gencon consumes all of indy that weekend. you cant get a hotel within 30 miles. Every single hotel room is already booked for that weekend. Every restaurant in a 10 mile radius of the center is packed full of people.

I honestly hope they move because Indy is too dinky of a town for Gencon. I want them to move to Vegas. Cheaper and better hotels, cheaper and easier flights. And a shitload more to do outside of the convention.

Win win

[Anonymous Coward]

They get their law passed and at the same time the perverts up and leave and take their toys with them. Go gov go

Re:Win win

[Anonymous Coward]

The perverts are trying to pass this anti-gay bill. Good people are leaving. You seem like one of the regressive freaks.

Hate the bill, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...sounds like Gen Con is looking for a way to leave Indianapolis while still looking like good guys.

Re:Hate the bill, but...

[Dredd13]

Not as far-fetched as you might think. Gen Con has massively outgrown the hotel capacity of downtown Indy, and the shortage has been causing a LOT of complaints from attendees.

They have the freedom to leave it they want

[will_die]

Same as a business owner should have protection from not having to produce something for pedophilia if it is against their religion.

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[cdrudge]

Pedophilia is illegal. Being gay isn't. Big difference.

And it's not just about producing something "gay" (e.g. a wedding cake with two grooms on the top). It also would allow discriminating a gay couple from buying a regular sandwich at a deli, or a drink at a coffee shop just because of their marital status. It's a license to discriminate.

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[Fire_Wraith]

Existing law already expects that a business owner or employee who sees evidence of criminal activity report that activity to the police. Failing to do so - such as developing pictures that are clearly criminal in nature (not that anyone really develops pictures anymore, but it's a good example) - makes one complicit in the crime.

But then, we're not talking about criminal activity here. We're talking about perfectly legal activity, and discrimination against people solely because they belong to a particular group.

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[will_die]

There are plenty of legal things with pedophilia that are total legal just read the works of richard dawkins.
Besides there are plenty of companies already that will discriminate if you are not a couple, male, white, etc while are you singling out being gay as deserving special treatment.

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[sycodon]

Being Gay used to be illegal.

Some would make pedophilia "normal".

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[geekmux]

Same as a business owner should have protection from not having to produce something for pedophilia if it is against their religion.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

Running a business should imply tolerance. If you are too blinded by your own religion to see that, have fun with the bankruptcy paperwork, because the world around you is becoming intolerant of this bullshit.

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[Anonymous Coward]

> Existing law already expects that a business owner or employee who sees evidence of criminal activity report that activity to the police.

No it doesn't. Sure, a couple of states have laws that try to compel that, and there are a couple of specific professions that are "mandatory reporters" for certain classes of crimes (like doctors who have to report evidence of domestic violence) but as a general rule the average person has no legal requirement to report a crime. Its basically a violation of the first amendment, you can't compel speech without a court order.

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[Crashmarik]

Crap incest between blood relatives is legal in NJ at the moment
http://www.nj.com/news/index.s...

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Pedophilia isn't illegal, nor is it illegal to have cannibalistic urges. What's illegal is acting on those urges.

(Megol - have moderated)

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

No! No it isn't. Freedom of religion is the right to believe in whatever religion you want, or none at all, without the government forcing you into a more narrowly restricted subset.

At no point is the government allowed to suppress the religious beliefs of other people, just because those beliefs are unpopular. That is exactly the sort of the thing the 1st Amendment was written to prevent the government from doing.

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[Dunkirk]

All these arguments go in this direction. But what about the crazy homophobe who wants to make an example of having a gay-owned bakery make a cake that says "HOMOSEXUALS ARE GOING TO HELL" on it? Now the shoe is on the other foot, and I wonder, if people are really being honest, if they would support forcing -- under the threat of exertion by the State -- THIS couple to make THAT cake?

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[geekmux]

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

No! No it isn't. Freedom of religion is the right to believe in whatever religion you want, or none at all, without the government forcing you into a more narrowly restricted subset.

At no point is the government allowed to suppress the religious beliefs of other people, just because those beliefs are unpopular. That is exactly the sort of the thing the 1st Amendment was written to prevent the government from doing.

If I walk into a butcher shop that carries dozens of animal varieties but they refuse to serve cow meat based on their beliefs, I'm gonna wonder why they're being intolerant of my belief to walk into a butcher shop and buy what the hell I want. I'm in your store to buy hamburger, not wonder or understand why you refuse to.

That is what I mean by tolerance and freedom from religion. Business is about serving the needs of every customer. If you want to shape your business around those beliefs, fine. You WILL pay for it in the end with smaller profits or even bankruptcy due to your limited ability to recognize every human being as a potential revenue stream.

Look Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Here come the Gaystapo, the GayGB, and the Gay Mafia.

buh bye

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Gen Con should go back to Wisconsin where it was for the first 35 years. Oh wait, Scott Walker runs that state now... how awful!

Chicago then perhaps. Just don't leave the conference hotel; nerdy white role players won't last long in that most politically correct town.

Re:buh bye

[jeffmflanagan]

You've clearly internalized too much wingnut media.

Re:buh bye

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect many of those nerdy white role players are actually queer as a three dollar bill.

Gen Con?

[jfdavis668]

It would be really handy if the article mentioned what Gen Con even was. I had to go look it up.

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

well go on then, share with us what Gen Con is, because now I have to go look it up too :|

Re:Gen Con?

[alvinrod]

One would think that if you were to comment on such an obvious omission, that you would have explained it yourself.

Short answer: It's a tabletop gaming convention.

Re:Gen Con?

[Minwee]

That's okay. You can leave the shredded ashes of your Nerd Card in the bowl by the door.

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia: "Gen Con is the largest tabletop-game convention in North America by both attendance and number of events."

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

tabletop gaming

Ironic. A pink sausage-fest. Some of the most misogynistic people I've ever encountered are role players. No lack of racists, either.

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see the irony here, right?

Re:Gen Con?

[Talderas]

It is one of the conventions in the US that is a top contender for "Most Foul Smelling".

Re:Gen Con?

[jsepeta]

It's just a matter of time before GenCon is replaced by PAX. PAX Prime, PAX East, PAX South, PAX Australia -- Penny Arcade is racking up the attendance by being more focused on gamers and gaming than on profiteering.

Re:Gen Con?

[DerekLyons]

Not really. Thirty years ago Gen Con was indeed all that and one of the premier cons of nerd world. Nowadays, with the rise of Multiple Comic Conventions, multiple anime conventions, and multiple incarnations of PAX... it's decidedly in the second tier and edging towards irrelevance.

Re:Gen Con?

[Minwee]

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, and possibly graduate a year late.

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

PAX is more video/computer game centric than Gen Con, so it appeals to a different gamer crowd. Virtually all the non-computer games that you can find at PAX are at Gen Con (and if they're premiered anywhere it's GC first), and Gen Con has games that PAX doesn't.

Gen Con's been growing every year it's in Indy. That might change due to this law (either people boycotting because the Con "got involved in politics" by making this statement, or if enough celebrity guests refuse to attend), but otherwise it's not going anywhere for a while.

Re:Gen Con?

[Bing Tsher E]

There are people here who probably don't know the difference between the CMOS and TTL logic gate families. Do I tell them to tear up their nerd card? Yeah, whatever they depict on TV is what 'nerds' are. Right.

If you haven't hauled a boat anchor* to your car, in the rain, from a swapmeet, you're probably not a nerd. Or at a minimum, talked your friend out of buying said boat anchor because you'd have to help him carry it to his car. In the rain.

Go ahead and fiddle with your dice and quad paper if you insist. Though *that* can make you a real nerd, too. The wanna-nerd gamers go to 'gaming stores' and buy pre-fab gaming scenario 'sets.'

(*large piece of military surplus electronic equipment)

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct answer if you are on Slashdot is, I know what Gen Con is, but where's Indianapolis?

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point that there are other conventions stands, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that 50k people and $50m USD for Indianapolis is anywhere near irrelevance. Pax hit those numbers in the last 6~ years, ComicCon has been there for longer, with a lot of help from movie studios. Alongside E3, I struggle to think of anything larger in the nerd genre.

The Pennsylvania Farm Show makes Pax and ComicCon seem irrelevant, I guess it's all perspective.

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

Genital Confusion, to be frank about it.

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think their numbers are inflated. They say they have 50,000 visitors, and those visitors bring in $50 million in revenue locally? That's $1,000 PER PERSON. I don't see that averaging out to anywhere near that amount. Maybe more like $200 a person - IF the majority of the attendees are not local and require lodging. Otherwise it could be even as low as $100 a person.

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shush! Slashdot is for hostility bordering on outright hate, not for insightful transference of knowledge. Occasionally we discuss politics or have a "who has the biggest ego" competition, and usually both at once!

Here is an observational experiment: Watch which post will get the highest mod. The empty worded hostile one, the informative one, or the meta one.

Whichever wins is a reasonable statistical sample of the current slashdot culture.

Re:Gen Con?

[BarbaraHudson]

tabletop gaming

Ironic. A pink sausage-fest. Some of the most misogynistic people I've ever encountered are role players. No lack of racists, either.

There are misogynists everywhere
singling out gamers is most unfair
The same applies to racists too
Watch out or they'll be hating on you

The guv'nor he don't like the gays
Plays up to voters phobic ways
'Cuz signing bigot bills shows his might
It's certainly easier than doing what's right.

Using religion to hate on someone
Is some kind of sick twisted fun
Whether it's ISIS or Christianity
It still reeks of insanity

The guv'nor he sure hates the gays
Wants them to go their separate ways
But if all the gays left his town
Half the bars and clubs would shut down

Come on guv, time to come clean
Your gay phobia is not just mean
You've been in the closet way too long
Next Pride Day get out that thong!

Burma Shave

Re:Gen Con?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean my European passport?

Indiana won't miss them...

[Lead Butthead]

My guess is that the good governor thinks AD&D players are Satan worshipers anyways...

Shouldn't be an argument

[moeinvt]

Business owners should be able to "deny services to individuals" based on whatever criteria that the business owner chooses. Yes, that includes race, gender, hair color, sexual orientation or whatever else the owner wants to dream up. We shouldn't need to argue this on the basis of "religious freedom". It should be about "freedom" in the most general sense. Same with the "Hobby Lobby" case. Forget religion. Government has no legitimate authority to dictate the terms of a health benefits package that an employer offers to their employees.

Re:Shouldn't be an argument

[Anonymous Coward]

No we shouldn't. If you don't think you can operate a business AS A BUSINESS and not an extension of your internal ideology, then you are free NOT TO RUN A BUSINESS.

NOBODY forces you to run your business: leave. Get a job as a worker, live off state benefits, sell your stuff and live in a shack, doesn't matter.

Nobody forces you to associate with people, but if you take a job that requires you associate with people, THAT IS YOUR DECISION. You can't decide to take the "making money" bit and then wave off the "serve everyone" bit. It's a package deal. Don't like the associate with any customer requirement? Don't take the job of business owner.

Re:Shouldn't be an argument

[ShanghaiBill]

People like you are why the Libertarians will never get more than 1% of the vote.

The Libertarian party has a lot of good ideas, and it would be great if a few of them got elected, so their voices could be heard. But that will not happen if you continue to get hung up on stupid ideological arguments that you can't possibly win. We are not going to bring back Jim Crow in the name of ideological purity, and you alienate a lot of reasonable people when you advocate that. Learn to pick your battles.

Re:Shouldn't be an argument

[Ixokai]

Sorry, that argument went the way of the dodos fifty years ago with the Civil Rights Act. If a business is open to the public, it has to be open *to the public*. Its called being a Public Accommodation.

Consider, for instance, if a town has only one grocery store. If that grocery store owner decides he doesn't want to serve black people, then that one owner can effectively make that community neigh on impossible to live in for black people.

Your freedom doesn't extend to exerting control over other people. Withholding a service offered to the public is a kind of control (as is getting between doctors and their patients in making healthcare decisions).

Re:Shouldn't be an argument

[Anonymous Coward]

You will be very unhappy with that line of reasoning if you think it through to its logical conclusion.

Unrelated issues

[Anonymous Coward]

What does gaming have to do with wedding cakes. This whole thing has been a red herring anyway. The fact is, Gays are able to find a baker that will fulfill their needs. Why would gays want a baker that doesnt approve of their lifestyle anyway? There are plenty of bakers that will bake cakes for gay people and will be happy to take the business.

Do you ever hear Gen Con calling attention to the crimes and atrocities Islam where gays are executed, where a women can be punished severely for just fighting back against an attacker, where women cannot drive in some such countries, and the list goes on? Thats where the real human rights violation is. The liberals refuse to acknowledge or criticise the intrinsic nature of islam and Islamic doctrine as a religion of oppression, and even help Muslims cover up and continue to carry out their crimes, take money from islamic interests and have financial and monetary connections with Islamic regimes.

Re:Unrelated issues

[Anonymous Coward]

that's because GenCon is not being held in an Islamic Country, it's being held where this law is in the process of being passed. You insensitive Clod

Re:Unrelated issues

[Jarik C-Bol]

The cake thing is because of an incident that occurred with a Colorado baker. The state laws dictates that either they make the cake, or face civil penalties of multiple thousands of dollars per day until the cake is delivered. The case has been at the front of evangelical news, being marked as a 'harbinger of doom' because the individual is "being forced by the state to violate their personal beliefs or go out of business".
Now, the details of the case are a bit sordid in its own right, as the situation seems to have been deliberately concocted by what many would deem 'militant gays' (as moronic as that term may be)
The baker in Colorado ran a business that prominently advertised as a Christian bakery, and was contacted by a gay couple from out of state (I want to say Pennsylvania?) requesting a wedding cake be made. When the baker refused, he ran afoul of the states relatively new anti-discrimination laws.

Now, there is probably more to this than anyone is letting on, but on the surface, it looks a lot like someone went to lengths to ensure they would be discriminated against. Why the hell would you order a cake for a gay wedding from a blatantly christian baker multiple states away, wanting it to be shipped hundreds of miles, risking damage and spoilage, when you can get a perfectly awesome cake locally? It does not take many leaps of logic to assume that someone was trying to 'Rosa Parks' the situation. The problem being, Rosa Parks was standing up (or sitting down) in protest of unjust laws, where these individuals are merely baiting a single individual into destroying what was up till then, a perfectly successful business.
Now, many will argue that he should just make the damn cake, and its none of his business what the hell anyone does with it. (and for the most part, I agree.) At the same time however, I feel disquieted by the entire situation, and am left feeling like there is a fundamental flaw in the arrangement of this law, which allows for the ruining of an individuals entire livelihood, based entirely on the complaint of a single customer, pushing against an engrained belief.

It is not far fetched to assume that some people, raised to believe certain things, will maintain some semblance of adherence to that belief for the duration of their life. This 'Ingrained behavior' generally is harder to change the older an individual gets. Just like dear old grannie who still uses the 'N' word, and everyone just sort of laughs nervously and pretends it did not happen, We are finding ourselves in an extremely uncomfortable transitional period, where a younger generation is far more accepting of the gay lifestyle than previous generations, and legislation is moving so quickly, we find ourselves punishing people who, for lack of a better term 'don't know any better'. It does not make it right, but I feel that the burden of law we have crafted is perhaps to harsh. Change takes time, and we seem to be demanding it happen faster than large swatches of society are capable of.

Re:Unrelated issues

[x0ra]

I'd just have accepted to do the cake, but charged enormous shipping and administrative fees :-)

I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

If they had to accommodate groups they found objectionable.

Lets say 4th Reich games wanted a booth at the convention ?
Or Klansman entertainment.

Really ticks me off how the left has completely destroyed the meaning of words like freedom and liberty.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[fightinfilipino]

If they had to accommodate groups they found objectionable.

Lets say 4th Reich games wanted a booth at the convention ? Or Klansman entertainment.

Really ticks me off how the left has completely destroyed the meaning of words like freedom and liberty.

it really ticks me off how the right has characterized the ability to be openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic as "freedom and liberty. absolutely disgusting.

society cannot and will not have actual liberty when businesses and public-facing organizations are permitted to discriminate against people for who they are under the guise of "religious freedom" or "liberty." the very notion is abhorrent to an open democracy, and it amazes how the right uses mental gymnastics to reach the conclusions they have.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

Bullshit.Seeing as you don't even know the meaning of the word

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

: the power to do or choose what you want to

: a political right

You want to tell me how forcing anyone to provide service is compatible with that ?

When you say freedom and liberty, you mean certain people have a license to force people to participate in activities they find repulsive.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[puzzled_decoy]

The freedom to be a dick is exactly what liberty is all about.

Do you think freedom of speech means you're allowed to write a letter to your grandmother? No, it means you can say controversial and offensive things without fear of government retribution.

Freedom isn't a word that's supposed to make everyone happy all the time. Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression.

That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions, but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system, it's one that allows people to believe what they want and behave as they like, as long as they don't physically hard other people.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

The ACLU, which is usually excoriated as leftist, if not out-and-out commies, has frequently defended the rights of both neonazis and the KKK to be as publicly obnoxious as they choose. Over the border in Illinois, these leftists defended the rights of a bunch of Nazis to parade through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie. Personally, I find GTA extremely objectionable, but I wouldn't keep them out of GenCon.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[khasim]

When you say freedom and liberty, you mean certain people have a license to force people to participate in activities they find repulsive.

How is selling a CAKE "repulsive"?

The point is that the baker sells cakes ALL THE TIME. That is what the baker's business is about. Selling cakes.

But he refuses to sell a cake to person X because he does not like person X's race/creed/religion/etc. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, and all that GenCon is doing is trying to employ their freedom to not associate with dicks.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the freedom to buy a wedding cake?

I don't like preachy Christians, so I don't have to supply a wheelchair to your mom? Hopefully the company downtown likes her and they only charge twice as much.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[operagost]

Businesses aren't government. At least, not yet.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

An exception that just goes to prove the rule.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[fightinfilipino]

Bullshit.Seeing as you don't even know the meaning of the word

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

: the power to do or choose what you want to

: a political right

You want to tell me how forcing anyone to provide service is compatible with that ?

When you say freedom and liberty, you mean certain people have a license to force people to participate in activities they find repulsive.

and yet you don't even grasp that businesses having the ability to deny service to a particular group of people because the business owner does not like that person's sex or race or other fundamental part of their being is precisely denying those people their right in choosing what they want to do?

be self aware for at least ONE SECOND in your life. liberty is a TWO WAY STREET.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

Well my mom is dead and was Jewish while alive. So not only are you a bigot and a statist, you're also not particularly adept.

While I would never try to take away your right to be an idiot, I would gladly open a business capitalizing on your idiocy. Of course where I live the Cubans have pretty much cornered the market on providing medical services to dead jews.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[fightinfilipino]

The freedom to be a dick is exactly what liberty is all about.

Do you think freedom of speech means you're allowed to write a letter to your grandmother? No, it means you can say controversial and offensive things without fear of government retribution.

Freedom isn't a word that's supposed to make everyone happy all the time. Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression.

That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions, but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system, it's one that allows people to believe what they want and behave as they like, as long as they don't physically hard other people.

as an individual, yes, you can associate with whomever you want or don't want, and you can hold racist or sexist or whatever beliefs until you're the head of the Duck Dynasty or the KKK.

that question is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from that of public-facing businesses and organizations. if you permit such organizations to deny service to people based on who those persons fundamentally are (ex: race, sex, gender, etc.), you no longer have a free society. you have segregation and the Jim Crow south. you have modern-day Russia where gay persons are persecuted on a daily basis.

when you speak of "freedom" and "liberty", do you really mean that all people should have access to freedom and liberty? because permitting businesses to deny services to some simply results in "freedom" and "liberty" for a select few, which is in reality not liberty or freedom at all.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

Yes because there is only one person in the world that knows how to do any particular thing. And no one has any choice. / sarcasm

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[ShanghaiBill]

If they had to accommodate groups they found objectionable.

Have they actually denied participation to anyone?

Lets say 4th Reich games wanted a booth at the convention ?
Or Klansman entertainment.

Neither of those organizations exist. Do you have a better example?

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[fightinfilipino]

Yes because there is only one person in the world that knows how to do any particular thing. And no one has any choice. / sarcasm

your response is "the free market provides"? really?

sorry, but the U.S. has pretty strong evidence already that this won't work. as in, the entire period of segregation and Jim Crow discrimination in the South. try again.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

Oh ?

from their exhibitor agreement

http://files.gencon.com/2013Ap...

6. No exhibitor or member of an exhibit may promote, display, or behave in a manner considered
offensive to decency or good taste as determined by Show
Management

Seems to me they reserve the right to arbitrarily deny access.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy remains a fallacy.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Fire_Wraith]

If I run a business, I can refuse to serve people based on their conduct in my establishment, or for failure to follow non-discriminatory rules.

For instance, I can specify that there will be no public sexual activity in my bakery, and I would likely be well within my rights to kick out anyone who breaks that rule, whether they're gay, straight, or "American Pie" reenactors.

I could likewise make a rule against trying to incite violence or hate, and I'd probably be in the clear to eject anyone that was doing so, since I'm banning conduct - and particularly conduct that is disruptive to my business and my other customers. I could probably be sued over it, depending on how I enforced it, but I'd have a reasonable leg to stand on in court.

So yes - I expect GenCon would be perfectly fine if you wanted to do something like come and play some games of Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Decline_of_the_Third_Reich). You might even be able to run a game about the Holocaust like Brenda Romero's "Train" ( http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/11/brenda-romero-train-board-game-holocaust/ ) so long as it's about illustrating/teaching a point, and not celebrating or making light of such a horrific subject.

But if you cross a line beyond which most people would say it's objectionable content - well, that's a different story. In that case, those groups would be banned not because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, but because of what they're trying to do there. See the difference?

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

You mean it has evidence that guys riding around in white robes killing anyone not going along with their views, and elected officials actively shutting down any business that would try to go against the flow makes it impossible for the free market to work.

Your problem is you don't understand how much you don't know.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

Sorry your shit does stink.

http://www.rpg.net/columns/des...

Gen Con has banned games because they didn't care for the content, didn't care for what they felt they promoted, didn't like what they portrayed.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[fightinfilipino]

You mean it has evidence that guys riding around in white robes killing anyone not going along with their views, and elected officials actively shutting down any business that would try to go against the flow makes it impossible for the free market to work.

Your problem is you don't understand how much you don't know.

do you...do you not know basic history? like, how businesses in the South used to deny service to blacks based on "personal beliefs"? or how public facilities used to have segregated buildings, where the sides meant for black persons almost always ended up being inferior or dangerous? are you posting from the U.S.? am i making a huge assumption that people still receive basic education in history?

i'm sorry, but the only one showing a dangerous lack of basic knowledge here is you.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[davesque]

Dictionary definitions are basically irrelevant when it comes to determining what's legal. If it were as simple as looking it up in the dictionary, we wouldn't need lawyers or the legal system. The reason we _do_ have those things is that ethical questions are never so cut and dry. The ideas of "freedom" and "liberty" are defined by the long history of legal precedent.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

I operate when I post that people aren't living under rocks with no contact with the outside world.
So while some portions of the left may still support free speech. Overwhelmingly they no longer do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

Now you are demonstrating that you are illiterate as well. Read what I wrote and come back when you can demonstrate the ability to parse a paragraph.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[fightinfilipino]

alright, i'm out. my reading comp is fine. the issue is you're not even debating the point anymore, you're relying on strawmen that don't even address the issue.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

Really just out of curiosity how did he find out what the cake was for ?

At no point was the baker denying service to the person, they were not willing to participate in a function.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

Good for you. Like the AC my mother has also passed away. I doubt she needs your services.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

No the reason we have legal definitions, is so that the system can be manipulated.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[KermodeBear]

I may be misinterpreting your post, but it seems to me that you're misconstruing something.

Believing in the right to be an asshole does not mean that one agrees with the asshole. I feel that the famous Cake Incident shouldn't have been an incident at all. To me, the company has the right to refuse service. I disagree with what they're doing, but support their right to do it (and go out of business).

Same with flag burning. I think it is disrespectful, but people should be allowed to do it. Want to make blog posts supporting ISIL? Go for it. You're a dick, but you're free to do it.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Association, etc., none of these include the freedom from being offended.

It works both ways, you know: If a business is being a dick, then the customer who has been denied, and everyone else, has the right to say, "Wow, that business is full of assholes, don't go there."

You might see this as being rather idealistic, and you very well may be correct, but I would rather try the ideal route and allow the highest freedom for the individual as possible, then see what happens.

Remember, this is just a state law. It can be repealed. It isn't set in stone, it isn't the end of the world. We should always be willing to try something new, or something older in a new context. Maybe it will work out well and maybe it won't, but the people of that state should have the right to make that decision. If it backfires, well, too bad.

I hope some of this made sense. I'm replying to you because you seem less ANGRY than a lot of the other people here today and there might be some good discussion. We don't have to agree on everything, and we don't, but that's okay, but being able to find some common ground would be nice.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[spongman]

nobody's forcing the baker to participate in any function other than baking a cake.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

Wrong what more is there to say.

He is being forced to cater the wedding and in general participate in something he would for whatever reason rather not participate in.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

"How about the freedom to buy a wedding cake?"

What you mean is: how about the freedom to force someone else to make a wedding cake so that I can then buy it from them. You possess no such freedom. Nor should you.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[cbhacking]

The (idiotic) way you're attempting to use that phrase demonstrates that you don't have a clue what it actually means. Here's an actual example: a sign saying "service animals allowed". There is no accompanying sign saying that non-service animals are disallowed; it is implied by the fact that you mentioned an exception. The exception (allowing service animals) proves that the rule (animals disallowed) exists otherwise.

What rule is implied by the fact that the ACLU defends freedom of all non-harmful expression?

You don't get to use the magical phrase "exception that proves the rule" as a fully general argument for why counterexamples to your bullshit are actually supporting it. That makes no logical sense and isn't what the phrase means. Go put on the dunce cap and sit in a corner.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

"The exception that proves the rule" is used when an exception to a generally accepted truth is discovered. This is an old fashioned use of the word 'prove', which means 'to test'. It does not mean it proves a rule is true, but that it tests the rule.

In this case, that you can find a few examples of the left actually supporting free speech amongst the sea of examples of their suppression is exactly what is meant.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[puzzled_decoy]

People bring up the Jim Crow south all the time when talking about this. It's interesting to note that Jim Crow was not private enterprise being discriminatory, it was government discrimination. The reality is as long as you ensure individuals are free, discrimination by businesses is minimal, and dies out over time. There is no evidence that suggests government policies in any way improve or expedite this. In fast, the opposite has been true historically, as you pointed out with the Jim Crow laws.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[puzzled_decoy]

Exactly.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

..except of course that conventions are BY DEFINITION A PRIVATE EVENT. Speaking as a former convention organizer, that's why they are held at hotels, convention centres, etc as by renting the space they are allowed to impose their own regulations for the duration of the lease. Also the reason why you pay an admission fee- they aren't 'open to the public' because by paying an entry fee, you enter a legal contract to accept their private entry and registration rules. It also means they can eject you from the site when you become an unruly, violent asshole.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[mjwx]

it really ticks me off how the right has characterized the ability to be openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic as "freedom and liberty. absolutely disgusting.

This.

My country protects speech, it does not protect hate speech however. I'm not even sure the US would protect hate speech as an inalienable right.

If the KKK or ISIS came into your print shop and asked for some hate speech to be printed up, you'd be within your rights to refuse the job because the job is borderline illegal and distasteful, beyond this, it's also harmful to your business. Its a similar story if someone asked you to print off a large quantity of their own hardcore pornography. The porn is legal, the job is legal, but you do not want your business to become known as a purveyor of adult literature because that would scare away many customers.

Whilst it's not illegal for people to be arseholes, there is no law stating that we have to facilitate their ability to be arseholes.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

t really ticks me off how the right has characterized the ability to be openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic as "freedom and liberty. absolutely disgusting.

Actually, advocating for someone to be able to voice/be what they think, even if we find it abhorrent, is kind of great. Even if we find it makes us uncomfortable. The fact that you're using words like *disgusting* points to the parts of the brain being activated by the argument.

Good laws (and I am not including the one under discussion in this) don't come out of emotion, they come out of thinking through unintended consequences for *everyone*, even those we find disgusting, because if it protects those we find disgusting it's likely to protect us.

It's a weird area created where someone not wanting to photograph a gay wedding, or rent out their form for a gay wedding, is condemned. However, when a guy is ousted from Firefox because he happens not to like gay marraige, a bunch of people on the other side applaud. When a gay hair dresser turns away New Mexico governor Susana Martinez because of her stance on gay marraige, there's a bunch of applause. Both have real heartfelt issues for why they take their stand.

It isn't intellectually sound to applaud/ignore one side while condemning the other, as the only real difference is that you might consider yourself part of one camp or the other. And the best laws protect things you might find disgusting because they also best protect *you*.

We can argue how about more thought-examples that haven't happened yet ("Hey Mr. asian printer, please print my flyers about how asians are taking over my city! Since I'm a woman/black/disabled and a protected class, if you don't I'll sue."), but do we really need to? I'm not for the law as we aren't entitled to never hear or see things we don't like. That includes the people you're talking about: but it goes both ways, and by Yaweh the gay hair dresser should be sued into oblivion.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

groups they found objectionable

Women?

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Fire_Wraith]

Did you even bother to look at the two games I linked?

Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Gen Con can absolutely set rules for what sort of content can be presented, or what constitutes appropriate attire for the convention, just like any other business can.

What they can't do is discriminate solely on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Have they done any of that? No? I didn't think so.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Crashmarik]

groups they found objectionable

Women?

Rofl and thanks. Good to see the internet hasn't completely been colonized by poster children for abortion.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[arsefactor]

So we have an ongoing court case currently in N.Ireland where a christian bakery refused to make a cake with a pro-gay slogan since it went against their beliefs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-n...

It isn't that they would refuse all service to a gay couple, rather that they refuse to bake items against their beliefs.
On the radio they were discussing the story and comparing it to forcing a muslim owned business to publish a cartoon mocking Muhammad.
If you say it is illegal to refuse then you essentially aren't you putting them out of business unless they are willing to forego their beliefs.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[dfghjk]

"Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression."

No it's not.

"That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions..."

What you are saying is that consequences are equated to a denial of liberty.

"...but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system..."

Liberty and freedom aren't a belief system and they do not include the concept of freedom to deny liberty to others due to your belief system.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[waspleg]

"But if you cross a line beyond which most people would say it's objectionable content"

No. I don't. I think that Germans will put you in jail for giving a Nazi salute is fucking offensive to freedom of speech and expression but they aren't Americans.

If you're offended that's your fucking problem not mine. What's interesting to me is how everyone is trying to twist the law in to their own personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, and so if you're cognizant of that fact you should be erring hard on the side of liberty for all (unless you don't mind being an unethical hypocritical douchebag, I guess).

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree with PEOPLE having the right to be assholes.
That said a BUSINESS is not a person, hence it has not the right or liberty to be an asshole or even to have a religion.

People in the business can individually have a religion, but for the business: people are just another type of tangible asset.
So if a business were to be able to have a religion it would have to be uniform across all the classes of assets.

Which brings up a complication of how do you find out the theological leaning of a stand mixer, gas oven and a brick building?

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[KermodeBear]

A business is not a person, but a business is run by people. It is an extension of the workers themselves. I know you're trying to derail things by going into the "a business is not a person" argument (and I agree with you, a business is not a person - you cannot, for example, sentence a business to 20 years in prison), but it doesn't matter. Forcing a person to provide a service to someone they do not wish to serve is still forcing.

This brings me to another thing people don't quite seem to understand.

By saying, "I think those people are wrong, they're intolerant, they should be forced to act against their conscious," you are yourself being intolerant.

Diversity of thought really does mean diversity - not just the diversity you happen to agree with.

This is the big downward spiral of freedom you get from the so-called liberals. They want to promote fairness and diversity, but in the process, they unfairly prevent people from being diverse. It's hypocritical. It doesn't make sense.

But, ultimately, this is not about Right or Left, secular or religious, gay or straight. It's about remaining faithful to the the vital principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech which underpin our democracy.

We dilute them at our peril.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

A business is not a person, but a business is run by people. It is an extension of the workers themselves. I know you're trying to derail things by going into the "a business is not a person" argument (and I agree with you, a business is not a person - you cannot, for example, sentence a business to 20 years in prison), but it doesn't matter. Forcing a person to provide a service to someone they do not wish to serve is still forcing.

I am okay forcing a business to do something.

If the worker in question does not want to handle the request, they should have someone they can call in who will.

As an example one of the supermarkets around here has a Muslim cashier who will not handle/touch/ring up non-Halal meats. They have a sign and always have a non-Muslim cashier open at the same time. This is not forcing the Muslim to do anything, but the business itself is 'forced' even if only economically to handle non-Halal meats being checked out.

This does not infringe on the freedoms of the individual workers. Now it might force a Christian run business to hire outside their particular Christian sect in order to accommodate their potential clientele, but I do not really see an issue with that since their is plenty of overlap on various Christian sects' beliefs.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

About fucking time! I don't associate with violent chinks anyway.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

it really ticks me off how the right has characterized the ability to be openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic as "freedom and liberty. absolutely disgusting.

New term? Transphobic? Does that mean fear of being tricked by a MAN dressed as a woman?

It isn't my opinion, it is a fact. If you are born with a penis (and no vagina) you are a BOY. You will grow up to be a man. Your chromosomes are XY. Maybe you'll be gay, but cutting your dick off will not make you a woman.

man (thinks he is a woman) != sane
man (cut peen off) != woman

Would you force a gay bar to do business civilly with someone wearing a "God hates fags" t-shirt? Or would you say "well if that person gets their ass kicked, too bad - so sad."

Freedom doesn't mean forcing others to do what you think is right. It doesn't mean being 'free' to never be offended. It doesn't even mean freedom from discrimination.

So just let them enjoy the freedom to be assholes -- even to you people who prefer to lick or fuck assholes (I kid, I kid). Seriously, you can't force 'tolerance' on other people. Go to another goddamn store and tell everyone about it.

Does the 2nd amendment apply to everyone or just the 'militia' -- even though we weren't supposed to have a standing army?

So, wouldn't the 1st amendment only apply to the press?

GenCon belongs in Milwaukee

[Dracos]

Having been to GenCon 7 times in Milwaukee and twice in Indy, Milwaukee is the better place for it. Cooler weather, cleaner city, Giordano's pizza, and The Side Door. One year in Milwaukee I was headed back to the hotel at 2am, and all of downtown was filled with the deafening roar of 250+ bikes starting their ride to Sturgis... probably can't get that anywhere else.

I hope there is some vague "business environment" clause in the contract between GenCon and the Convention Center that could be invoked to move GenCon elsewhere sooner than 2020. The economic impact will be welcome anywhere it goes, and bigotry like this shouldn't be rewarded. I wouldn't be surprised if the bill was partly aimed at GenCon attendees anyway.

Re:GenCon belongs in Milwaukee

[Anonymous Coward]

invoked to move GenCon elsewhere sooner than 2020

GenCon Lite. Just sell one ticket. Rent the absolute minimum space you agreed to and don't sell any tickets. Don't have any booths.

You could kill it (and the economic benefit) while having

Better yet hold it on the same weekend as your other GenCon in another state.

Re:GenCon belongs in Milwaukee

[Anonymous Coward]

One year in Milwaukee I was headed back to the hotel at 2am, and all of downtown was filled with the deafening roar of 250+ bikes starting their ride to Sturgis... probably can't get that anywhere else.

You obviously haven't been to GenCon in the past few years. Indianapolis has been double-booking a major motorcycle race the same weekend as GenCon recently. There have been literally thousands of bikes tearing around downtown during the convention each of the past few years. Besides, Milwaukee just doesn't have enough space to handle GenCon anymore anyway.

Re:GenCon belongs in Milwaukee

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem, we have the Giordano's too, and it's over-rated. And less crime if I'm not mistaken. Plus, 250+ Harley's at 2 AM? Who TF finds that neat? Come to Indy in the month of May for the Indy 500, and Labor Day weekend for the NHRA US Nats if you want to hear engine noise.

Better yet: boycott our state due to our stupid backwards-thinking legislature and assinine governor. You're welcome Chicago.

Re:GenCon belongs in Milwaukee

[painandgreed]

Having been to GenCon 7 times in Milwaukee and twice in Indy, Milwaukee is the better place for it.

Trouble is, IIRC, is that GenCon has outgrown Milwaukee. Indinapolis was one of the few places it could still grow.

Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

Isn't it amazing how people who enjoy protection from being discriminated against want to use that same protection to allow them to discriminate against others?

Sorry, but if you think your religion should allow you to discriminate, you should be subject to the same thing.

Oh, what's that, your religion is a magic double standard which exempts you from logic and you are special? Go piss up a rope.

You're just as stupid as the people who want to force Sharia law on the rest of us. Stop pretending otherwise.

Your religion doesn't make you some special little flower who operates under a special set of rules.

"Asshole" is universal, no matter what you believe in.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Dracos]

Mod parent Insightful.

Re:Hmmm ....

[puzzled_decoy]

I think people with certain belief should be allowed to discriminate, and this includes denying me service. I wouldn't like it, but I don't think I have the right to violently force them to perform a service for me.

The only exception to this would be people involved in public service (including utilities), or people who deal with the immediate health and well-being of others (hospitals). If there exist exigent life-or-death circumstances, a business cannot deny service.

I think your stance is one primarily of laziness. You don't want to exert the effort to convince people of something, you would prefer just to force a specific belief system upon people through the govt.

Re:Hmmm ....

[aardvarkjoe]

Would you mind pointing me to the people that want the government to force the convention to stay in Indiana?

Because I haven't heard a single person advocate that.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

> You don't want to exert the effort to convince people of something,

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

I think your stance is one primarily of laziness

Bullshit. I think your stance is one primarily of stupid.

If religions, who are legally protected from discrimination, want to use their religion to discriminate against other people an bear no consequences, then I believe religion should lose the legal protection from discrimination.

If you think your religion should allow you to discriminate against someone else ... then you are a coward and fucking hypocrite if you wish to hide behind your religion and act like that is protected speech.

I will loudly say "fuck religion" if religion wants to enjoy a special class of protection while denying it to someone else.

So, either these religious people would support repealing religion as a protected status (thereby allowing people to say "sorry, we don't serve YOUR kind") ... or they should shut the fuck up and stop pretending that their own fairy tales affords them a unique position in law.

That is a completely fucking irrational argument which claims special treatment -- fuck that.

Either you make it so it's illegal to discriminate against anybody, or you make it so it's legal to discriminate against anybody. We have already decided on this issue for pretty much everything else.

What religious people are asking for is a double-extra special standard, whereby the people they seek to be able to legally discriminate against are not legally allowed to respond in kind. Effectively, religious people get more fucking rights than the rest of us.

Again, fuck that.

That particular bit of bullshit is purely in the domain of people who think that logic and the law should bend over backwards to accommodate their moronic beliefs.

So, put up or shut up ... either religions support themselves being discriminated against, or accept that they don't get some magic fucking exemption to do it to someone else.

There is no scenario in which it makes any sense to give them a right they would deny another.

Your god doesn't define MY rights.

I don't need to convince anybody of a thing, other than it is a foundation of law that we ALL are subject to the SAME laws.

But not this bullshit notion that what you believe gives you a special place in law the rest of us don't have.

Re:Hmmm ....

[puzzled_decoy]

Actually, I don't care if you discriminate b/c of your religion or any other reason. I don't think religion should be a part of this conversation.

That's part of the reason I never mentioned it- although you seem to be pretty pissed at religion in general.

That being said, I fall into the camp

you make it so it's legal to discriminate against anybody

with the stipulations I already stated.

So you just ranted about religion having more rights for a while, but that's not what I was talking about.

Sooo.... yeah.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

I don't think religion should be a part of this conversation.

How can it not be? This is about someone trying to pass a bill which enshrines in law the ability of religious people to exercise a form of discrimination which would be illegal if applied to them. In effect, giving religious people more rights than everyone else.

This whole fucking thing is about the religious people saying they should have an extra special class of being able to discriminate, while enjoying the legal protection of being discriminated against.

So, if you can convince the rest of society we should go to a system where anybody can discriminate against anybody else ... congratulations, you'll gave achieved a massive step towards making society suck even more.

But you simply cannot rationally claim that you agree with most forms of preventing discrimination, while claiming there is a special case in which you're allowed to discriminate.

TFA only exists in the context of religion asking for a special set of rules to be applied to them. Without religion, there is nothing to be said here.

I'm saying either those people should accept the potential of being kicked of a business for their beliefs, or they should shut the hell up about being able to have the right to do the same thing.

Are you laboring under the delusion we're somehow talking about a law to allow everyone to be an asshole to the extent that it makes them happy?

The reality is this is trying to give religious people, and ONLY religious people, a special exemption to discriminate as they see fit.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Microlith]

He didn't say that either.

What he did do was lash out at the people pushing this law for being arbitrary, hypocritical, superstitious, bigoted, and (most importantly) wrong. It's a frequent problem with people whose religion has privilege and a marked persecution complex.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Obfuscant]

Sorry, but if you think your religion should allow you to discriminate, you should be subject to the same thing.

Everyone discriminates. Some discrimination is called "illegal", most is not. Discrimination based on religion is already common. It will be for a very long time, no matter how much you want to diss the people who hold those views. In fact, you are quite free to discriminate in your shopping habits based solely on the religious beliefs of the shopkeepers you choose not to visit.

As you put it, if someone expects the right to discriminate others should have that right in reverse, too. Including the shopkeepers who don't want to do business with you.

"Asshole" is universal, no matter what you believe in.

Yes, we know.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

You think bigotry is limited to religion? No wonder most of the crap you write reads like a tantrum thrown by a four year old child.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Specter]

Maybe reading the actual bill would help you untwist your panties: SB 101

It doesn't say what you think it says.

Re:Hmmm ....

[sjames]

I believe his point is that their holy book contains many lamentations about the days when they were the minority discriminated against and how wrong it all was.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

In fact, you are quite free to discriminate in your shopping habits based solely on the religious beliefs of the shopkeepers you choose not to visit.

No, you're an idiot.

It's one thing to say "get out of my store you Christian moron". Because that would be illegal.

It is entirely different level of bullshit to say that in retaliation these people are free not to patronize the businesses of someone who reserves the right to say "we don't serve you black/gay/Chinese/fat people".

That's a bit lopsided, don't you think? The Christians can discriminate legally, the rest of us can choose not to patronize your business?

There is no other scenario in which a shopkeeper is allowed to say "we don't serve your kind". None. Period. Nada.

But people who subscribe to religion want a special exemption to do exactly that. Which means the religious people feel they deserve a special place in the law, above and beyond that enjoyed by everybody, and in which they hold extra rights ... all while enjoying legal protection from being discriminated against. Isn't that goddamned convenient.

The Taliban say the exact same crap.

So, I submit to you: either we pass a universal law saying we can all be assholes, up to an including the right of someone to refuse to serve religious people or hire them because they believe in god. Or we tell religious people to shut the fuck up, and stop acting like their fucking beliefs make them special in the eyes of the law.

You know, that whole fucking separation of church and state. You can believe whatever the fuck you want. That doesn't change your standing with regards to the law.

And it doesn't exempt you from the law. And there isn't a damned religious person who is going to accept themselves being discriminated against.

Which is just hypocrisy and bullshit from people who think the world revolved around them.

Fuck that. Either your laws are based on principle, or whatever asshole claims his god gives him permission to do as he pleases.

If religion wants an exemption to discriminate, there is absolutely no defensible position for not discriminating against religion.

But don't act like not going to the business of someone who wants the legal right to refuse to serve you is even remotely the same fucking thing unless you could legally refuse to serve them.

Anything else is just self entitled crap.

Re:Hmmm ....

[cbhacking]

Would you mind pointing me to the place that gstoddart implied that anybody thought that?

Nice attempt to derail the comment. Some idiot even modded you up for it. Your post is a blatant attempt to shift the discussion into some red herring topic that, as you yourself point out, nobody is actually advocating for. Piss off.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Obfuscant]

In fact, you are quite free to discriminate in your shopping habits based solely on the religious beliefs of the shopkeepers you choose not to visit.

No, you're an idiot.

What, you think you aren't free to decide not to shop at a business when the owner's religious beliefs are not the same as yours? My goodness, someone should tell all those people who thought they should boycott Chik-Fil-A they are wrong.

It's one thing to say "get out of my store you Christian moron". Because that would be illegal.

And rather impolite. You saying that to a shopkeeper is sufficient grounds for them to ask you to leave. You don't have the right to be abusive to the staff no matter what your religion is. Oh, wait, you've switched from trying to prove that my statement about your right not to patronize a business based on the religious beliefs of the owner is wrong and are talking about something else, right?

It is entirely different level of bullshit to say that in retaliation these people are free not to patronize the businesses of someone who reserves the right to say "we don't serve you black/gay/Chinese/fat people".

I'm sorry, but it is a fact that people are free not to patronize any store they feel like staying away from. I guess that means it rates a "zero" level of bullshit, as you so quaintly quantify it.

That's a bit lopsided, don't you think? The Christians can discriminate legally, the rest of us can choose not to patronize your business?

That sounds quite fair. You can discriminate against the business owners based on their religion (it is not a Christian specific right, by the way, so you bringing up just one religion is specious), they should be able to return the favor. I assure you, despite your proclamation to the contrary, YOU are quite free to stay out of any business you want to. The argument that says if they can discriminate so can you is both childish and meaningless, since you have always been free to discriminate in such a way.

And despite your assertion to the contrary, it is quite legal for a Muslim food store to refuse to sell pork to a Jewish customer based solely on the Muslim religious beliefs. And that Jewish customer is free to choose to shop elsewhere.

And there isn't a damned religious person who is going to accept themselves being discriminated against.

And yet it happens, and is legal. You don't discriminate against "religious person(s)"? You use this same kind of abusive language with everyone, even your friends?

If religion wants an exemption to discriminate, there is absolutely no defensible position for not discriminating against religion.

I'm sorry, but your premise that it is "religion" that wants to discriminate is laughable. There are people who feel that certain things are wrong and that the law should not force them to do those things in order to continue making a living. There are also people who think it is quite fair that if you can discriminate against "religion", then religion gets the same rights you do.

But don't act like not going to the business of someone who wants the legal right to refuse to serve you is even remotely the same fucking thing unless you could legally refuse to serve them.

It is discrimination based on religion. Goose, meet gander. Here's your sauce.

Simple question, polite answer sans personal insult please: do you believe it is legal for a Muslim shopkeeper to refuse to sell porkchops?

Re:Hmmm ....

[XxtraLarGe]

It's one thing to say "get out of my store you Christian moron". Because that would be illegal.

I think people should be able to do that.

Re:Hmmm ....

[ChrisMaple]

The Taliban and similar others claim the right to kill others, and do so. That is an action, and an aggressive one, a clear violation of the actual rights of the victim.

Refusing to do business with someone is refusing to act. Rights are not being violated, even if the law is, even if morality is.

The difference is fundamental and essential. Attempting to equate the two situations is dishonest.

Many years ago, Eric Frank Russell introduced the acronym FI:IW. which stands for "Freedom is: I won't." Freedom is the ability to say "I won't" and make it stick.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Obfuscant]

Refusing to do business with someone is refusing to act. Rights are not being violated, even if the law is, even if morality is.

When we get to the level that "civil rights" include "the right to force someone to sell us a wedding cake with two male figures on top", then we've watered down the concept of "rights" so far that they are meaningless, and we've trivialized any truly serious breaches of individual rights. Rights such as "freedom of religion", a more basic and enumerated right.

I think the founders would be laughing their asses off at the idea that the local baker should be forced to make products his religious beliefs don't support. Or maybe they'd not laugh so much.

Re: Hmmm ....

[Dynedain]

Yes. Because a Muslim storekeeper wouldn't be selling sell pork chops to anyone (halal and all that), just like I, a web developer, don't sell pink fuzzy slippers to anyone. Distribution of pork chops is not the business your exampled shopkeeper is in.

It would be quite illegal if the Muslim storekeeper was selling pork chops to everyone else, but refused to sell pork chops specifically to Jews.

The specificity is what makes it discrimination, and in the US we have very clearly defined which basis of discrimination are not permitted: religious affiliation, age, gender, race, handicaps, medical conditions, and now sexual orientation is being added to that list.

Re:Hmmm ....

[dfghjk]

"You don't want to exert the effort to convince people of something, you would prefer just to force a specific belief system upon people through the govt."

Interestingly, that "belief system" you refer to is the central topic in the Declaration of Independence. The nation was founded on it and the government exists primarily in support of it. "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." isn't simply a belief system shared only by those with a gay agenda.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

In your example, the muslim grocery store does not sell pork to the jewish customer because they don't sell pork. That's why it's legal. So the fact the customer is jewish, or anything, does not even matter, and your example is oversimplified and disingenuous.

So a christian baker can SIMPLY choose to not sell wedding cakes, and the problem is solved.

Your "simple question" is about forcing people to do sell or make things they don't. There isn't a "gay wedding cake," it's just a wedding cake. It could say "Pat & Alex" and you wouldn't even know the genders of the people getting married.

The difference is between serving the public, not serving special items you want.

Re:Hmmm ....

[cdrudge]

I think the founders would be laughing their asses off at the idea that the local baker should be forced to make products his religious beliefs don't support.

But it's not just the baker refusing to bake a cake with two male figures on top. It's the potential to allow the baker to refuse to sell a plain loaf of bread to two male figures because he doesn't agree in gay marriage. Or a gas station refusing to sell fuel. Or a doctor refusing to provide medical treatment.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Newander]

What violence are you referring to?

Re: Hmmm ....

[Obfuscant]

Yes. Because a Muslim storekeeper wouldn't be selling sell pork chops to anyone (halal and all that),

Ok. And I as a Christian baker would not sell a wedding cake with two male figures atop to anyone, also for religious reasons. If "not sell product X to anyone" is the criterion, I meet it. I, too, do not care what your religion is when I refuse to sell you a product that I find objectionable, just as the Muslim shopkeeper doesn't care.

I think it was safe to assume from the context of the question that the shop was not a "web design company" but a store where one might likely find porkchops were the proprietor not Muslim. Like "butcher shop". I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

And let me also make it clear that I am exploring the boundaries of the issue and where the differences are that make one form of discrimination legal while another is not. I am not actually in real life a Christian baker who won't sell certain baked goods.

Re:Hmmm ....

[Obfuscant]

It's the potential to allow the baker to refuse to sell a plain loaf of bread to two male figures because he doesn't agree in gay marriage.

Can you explain how a loaf of bread has any inherent connection to any religious beliefs towards gay marriage? What possible religious reason would a baker use to refuse to bake a plain loaf of bread? (Yes, leavened etc. does have religious meanings, but nothing related to gay marriage.) If the baker is baking bread, then refusing to sell it to someone who is gay is discrimination I see no support for, but if he's refusing to bake bread for anyone because of some religious idea, then I see no reason for the state to force him to do so upon the demand of a customer of any class.

Since wedding cakes are a special order item, and the baker is not creating ANY cakes with two male (or female) figures on top, then the situation is significantly different than if he were to make such cakes and sell them only to non-gay customers.

Re: Hmmm ....

[Dynedain]

Your allegory is fallacious because you are comparing a vendor not carrying a product which they never would (for any customer) to a vendor refusing to sell their primary product to a specific customer because the vendor finds that particular customer objectionable.

It is more akin to a Muslim butcher refusing to sell anything to a Jew.

The party that shouts freedom the most

[Anonymous Coward]

The party that shouts freedom the most respects freedom the least.

Re:The party that shouts freedom the most

[Anonymous Coward]

The party that shouts freedom the most respects freedom the least.

Being forced to do business with someone you don't agree with. How is that right? How is that freedom?

And as a customer, do you really want to give your money to someone you don't agree with?

Re:The party that shouts freedom the most

[jsepeta]

It's not a party without race music and queers lol

Re:The party that shouts freedom the most

[Grunschev]

First, you're not forced to do business with anyone. Don't want to bake wedding cakes for gays? Don't operate a bakery. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. To be a licensed business, a baker, you agree to be bound by certain rules. No rat shit in the chocolate, for example. You will be subject to inspections. But, according to your logic, you've lost the freedom to put rat shit in the chocolate. You're no longer free.

But let's ignore all that and actually think about your suggestion. You, as a bigoted Christian (or whatever), want to be allowed to refuse service to gays, blacks, paraplegics, whatever. And you're perfectly willing to let the market decide your future. But, for this to actually happen, you have to let all your customers know what you think. So, instead of just refusing to serve queers and niggers, to be transparent and allow the invisible hand of the market to work, you'll need to post signs that tell people that you don't serve fags and kikes. See, if you don't do that, I won't know that you're a horrible, shitty person and I could accidentally buy one of your cakes. Because, you see, I won't know any of this because you won't refuse me service. You *must* advertise that you're a homophobic racist before I'll know to avoid you.

So, if you *really* support this lame-brained idea of yours, your misguided concept of freedom in polite society, we'll have to take away your freedom not to advertise that you're not willing to participate in polite society. Own it - put up a big fucking sign in your window that says you're a homophobic xenophobe. That way we can all really see who and what the market will support. Don't hide from us - own your narrowmindedness!

Re:The party that shouts freedom the most

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you CHOOSE to run the business, then? It's too late to complain you're "forced" when you decided to take the damn job of business owner.

Leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay and do a job you don't agree with.

Re:The party that shouts freedom the most

[Jarik C-Bol]

You know what, that might actually be fun. You could even sell little stickers to put on your car to proclaim how much of an asshole to which people groups you are. Oh wait.

Re:The party that shouts freedom the most

[JackieBrown]

Leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay and do a job you don't agree with.

The same argument can be made about forcing businesses to pay for abortions and contraceptives.

The are mom and pop bakeries we are talking about. They are individuals.

Re:The party that shouts freedom the most

[Anonymous Coward]

The same argument can be made about forcing businesses to pay for abortions and contraceptives.

Yes indeed. And indeed they should pay for abortions and contraceptives if they're paying for heath care of their employees. It'snot YOUR heathcare, it's THEIRS.

The are mom and pop bakeries we are talking about. They are individuals.

They are individuals, their business is not. They're free not to personally LIKE doing it, but their business is not them.

And if you don't like it, stop "being a business" and start being "an individual" and not run your business. If you CHOOSE to run a business, then run the business, don't run your personal fiefdom. If you can't run a business without making it an extension of yourself, DO NOT RUN A BUSINESS.

NOBODY is forcing you to run a business.

Just stop running it. Close it down. Work for someone else. And when they pay for your healthcare, do not have abortions or contraceptives on that system because YOU think it's wrong.

As an individual, all you should affect is yourself and your actions on others.

YOU DO NOT get to affect the actions of others unless they affect you.

It;s called "society". Don't like that restriction either? Go live on your own in the middle of nowhere and be free to starve.

I haven't read the bill....

[puzzled_decoy]

....so I can't say for sure what's in it. However, as long as any business is not actively causing physical harm by refusing a good or service, they should have the right to do so. If this is a bill to codify that right, I'm ok with that.

The government derives it's power from the ability murder people, imprison them, or impose violence on them. As soon as discrimination cases can be brought against a business for refusing to transact with some group or individual, the government force an outcome under threat of violence. No business should be forced to perform a service for anyone (excluding exigent, life-threatening circumstances). Our laws need to reflect that.

I just wish religion wasn't the backbone for this law.

Re:I haven't read the bill....

[Specter]

You can read it here: SB 101

Re:I haven't read the bill....

[Newander]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

No mention of violence or murder there. We collectively consent to be governed because it benefits us all.

Regardless, This Is Asking for Trouble

[andywest]

It will be sad to see GenCon migrate to Seattle, where it would be far more welcome than in Indianapolis. But the Indiana General Assembly's act of antagonism will cause a loss of customers and business, which should be enough cause for GenCon to claim breach of contract on the part of the Indianapolis Convention Bureau, even if it was not its fault. And the law itself will be litigated over. Lawsuits will be flying this summer in Indianapolis, not cosplayers flying to Indy.

Re:Regardless, This Is Asking for Trouble

[andywest]

I should add that GenCon is so big, and the relocation of such convention take so long, that it would be more cost-effective to wait until the contract expires and make a new contract with another city (say, Seattle) ahead of time. Be patient.

I should also add that the type of businesses that were clammering for the anti-homosexual law — caterers and photographers — are not the same type as those that serve GenCon conventioneers. The law would not have an effect on conventioneers, anyway.

Not Right Enough

[Howitzer86]

Arkansas also has one of these Religious Freedom bills, as well as similar southern conservative cowboy type things, and I think this is a natural progression after years of voters being told by the conservative media that our elected conservatives weren't conservative enough, weren't religious enough, and too open to compromise with the left, and too slow to respond to issues regarding immigrants and terrorists. Add to that a general sense of failure or lack of inspiration in the left regarding their own leaders, and we leave a wide open door for this sort of thing.

I believe the response in Arkansas was the creation of a sticker that businesses began putting on their windows, saying that they welcome LGBT customers. This is where we are now... I suppose we should be thankful they haven't decided to simply force businesses to comply to "religious conscience" the way they're forcing universities to accept guns on their property.

Re:Not Right Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

forcing universities to accept guns on their property.

[citation needed] I have yet to hear of a case where an university has been forced to allow guns on the campus (which I assume is what you mean by property, if you mean the woodlot that the uni happens to own, I don't think anyone cares if people go hunting on it); care to enlighten me?

Re:Not Right Enough

[Macgrrl]

I think it was in reference to this.

How is this even possible?

[Murdoch5]

Religion is the root of hate and intolerance, if you look at what has been carried out in the name of religion, it's horrid. On the short list and in the front of any rational humans mind is Mother T, killing machine extraordinary and Hitler, both who took MILLIONS of lives in the name of the church.

Why bother mentioning this?

Well if you're going to claim that you need your religious beliefs protected and respected, then you better come to the table with one hell of an offer as to why. Religion is the reason that same sex marriage was even a question, it was the reason why we should be allowed to lie to children in a classroom, it's the reason why people are put to death because they believe differently, it's the reason why we have generalized hate.

If you want me respect your literally bat shit crazy religion beliefs then you have to provide me equal or greater evidence then I can provide you to the contrary. It's time to get rid of religion, it's the security blanket for the immature, irrational and illogical adult. It's the reason we have hate and intolerance and it teach kids and adult that giving up and giving in are perfectly acceptable even when your final answer is just WRONG.

Re:How is this even possible?

[JackieBrown]

I'm going to regret asking this, but did you compare Mother Theresa to Hitler?

Hitler told people what they wanted to hear to drum up support. If the population was atheist, he would have taken a more Stalinish approach. He had the Catholic church on a very tight leash with thousands of priests being arrested (or disappearing) in Poland and elsewhere

Re:How is this even possible?

[Murdoch5]

Absolutely, Mother T was insane, she was directly responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS of people and did it all in cold blood with no remorse. At least Hitler knew what he was doing was killing, Mother T actually thought she was helping. MT forced sick and dying men and women into conditions that wouldn't of been suitable for animals, let alone humans. People under her care were denied medical attention, hygienic conditions, sterile conditions and all forms of proper care. She allotted a space no bigger then a cot to each person in her death camps and forced them not to move. She didn't allow people to shower, clean up, see doctors, get medical attention or even see a fucking nurse. It's been well record that many in her care would of been fine if they would of seen a doctor, yet she denied even them! She was the direct result of MILLION of people dying.

She also used her corrupt moral fucked views to influence governments into blocking birth control, abortions and common sense. Every single person harmed as a result by her actions in that matter is a death on her head. Every rape victim who couldn't abort the child of the monster act and who by direct response would of been killed, is on her head. Every girl disowned by her family because they got raped and couldn't abort, is on her head. She was a monster, she is worse then Hitler, she is disgusting human and I'm glad she's dead.

This will be used against blacks

[mbone]

You can put money on two things

- this will be used to deny service to blacks (safe bet, as it already has been).

- that will not go over well, in a burn the place down sort of way.

And, at that point, it will probably be thrown out in court or amended out of existence by the legislature.

Re:This will be used against blacks

[operagost]

Everything's not about black people.

We have a black president, and black representatives in all levels of government. Our greatest problems of discrimination in society come from class, not skin color.

Other people have suffered discrimination.

Get over yourself.

Re:This will be used against blacks

[itzly]

You are right. In some communities, it will be used to deny service to whites.

Re:This will be used against blacks

[burtosis]

You are right. In some communities, it will be used to deny service to whites.

Sure but that's not racist. /sarcasm

Re:This will be used against blacks

[Jarik C-Bol]

And THEN it will get amended out of existence. See? self correcting problem.

Re:This will be used against blacks

[JackieBrown]

Like the Irish?

Re:This will be used against blacks

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need a law to do that. Go in to McDonalds at 38th and Post. Don't be black. See what happens (speaking from experience).

I will never attend another GenCon

[Hungus]

As someone who has owned an FLGS,
has friends who are publishers and writers of gaming material.
Helped start AWA, Project A-kon and staffed decades of DragonCon

I hereby promise to never attend another GenCon.

People should be able to serve whom they want and I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority

That's not how any of this works. Minorities exist at the mercy of the majority, which is why it's in the minority's interest to teach mercy by standing up and suffering in clear view of everyone. You can chose to ignore those lessons or even act in spite of them as Indiana is doing, but in no case are you oppressed by the minority.

That said, I have no strong spirtual compass and no real courage. If the civic standard were to change such that it would be in my best interest to hide my sexual orientation, and I could not escape that environment, I would hide my orientation. I have a lot to live for, and a lot of skill, and I won't risk my earning potential for anything, even love. I might live a lie, seek a wife, and go to church just to avoid conflict and protect my career interests. My freedom really hinges on the work of more courageous people.... I'm so cowardly that sometimes I wonder if I'd have an easier time in Iran, where being open could mean death. The answer for what I should do would suddenly become simple. But here in America you can be open, but the potential consequences depend entirely people and locations.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[cdrudge]

People should be able to serve whom they want and I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority

Doesn't GenCon have just as much right to express who (and where) it wants to do business with that the businesses who want to discriminate do? If the state is going to put it into law that a business can object to doing business with someone who goes against their religion, why can't GenCon say we choose not to do business with the state?

It probably won't affect you too much, but add Alcoa, Eli Lilly, Cummins, and Sales Force to the list of companies who won't ever patronize because they all wrote similar letters to the governor.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't GenCon have just as much right to express who (and where) it wants to do business with that the businesses who want to discriminate do?

Absolutely, they have the right to take the convention anywhere they want that will have them.

And I have the right to never attend GenCon again.

HOWEVER those that support GenCon's position must logically also accept that as an FLGS owner I could be forced to do business with GenCon, and that is NOT freedom. I have the right to do business with whom I please, and not make a profit on those I refuse. It is my loss and my choice.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Grunschev]

So, you have signs in our FLGS telling *everybody* who you don't want to do business with? Or is it a surprise - a black guy tries to buy a game and you say "no thanks, go somewhere else." Or is it just queers who you think shouldn't be able to play games? In any event, own your bigotry. Put a giant sign in your window telling everybody what sort of bigotry you practice. Without that knowledge, you're wanting the invisible hand of the market to do its magic while simultaneously deceiving people by your lack of transparency. Which makes you a cheating, devious asshole.

Own your bigotry! Make sure all your customers know who they're doing business with. Tell all your customers you don't serve queers. That's the only way the rest of us know to avoid your hateful, misanthropic business.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Dragonslicer]

I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority

Well, if you're going to play the Tyranny of the Minority card, let me counter by playing the Tyranny of small decisions card.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Anonymous Coward]

To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you may classify me/my business as a misanthrope/ic, wrongly, but at least I am able to read and not make strawman arguments.

I am well known in my community, I am known to not only treat people fairly, but go out of my way to help people. But I am also known for being very rigid in my beliefs. I help a lot, but yes I do ask people to leave my store, not my flgs, because had you the brain of a mosquito you would have noticed I was the owner of an flgs, that is past tense. I signed my post with good reason and stand by it.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Hungus]

As someone who has owned an FLGS,
has friends who are publishers and writers of gaming material.
Helped start AWA, Project A-kon and staffed decades of DragonCon

I hereby promise to never attend another GenCon.

People should be able to serve whom they want and I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority

To those who modded me as a troll, I am aware you do not know what trolling is. I expressed a dissenting opinion, and you chose to bury it rather than respond. You are cowards.

I stand by my right to chose what business I do. If you do not want to do business with me, that is fine, but I have the legal right, as does any closely held company in the US to do business within my religious parameters. The US Supreme Court has already backed up that opinion. Feel free to boycott me, I am good at what I do and my skills are in more demand than I can reply to anyways, and I could retire now should I want to. I will stand by my freedom.

You dislike me, you feel I am a bigot and misanthrope, why would you want to give me your money to begin with? Further were the shoe on the other foot, do you want the government telling you that you must do business with me? I did not think so.

You are full of vitriol and shame, I am full of neither.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand. Certainly, you have a right to choose what business you do. You being modded down is people telling you that you're a bigot and you're not welcome here. There's no point in responding because there's no discussion to be had here. I'm sure you're busy preparing for the next KKK rally, anyway.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall fondly my last meeting with the KKK. It involved them showing up on my doorstep with concerns over the neighbourhood and it ended with them leaving with my shotgun pointing at them after they noticed my yarmulke and I reminded then that the mezuzah on my door were not for show.

So again accuse me of bigotry all you like, but when you do so as an AC it is pretty meaningless, especially when your bigotry is so completely obvious.

I do business with whom I want
I do not judge peoples value before doing business with them
It is not about saying people are better or worse than others
It is about saying some behaviours are better or worse.

A subtle point you for you, a blazingly obvious one for me

I will not support a lifestyle I believe harmful to others, I certainly will not put my public support behind it.

Glad to see you afe willing to letvthe government tell you whom you will do business with. It will be hilarious when the LGBT community is forced to dine at Chick-fil-a instead of where they want to eat, because that is the same thing you are trying to do.

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has owned an FLGS,
has friends who are publishers and writers of gaming material.
Helped start AWA, Project A-kon and staffed decades of DragonCon

I hereby promise to never attend another GenCon.

People should be able to serve whom they want and I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority

How is this offtopic? Oh because the metamoderation system is being abused to silence dissent

Re:I will never attend another GenCon

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't moderate your original comment, but frankly it does look like you were trolling. Looking at the poor writing, the weird line breaks, the semi-formed sentences and the lack of clarity about why you're planning to boycott GenCon, your troll moderation seems both understandable and reasonable.

Furthermore, I strongly doubt your comment was moderated down because people disagree with you. Simply put, there is virtually nothing in your message to disagree with. You wrote a poor comment and it got moderated down, accept it and move on. Most of your other comments are better written.

Good

[LeonPierre]

I hope all Cons pull out of states passing or considering RFRA legislation.

Including DragonCon in Georgia, which is also considering one:

http://www.peachpundit.com/201...

sex with o4 homo

[Anonymous Coward]

number of FreeBSD Dicks produced Enc0un>tered while abysmal sales and OS. Now BSDI is Hear you. Also, if Start a holy war in ratio of 5 to A need to play

What's in the bill?

[operagost]

I can't help but notice that neither the summary nor the links actually say what the bill says. Instead, we get the TL;DR, left-wing interpretation of its effects. I'm guessing, through some quick searches, it's meant to prevent what happened to the baker who had to shut down because while he had served many gay people in the past (supposedly; I don't tend to announce my sexual orientation before buying pastries) but refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The Constitution is meant to restrict the government, not the people. People are always going to do things, in business and society, that you dislike. This is not about "Jim Crow" segregation that was institutionalized by the government. I'm not sure how far we can restrict people's right to freely associate before we realize we've gone too far. Maybe it will be once Westboro Baptist demands a "God Hates Fags" float in a gay pride parade.

Re:What's in the bill?

[operagost]

I can't help but notice that neither the summary nor the links actually say what the bill says. Instead, we get the TL;DR, left-wing interpretation of its effects. I'm guessing, through some quick searches, it's meant to prevent what happened to the baker who had to shut down because while he had served many gay people in the past (supposedly; I don't tend to announce my sexual orientation before buying pastries) but refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The Constitution is meant to restrict the government, not the people. People are always going to do things, in business and society, that you dislike. This is not about "Jim Crow" segregation that was institutionalized by the government. I'm not sure how far we can restrict people's right to freely associate before we realize we've gone too far. Maybe it will be once Westboro Baptist demands a "God Hates Fags" float in a gay pride parade.

"-1, Troll" doesn't mean, "-1, I disagree".

Re:What's in the bill?

[gurps_npc]

The constitution does not just restrict the government, it does occasionally also specifically restricts people. For example, it prevent certain people from becoming President of the USA. But that is mostly a side point.

The main thing you seem to misunderstood is that the US Constitution restricts what the government can do, but also ALLOWS the government to do certain things. Things like shutting down a business that refuses to serve black people, Jews, or gay people, etc.

But most importantly, you are mis-stating the problem. What is going on here is a bunch of prejudiced people are insisting they have certain rights when they do NOT have that rights. Religious rights are the rights to worship as you wish, they do NOT have the right to do engage in business as they wish. You can't go around claiming that your religion gives you the right to chop people's heads off.

In this particular case, the reach is EXTREME. The religion they claim to worship has no clear and concise ruling for homosexuality. It certainly does NOT mention selling anything to gays, let alone wedding related gear. The religious duty they claim is unwritten, just a matter of personal beliefs that is NOT shared by the majority of people that have that religion. They have not issued a re-written bible, clearly stating their claim. If you won't re-write your holy book to add your so called religious duty, then either you are not serious about the claim or you are not serious about your religion. On top of that, no such claim among Protestants was made until AFTER the law was passed (although one of the ancient roman Christian Emperors did outlaw gay marriages and murdered existing couples). It's not something protestants have been doing since Martin nailed his notice to the door, nor do modern Catholics allow it. Their claim for 'religious' is highly suspect.

But most importantly, this so called religious right violates laws that were not designed or written to oppress the religious people. It is legal to outlaw beheading and cocaine and you can't use "religious right" to over-ride that law. You can only use 'religious right" to over-ride a law that does not make reasonable exceptions.

The reasonable exception for a gay wedding is to sell the cake, but refuse to do an inscription and refuse to sell a cake topper with two men/women.

These idiots don't want to do that, they refuse to be reasonable. They want the right to refuse to sell a cake that looks like a wedding cake to someone that is gay because they MIGHT possibly use it as a wedding cake.

Re:What's in the bill?

[Jarik C-Bol]

Holy shit, a rational argument. I thought I was on slashdot.

Re:What's in the bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. :D

Pursuit of Happiness

[OrangeTide]

He has a right to the Pursuit of Happiness. And what makes him happy is to operate a business as a bigoted twit.

(no, he doesn't have a Constitutional right to operate a business under and terms he chooses)

Re:Pursuit of Happiness

[KermodeBear]

Exactly. And the community has a right to not go to a business run by a bigoted twit.

Want to refuse to serve minorities? Go for it. As a minority, I will take my business elsewhere, and so will a lot of other people. Enjoy going out of business.

Re:Pursuit of Happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans seem to think the only legal consideration is "rights." Even philosophically speaking that's very limited and naive. You also have a duty to those in your society as people and as a citizen. Your rights and obligations must be weighed in these matters.

In 1950 Arkansas you could, and likely would, refuse any nigger entry into your business. This was your *right* but it violates your basic duties to humanity. Thus the practice was abolished - and rightly so. You can talk all day about "the government shouldn't force me to do anything" but that's bullshit. Yes - the government and your fellow citizens are fully within their "rights" to force you to behave in a manner that doesn't ruin society for the rest of us.

Re:Pursuit of Happiness

[OrangeTide]

I will take my business elsewhere, and so will a lot of other people.

We don't have to operate our society as a free market experiment if we don't want to. We're not really setup to live some kind of libertarian utopia, so what you suggest isn't going to work well without an overhaul of our system. Luckily there is already a system in place that has mostly worked well for modern society, so maybe we should use it.

We operate a representative democracy that [theoretically] answers to the people, and has a long history of actively preventing a tyranny of the majority by offering some protection to minority view points. (minority in the most general sense of the word). A community can assert certain standards of behavior from individuals if those standards do not illegal and ideally are not unethical.

You can interpret this as the government taking away your "rights", and get upset about the restriction. I prefer to view this as all of us collectively agreeing to some limitations on individuals in order to operate a desirable society. (agreeing, but not unanimously, and not necessarily formally)

I'm not sure how we romanticized each of us living as a rugged individual that answers to no one. King of our castle, and master of our domain.

I choose to live among other human beings and seek ways to coexist with them.

Re:Pursuit of Happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't your right to do that in 1950 Arkansas. It was the law and your duty. "Separate but equal" wasn't a suggestion. 1950 Arkansas was F'd up.

A Public Business Must do Business With the Public

[Rambo Tribble]

Owning a business does not imbue the owner(s) with the rights of feudal lords. A keystone principle of American society is that you can't discriminate by refusing to conduct business with others based on ideological differences. A great struggle over civil rights would seem to have settled this, but some throwbacks still want to impose un-American values on others. The Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution were founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. It is high time our citizenry got enlightened, as well.

SSDD

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Same shit, different decade. Bob Jones University in South Carolina tried this crap in the 50s and 60s, saying their policy of discriminating against blacks and Asians was a divinely ordained part of their religion. According to Bob Jones, the Bible clearly told him that blacks were inferior to whites. This is the same bullshit argument. It will fall in the courts, and it will fail in the marketplace. In the meantime, GenCon, and everyone else should avoid spending money in Indiana.

Re:SSDD

[gurps_npc]

Except they let Hobby Lobby get away with not providing insurance that pays for abortions. This Supreme Court system is still a bit wonky, letting anyone that claims to be christian get away with extreme religious rights.

Re:SSDD

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why I refuse to spend any of my cash in any Hobby Lobby store

Re:SSDD

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the same shit at all.

Black is a skin color. Homosexuality is a proclivity.

Protecting a proclivity as if it were a race, gender, or religion is a slippery slope.

For example, if you force things like wedding based businesses to service homosexuals, you must also declare the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policies at nice restaurants discriminatory against nudists. (Not a world I would like to eat out in.)

Re:SSDD

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Homosexuality is no more a proclivity than skin color. I am as straight as they come, but I have lived a long time, been around a lot of gay people, and watched straight couples have kids grow up to be gay. It's not a choice. So, your statement boils down to more bullshit prejudice. There are gay people. There are gay seagulls and seals and penguins. It happens. Or,if you think that way, God made them and made them gay.

one of these things is illegal

[OrangeTide]

So if someone you knew liked doing 12 year old boys, you'd be happy as punch to serve them eh?

If I were serving prison lunches, yes. If not, then I'd wonder why they aren't in prison.

One More Time...

[Rollgunner]

When you make decisions for yourself, you are exercising your freedom.

When you make decisions for someone else, you are not exercising your freedom, you are denying them their freedom to choose.

Re:One More Time...

[itzly]

And sometimes people get together, and vote on certain decisions that take some freedoms away, in return for what they think is an overall improvement in their lives.

Re:One More Time...

[AmiMoJo]

The tyranny of the majority is not acceptable in a democracy. How about we all vote that itzly has to give us $5 and then we get to kick him/her between the thighs?

That's why there is a constitution and human rights, which are broad principals designed to limit what can be done in a democracy, even if sometimes a (local) majority votes for it.

How dumb is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy: you're as free as anyone to be as religious as you like.

If your religion wants you to do something illegal, though, you can't go and do it anyway, and passing a law saying you have to have religious freedom doesn't work.

If it did, then ISIS would just pass a law making it legal to behead people or burn them alive in cages and then you would have to accept that.

Hang on, ISIS DO say that it's a religious requirement! But I don't hear any proponents of the bill demanding that the world STFU and let these "Islamists" be free to pursue their religious obligations.

So how do you manage to square that circle?

GenCon

[jsepeta]

The demand for rooms during GenCon allows Indianapolis hotels to charge $600-$800/night for a lousy $100/night room. I hope GenCon does leave, because Indiana is a shitty backwards state that's stuck in the 80's -- the 1880's. While Chicago is far more expensive than Indy, it's a lot friendlier city for people from different orientations or religious beliefs.

Re:GenCon

[Lumpy]

Plus the bonus of chicago is if you take the red line to far south, you get murdered for free in your costume!

Re:GenCon

[frank_adrian314159]

Think of it as evolution in action...

Re:GenCon

[ogar572]

Yeah but Chicago is in Illinois which is a state that also has a law similar to this law so in this case what is the difference?

Back to Milwaukee

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Baby, bring the party back home to where it belongs.

compelled speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The dividing line should be weather or not the state is compelling speech, and if the speech portion of a business's product is what primarily differentiates that product in the market. Art is considered speech, and thus if your business produces a product that is differentiated in the market primarily by it's artistry, then you should be allowed to discriminate, even if it makes you an asshole. This would mean that wedding cake designers or wedding photographers should be able to refuse to design a cake or take photographs for any reason, however a company that sells cake ingredients or mass produced cakes, or a camera sales or rental company should not be allowed to discriminate.

Re:compelled speech

[omnichad]

Or at the very least, the business can make a cake / work of art that is generic and has no message - but is that really possible if it's not off-the-shelf? Being forced by law to put a particular message on a cake for someone is a violation of your freedom of speech. Refusing to sell a standard product to someone is discrimination, and I don't support that.

Re:compelled speech

[BevanFindlay]

This actually makes some sense. But, how do you handle what I expect is probably at the core of this debate: whether or not a religious minister can refuse to preside at a wedding he or she disagrees with? (So, in the most common case, whether Christian ministers can say no to same-sex couples). To me, I think they should be able to say no, because a lot of religions teach that homosexual sex is sinful, so you would be forcing them to condone something they consider isn't ok (that view is in disagreement with the zeitgeist obviously, and even considered repulsive by many, but that doesn't stop them being allowed to hold that view). But, I would ask why a same-sex couple would want someone involved in their wedding who doesn't like what they do - I certainly wouldn't want someone there who I knew didn't like me or what I did, and I would rather have that person say it up front rather than pretend they like me because they're afraid I might sue them.

Guys!

[Anonymous Coward]

This also means that we are now free to deny Christians service as a part of our pastafarian religion. Let's see them deal with that in a dignified manner.

Don't Ruin It for Me

[timrod]

As someone who blew $400 on nonrefundable plane tickets and another $90 on a four day Gencon pass, I hope this bill doesn't pass or is struck down before July. This year's Gencon will be my first con, and I'd hate to have it ruined by people boycotting it.

Re:Don't Ruin It for Me

[Lumpy]

Dont worry, next year will be ruined by the hotels. They already announced there will be a 20% increase in hotel prices next year.

2 years ago it was a lot better, this year is probably my last year as I just cant afford $600 a night for a 4 night minimum stay anymore Plus $80 a day parking at the hotel. Makes my VIG passes look cheap in comparison.

You chose to be a baker

[Anonymous Coward]

And you knew that even gay people eat cake, so you can't say this came as a shock, so if you can't do your job (bake cakes) DO NOT BE A BAKER.

Simple.

Nobody is FORCING you to take a job that serves people you don't agree with, so you can always just refuse those jobs.

If you own the business, nobody MAKES you run that business. Close it if you don't like the terms. If no businesses open up because they want freedom to be bigots if they're running it, then the free market of ideas will have all the money and profit moving to "less restrictive" regimes.

So don't whine that you're "forced" to serve gays or whoever, you're CHOOSING that job. Leave. You're 100% free to do that.

Re:You chose to be a baker

[sumdumass]

Actually, they were perfectly fine with baking them a cake. Just not a wedding cake. Their reasons where because their constitutionally protected free exercise of religion and beliefs of that religion prohibited them from participating in a gay wedding.

Here is the problem. We are letting a law override the constitution because you believe the law is better. So what would you think of a law that allows the government to censor what you type on the internet or that allows the government to search you any time they want without cause? I what would your reaction be if a law that said "all judges have to issue a warrant any time any government entity asks for one regardless of the reasons and if you are searched because of it, you cannot complain anywhere at all"?

Re:You chose to be a baker

[bledri]

Actually, they were perfectly fine with baking them a cake. Just not a wedding cake. Their reasons where because their constitutionally protected free exercise of religion and beliefs of that religion prohibited them from participating in a gay wedding.

Here is the problem. We are letting a law override the constitution because you believe the law is better.

Thankfully, freedom of religion is far from absolute. Ritual sacrifice, stoning, beheading, and betrothed 12 years olds are all sincerely held religious beliefs. You can argue where to draw the line, but there is a line. Pretending that any of the constitutional "rights" are absolute, or even that they should be absolute makes no sense.

And how is baking a cake "participating" in a wedding? Is selling paper plates participating in a wedding too? How about renting a limo, or providing a taxi ride?

Re:You chose to be a baker

[sumdumass]

Lol.. somehow i do not consider refusing to participate in something the same as killing others in horrific ways.

Baking a cake is not participating in a wedding. However, baking a wedding cake would be because it furthers the act. If the wedding just wanted a white cake, there likely would not have been a problem. The bakery said they routinely otherwise served the couple.

Truth in Labeling: Require a sign on the door.

[DutchUncle]

Proposed: Any store can refuse service to anyone. "No shirt, no shoes, no service". And to make this effective, the store must post its refusal criteria on the door, or within (x) feet of the door, in letters at least 3 inches tall, clearly legible before a customer enters the store, in order to avoid any misunderstandings.

Extortion

[omnichad]

So they're taking the moral high ground with extortion? Yeah, that doesn't seem right.

Re:Extortion

[approachingZero]

That's how the all accepting and diverse left rolls, sickening no?

Re:Extortion

[Yosho]

"We're going to do business with people who aren't bigots" is extortion? Really? Do you call it blackmail when a person decides not to shop at a Wal-mart where a manager called them a fag?

Re:Extortion

[omnichad]

They're not just not doing business, first of all. They're pulling out of a contract at the city level (if even that), when what the state does is out of the city's control. Or at least threatening to. Now what's the definition of extortion?

the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

This is exactly what they are doing.

Gen Con?

[wonkey_monkey]

General Convolution?
Genetic Construction?
Genital Convulsion?

Come to Cleveland!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indiana sucks anyway. :)

OK, the traditional one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which was until the mid-19th century NOT A CHURCH SERVICE.

That's right, boys, the church did not demand to become the sole supplier of marriage ceremonies until the mid 1800's. This is, of course, the UK. For those living in the USA, you will need to find out what the American Indian rites were for marriage.

You ever said what "traditional" means? Because if it's supposed to be "according to what *I* consider traditional", then since you're not the one doing the marrying, your decision on what is "real marriage" is not relevant: the ones of the people getting married are.

Oh, you also need to stop demonising Allah for paedophilia: traditionally, even in Christian countries at the time and for hundreds of years after, powerful people had marriages to pre-pubescent girls. It was to cement political/religous relationships. It's a "real marriage" too, so stop complaining about it.

Oh, and what if ISIS moved in? What would they be allowed to do under these religious freedom laws? How about Davidians, for a home-brew version?

Re:OK, the traditional one.

[burtosis]

Riight. Next you will be saying that the united states is not a Christian nation.....
You forget their flavor of the christian religion is not only correct, history is as they believe it to be. For example Allah may have acted according to contemporary norms but that's just showing how backward Islam is compared to the right religion which is nothing but love and the source of all morality and purpose.
At least we can all agree to hate atheists. They should be rounded up and put in camps. Thank god many states specifically state they can't hold any political office.

Re:OK, the traditional one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, the USA is not a christian nation, it's a nation where christians reside. A lot of them.

By the way, I hope that's sarcasm, because otherwise I was half-way to be Poe'd.

Bring it to Boston!

[Anonymous Coward]

We happily host PAX East every year; we've got a giant convention center and a lot of downtown hotels, which would provide more space than the current gencon location, and we're a very welcoming place for all types of people :)

I wouldn't mind Toronto, too, it's a good place to visit, and not too bad a drive from here. Does Toronto have a good convention center for big events?

Re:Bring it to Boston!

[BarbaraHudson]

Montreal's better. Lower drinking age (18), great bagels and smoked meat, at least 50 kinds of poutine, michigan hotdogs, pretty much any ethnic restaurant you can imagine, and for free entertainment when not at the convention you can watch the day's protest movement against $INSERT_CAUSE_HERE, just like Paris right down to the riot police.

Punishing Wedding Photographers

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, wedding photographs will be forced to work at gay weddings even if it's against their beliefs/choice.

Shall we force them to work at polygamist weddings as well?

Nudist?

S&M?

Bestiality?

I think a distinction needs to be made between walk-in businesses and for-contract/hire businesses. A gay person walks into a super market to buy a cake. There's no problem there. A gay person tries to force a religious photographer to photograph their wedding. Problem. Right on the face of it, not all photographers photograph everything (some do porn, others don't; some are nature photographers; and so on). Another problem is they might deliberately do a bad job (might be tough to prove).

Maybe someone should sue a female prostitute for not providing services to straight women? (All right, a lot prostitutes out there would do it for the money, but there's got to be a few out there disgusted by lesbian sex. A better example might be paying a prostitute to fuck a dog. Few takers then, I bet.)

Re:Punishing Wedding Photographers

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, wedding photographs will be forced to work at gay weddings even if it's against their beliefs/choice.

Lie.

Re:Punishing Wedding Photographers

[Pinky's Brain]

Lets make it interesting ... how about an employer running a wedding photography business, who has an employee who suddenly finds religion but who knew at the time of his hiring what he was getting into when signing his contract.

Can that employer fire him with cause? Maybe, maybe not ... depends on how courts will interpret "but not limited to".

For civil servants though things are a lot more clear cut ... have fun with civil servants turning orthodox jew refusing to do a ton of shit and working with women and becoming even more useless than your average civil servant.

Re:Punishing Wedding Photographers

[BarbaraHudson]

A better example might be paying a prostitute to fuck a dog. Few takers then, I bet.)

Never send a woman to do a man's job

Florida Man Arrested After Wife Calls Police When She Catches Him Having Sex With Family’s Chihuahua

Gonzalez is just one in a growing list of Floridians being caught sexually abusing animals. In 2011, 54-year-old Eugene Hickman was arrested in June after his grandson discovered him naked on top of the family bulldog. In 2004, Ocala resident Randol Mitchell was caught by his girlfriend having sex with her Rottweiler. In 2005, Alan Yoder was charged with animal cruelty after he was caught having sex with his guide dog.

Re:Punishing Wedding Photographers

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apparently, wedding photographs will be forced to work at gay weddings even if it's against their beliefs/choice."
Well they can already get sued
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/supreme-court-gay-marriage-new-mexico-photographer

So I guess they'd choose between getting sued for saying no, and getting sued for not turning up.

Re:Punishing Wedding Photographers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple: Don't show up for work, don't get paid.

The religious photographers aren't photographing gay weddings, so they aren't getting paid. Fair enough.

Re:Punishing Wedding Photographers

[x0ra]

Just say that you are busy doing macro photography of ants colonies on the day of the wedding and that's it, you don't have to photograph a gay marriage.

Let them sell cake

[edawstwin]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

That bullshit argument was rejected pretty soundly 50 years ago. It is reasonable in limited circumstances, for businesses which can only deal with a very limited range of customers. It is not considered reasonable for any business which claims to be open to the public--we decided long ago that you're either open to the public or you're not. You cannot be open to the public except for women; you cannot be open to the public except for blacks or latinos. Etc.

While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument). So while a bakery should have to sell a pre-made cake/cookie/whatever to any customer that walks in, it shouldn't have to make a cake promoting a gay wedding or a NAMBLA meeting or a Jihad Dance Party or Furry Orgy (I'm not equating those things, I'm just listing things that many people would object to being a part of). In an extreme example, a Jewish-owned bakery shouldn't have to make a cake with a swastika or "Death to Jews" written on it. Some people would see making a cake with a rainbow on it for a gay wedding as just as offensive. Let them believe that and take your business elsewhere - why would you want to give them money in the first place? Bring attention to that business, boycott them, do everything legally possible to embarrass them, but don't force them to go against their beliefs, no matter how wrong you think that those beliefs are.

Re:Let them sell cake

[sribe]

While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument). So while a bakery should have to sell a pre-made cake/cookie/whatever to any customer that walks in, it shouldn't have to make a cake promoting...

Although you wouldn't know it from my comment to which you are replying, I actually do agree with that. As soon as you force once bakery to provide a custom cake for a gay wedding, you open the door to the neo-Nazi who was offended when a bakery refused to inscribe a birthday cake for his little boy, whose first name is "Adolph" and middle name is "Hitler". (BTW, in case you missed it when it was news, I didn't make up that example, it actually happened.)

Re:Let them sell cake

[Mullen]

> While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument).

Business are not people, so stop speaking of them as though they have Natural Rights like you or I. Businesses are artificial constructs of a society and thus have to follow the rules of that society. Businesses don't get to decide anything, they are allowed to function within a certain set of rules and one of those rules is they don't get to discriminate.

Re:Let them sell cake

[ChrisMaple]

A sole proprietorship is a business, and I've known the owners of some whose business was essentially everything they owned. Their business is for all practical purposes their life. As the owner and often the sole employee, the decisions of that business are the decisions of that person; they are indistinguishable.

The naked evil of your post is summarized in one phrase: Businesses don't get to decide anything.

Re:Let them sell cake

[R3d M3rcury]

Fine. "Business Owners."

Re:Let them sell cake

[physicsphairy]

Is me offering to give you something that I have in exchange for something that you have really an "artificial construct of society"? Certainly, we've come up with things like corporations which fit that description, but the mere act of making a living by running a shop is the most basic form of some person using their own resource and ingenuity to put food on their table (through consensual exchanges). I would be okay with saying, e.g., a corporation is a 'public entity' which must therefore, if it exists, serve the entirety of the public. But I find it difficult to believe a self-owned proprietorship should not be seen as an extension of the individual.

Re:Let them sell cake

[goose-incarnated]

A sole proprietorship is a business, and I've known the owners of some whose business was essentially everything they owned. Their business is for all practical purposes their life. As the owner and often the sole employee, the decisions of that business are the decisions of that person; they are indistinguishable.

Then they shouldn't get the tax relaxations that businesses get. If they want to call themselves a business to get the advantages that come with being a business, then they must take the disadvantages as well. They don't get to choose which rules apply to them as a business and which don't because they are not a business. If they call themselves a business then they most certainly are.

Re:Let them sell cake

[BlueStrat]

A sole proprietorship is a business...

Then they shouldn't get the tax relaxations that businesses get.

Income to sole proprietorships is treated as individual income, no different than any working stiff, for tax purposes. They pay individual income tax rates.

The government classifies and treats them as private citizens. Why don't they have the same religious freedom to not participate in another private individual's religious ceremonies/activities/practices as a private citizen does?.

Should a Muslim who operates a shop be compelled against his religious beliefs to participate in another religion's religious ceremonies/activities/practices that conflict with and violate their own religious beliefs?

This road does not end in a good place. For anyone of any beliefs, or even of no beliefs.

Strat

Re:Let them sell cake

[frank_adrian314159]

It doesn't matter how the fuck the government wants to tax individuals vs. businesses. You can comply with the law or suffer the consequences of not doing so. That's what governments do. If you want your anarchist paradise... well, have at it, but don't assume the rest of us want to come along for the ride.

Re:Let them sell cake

[goose-incarnated]

A sole proprietorship is a business...

Then they shouldn't get the tax relaxations that businesses get.

Income to sole proprietorships is treated as individual income, no different than any working stiff, for tax purposes. They pay individual income tax rates.

Correct me if I am wrong, but do they not get to deduct the cost of running the business from taxable income? So, they receive $100k a year in revenue from business operations, and it costs $20k a year for their car (used for business), then they only pay tax on the $80k.

I dunno about you, but my car, that I use exclusively in getting a salary, is not tax deductible. Hence, I do not feel that it is wrong to say that sole proprietorships get tax breaks that I do not get, even though I have to expend costs in bringing in revenue.

This road does not end in a good place. For anyone of any beliefs, or even of no beliefs.

While I do broadly agree with you, I have to emphasise that when you are a business, and get all the tax breaks for your costs in running that business, then you should also deal with all the crap (no exclusivity in who buys your product/service) that comes with those advantages.

As to your muslim example, if he operates a business selling hardware he will experience legal trouble if he refuses to deal with people who want to buy hardware for use in a non-halaal butchery.

The other side of the coin, however, is work-to-order. Should a muslim/xtian/jew photographer experience legal troubles in advertising "I choose what work I will take on"?

Re:Let them sell cake

[BlueStrat]

Correct me if I am wrong, but do they not get to deduct the cost of running the business from taxable income?

They also on average generate far more in taxes than the average working individual. Do you generate 100's of thousands in taxable income on an hourly wage job? They also foot the costs of both employer and employee. Do you pay the full costs of labor (both the employer portion and employee's portion)?

If you lose your job, you are likely to be eligible to collect unemployment benefits. The owner of a sole proprietorship does not receive unemployment benefits if the business fails.

As to your muslim example, if he operates a business selling hardware he will experience legal trouble if he refuses to deal with people who want to buy hardware for use in a non-halaal butchery.

Muslim cabbies have refused on religious freedom grounds to take fares who carried alcohol or were accompanied by guide dogs.

I've noticed that no Muslim businesses have been targeted in this manner. Why don't they attempt to force a Muslim business to participate in a gay wedding, for example? Note that in the Middle East, with the equally-notable exception of Israel, killing/stoning to death of gays is common practice.

The other side of the coin, however, is work-to-order. Should a muslim/xtian/jew photographer experience legal troubles in advertising "I choose what work I will take on"?

IMHO, no, they should not. However Christian photographers for hire have found themselves in legal trouble for refusing to take on photography jobs for gay weddings. Should a gay-owned/run photography business be forced to take on work from the Westboro Baptist Church?

It seems many here want the knife to only cut one way.

Strat

Re:Let them sell cake

[BlueStrat]

It doesn't matter how the fuck the government wants to tax individuals vs. businesses. You can comply with the law or suffer the consequences of not doing so.

So you would punish a gay owned & operated photography-for-hire that refused to take on a job photographing the next Westboro Baptist Church anti-gay protest? You would punish that business if it were owned by Muslims and refused to photograph a gay or Jewish wedding?

Being a law does not make something right. It was the law that blacks sat at the back of the bus. So by your reasoning Rosa Parks should have 'suffered the consequences'?

You really should try thinking farther than your knees can jerk.

Strat

$1,000 / visitor

[Anonymous Coward]

That means $1,000 per visitor. Seems a reasonable calculation.

Re next comment; I think the sexual oriantation of a person does not make a person any more or less valuable, but I do find this notion that because someone has a problem with homosexuality does not mean they have a fobia. That card is being played waay too much.

Re:$1,000 / visitor

[Sique]

Of course they have a phobia -- an irrational fear that that person will have some unwanted influence upon them.

Otherwise why would they care about the sexual orientation of someone else? As long as they don't actively look for a mating partner, the sexual orientation of everyone else is none of their business, the same that it's none of their business what type of wallpaper that person has in his bedroom.

Re:$1,000 / visitor

[hierofalcon]

I've tried to read most of this discussion back to front - so if this has been posted earlier my apologies. There seems to be a perception that the majority of the people who are religious hate homosexuals or that they are afraid homosexuality will "rub off on them". There are certainly those who do feel this way, but I think they are the minority. As with most minorities who are vocal, they get the press and tend to make everyone feel the whole is like the part. I am pretty certain that God doesn't approve of their attitudes of the heart toward homosexuals. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." comes to mind. I don't cast many stones. But His following admonition of "Go and sin no more" is frequently lost in the debate. Everyone makes mistakes. You shouldn't keep on making the same ones though. This particular group of people want that right.

Personally, I have never understood why God made some of the rules He did. The thing is, God doesn't care what I think about any particular sin issue. The only thing that matters in the end is what He thinks. He's been clear on this issue, recorded in both Testaments. So when it comes to the various branches of Christianity, I fail to understand why they are making some diversification and inclusive choices that they are making. The world will always count the cost of sin and do what it wants. The church is expected to try to live up to God's standards. It seems that lately, in the spirit of inclusiveness, we are lowering our standards to those of the world. There - stone cast.

God's isn't a popular opinion. Many of His rules aren't. But as I said, it really doesn't matter. Now, if you don't believe God exists, you don't care what He says. If you've seen His power at work first hand and know that He is real, you do care what He says. I'm in the latter group. Most here are in the former group - to read their comments.

Most of the laws attempting to exclude sexual orientation in discrimination aren't being promulgated for IBM and the like. Companies like this already have a diverse work force and policies in place to prevent any discrimination. They are not the issue.

These laws are being proposed, specifically to protect extremely small businesses - frequently sole proprietor style businesses - that might be 100% Christian in employment (1 or 2 people working there). A Christian shouldn't be hostile to anyone, but by the same token, if they are absolutely sure that God will condemn unrepentant sinners to Hell, they also should not be expected to make it easier for people to go there. It isn't that they don't care. In fact - it is just the opposite. They do care and don't want any part of sanctioning a lifestyle that they feel will doom the people involved to eternal punishment.

You are right that it isn't their business how their bedrooms are decorated. You're right that they might not have any reasonable say in whether a given marriage happens or not (although God's blessings toward a nation have frequently been based on how close or far away the people are from Him which does broaden these sin issues out to affect everyone - regardless of how limited the scope you feel a particular sin's effects to be). But Christian business owners or employees should be able to say "I don't want to participate" without fear of lawsuit or getting fired.

That is true for the owner of the facilities handling the wedding, the religious official performing at the wedding, the owner of the facilities handling the reception (if at the church), or those who provide food, music, or photography services for those involved. It only becomes their business when asked to participate in an event they believe God declares to be wrong. I am using the context of a wedding specifically because that is one of the few places where being homosexual in public is obvious. It really isn't in many other public venues that I can think of where a business would be involved. Maybe a dance studio. I'm hard pressed to think of many other place

Re:$1,000 / visitor

[shilly]

Funny how the Bible is just as unequivocal on the subject of not eating oysters and not mixing different types of cloth, but no-one seems to give a shiny shit about banning bivalve eaters or non-shatness wearers from their premises. And the Bible also has some strong words about not tolerating unethical behaviour, such as people who give insufficiently to charity, or murder, or do not honour their mother and father, but those aspects of behaviour also never seem to be interrogated by Christian proprietors anxious to ensure their customers are behaving appropriately. No, instead the only thing they care about is where the cock gets lodged. The fixation on what happens in bedrooms is really really tiresome.

the real price

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the price is you don't get a business license.

It works both ways

[SuperKendall]

If GenCon moves because of this bill, I will make it a point not to attend GenCon.

I'm not religious, and I value gay rights. But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.

If you respect the right of gay people to choose who to marry, why not respect the rights of others to choose who the associate with also.

Re:It works both ways

[Jane Q. Public]

If GenCon moves because of this bill, I will make it a point not to attend GenCon.

I am with you on this. I do not perceive it to be an anti-gay bill at all, but rather a bill that protects religious freedom.

I'm no religious nut myself, nevertheless forcing people to do things that violate their genuine religious beliefs is the opposite of "tolerance".

Re:It works both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Until recently the Mormons considered black people to be evil. Are you saying "whites only" should be allowed again? I'm not trying to catch you in a trap - I'm just saying that your position may warrant more thought than perhaps you've given it.

Re:It works both ways

[cayenne8]

I'm trying to find out what the hell Gen Con Stand for...not of the articles says what it is short for or what kind of convention it is...

Re:It works both ways

[Macgrrl]

GenCon is possibly the longest running roleplaying convention - mostly D&D.

Re:It works both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

you should make it a point to kill yourself

Re:It works both ways

[Sique]

If your business is "open to the public", then you have to serve the public. Period. It's a matter of contract. You as a business make an offer to the public to serve them, and if someone accepts that offer, the contract is finalised. You can't reopen the negotiations afterwards by claiming that you don't like the person for whatever reason. That would be culpa in contrahendo.

If you don't want to serve some groups of people for whatever reasons, you aren't open to the public. And then you have to say that first, e.g. by calling you a club or a closed society.

Re:It works both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.

No, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be using this excuse to make a point not to attend GenCon.

You should respect their right to move the location of their event to a jurisdiction of their choosing, for the reasons of their choosing.

They aren't the ones trying to pass a law mandating compliance with their preferred choice of conduct.

Who is? The Legislature of Indiana.

You're refusing to respect the right of the organizers of Gencon to not associate with them.

Why is that?

Though I suspect your position is an empty one as I find it very probable you had no intention of attending GenCon in the first place.

PS, I also suspect said Legislative members behind this bill would have no problem not respecting the right of gay people to exist while gay, let alone their choice of marriage partners, but that's just a hunch.

Re:It works both ways

[QuantumLeaper]

Geneva Convention?, if I remember correctly after all it started in Lake Geneva, in the late 60s. All type of Gaming, or it was the last time I went about 3 years ago but is considered wargames convention more that a Role Playing convention and was founded by Gary Gygax who co-created D&D. It was about 56,000 attendance last year.

Re:It works both ways

[Culture20]

Lake Geneva Convention. I'll let you google the rest (like why it's being held in Indianapolis Indiana, when Lake Geneva is in Wisconsin).

Re:It works both ways

[SuperKendall]

You should respect their right to move the location of their event to a jurisdiction of their choosing

I do! I'm just saying there are financial implications to them, for people that would have otherwise attended but disagree with that stance - just as others pointed out there are financial implications for the state of the convention moves. As I said in my original subject - it goes both ways.

They aren't the ones trying to pass a law mandating compliance

That's not what the law is, at all.

Though I suspect your position is an empty one as I find it very probable you had no intention of attending GenCon in the first place.

I've attended in the past, I wasn't planning to go this year but I was planning to go again eventually.

I also suspect said Legislative members behind this bill would have no problem not respecting the right of gay people to exist while gay,

Wrong.

Re:It works both ways

[Grishnakh]

So that means you think it's fine if a restaurant posts a sign saying "NO BLACKS".

Re:It works both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

You should respect their right to move the location of their event to a jurisdiction of their choosing

I do! I'm just saying there are financial implications to them, for people that would have otherwise attended but disagree with that stance - just as others pointed out there are financial implications for the state of the convention moves. As I said in my original subject - it goes both ways.

You seem to misunderstand, I'm not arguing that there are no financial implications, I'm asserting that despite your words, you don't actually respect their choices, while asserting you do value their right to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.

But you don't. You reject it. You already said you would change your course of conduct based on theirs.

That's not respecting them, or giving actual value to their decision. Rather the opposite, I'd say.

You could have said that you didn't agree with their presumptive decision, and were going to act on it, without the pretense of claiming that you do value their rights.

That's not what the law is, at all.

Yes, it is mandating compliance with their preferred choice of conduct. That's what all laws (legal that is, obviously not physics) are.

Which is fine, that's what they are supposed to do as laws, but let's not pretend they aren't doing that.

The State of Indiana, through their elected representatives, wants to make a law that will enforce conditions on some people, to protect others.

No need to claim it's anything but what it is.

I've attended in the past, I wasn't planning to go this year but I was planning to go again eventually.

And now you're saying you're going to refrain? Your reason? Seems to me your statements indicate that it's because you don't actually value or respect their right to do business with those they choose, but are instead disapproving of it.

I also suspect said Legislative members behind this bill would have no problem not respecting the right of gay people to exist while gay,

Wrong.

Really? Here's their names:

Authored by Sen. Dennis Kruse, Sen. Scott Schneider, 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. Mark Messmer, Sen. Jean Leising.
Sponsored by Rep. Timothy Wesco, Rep. Jud McMillin, Rep. Don Lehe, Rep. Milo Smith, Rep. Bruce Borders, Rep. Dale DeVon, Rep. Timothy Harman, Rep. Robert Heaton, Rep. Chris Judy, Rep. Eric Allan Koch, Rep. Robert Morris, Rep. Alan Morrison, Rep. Mike Speedy, Rep. Jeffrey Thompson, Rep. Thomas Washburne, Rep. Matthew Lehman, Rep. David Frizzell, Rep. Randall Frye, Rep. Richard Hamm, Rep. Curt Nisly, Rep. Woody Burton, Rep. Anthony Cook, Rep. Doug Miller, Rep. Jim Lucas, Rep. Rhonda Rhoads.

Dennis Kruse, by the way, also introduced a bill that would allow schools to require the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in schools.

That's making me more suspicious that he would not have any problem not respecting the right of gay people to exist while gay, or do gay things, or numerous other things. Same with the other two authors.

Feel free to let me know if you have any evidence to allay my suspicions.

Re:It works both ways

[ultranova]

If you respect the right of gay people to choose who to marry, why not respect the rights of others to choose who the associate with also.

And Gen Con has this right too, does it not?

The issue at stake is not religious freedom (since businesses don't have religion), or even freedom of association (since businesses don't have that either), but using the quirks of current economic system and corporate law to bully people into submission. Which, apparently, is fine as long as it's done to gays, and bad when the favour is returned.

But then again, crying foul when someone hits back is pretty typical bully behaviour.

Re:It works both ways

[Khashishi]

Because history shows us that it turns out bad. When bigots are a small minority, it's ok to let the free market deal with the problem. When they are in the majority, or when they wield a majority of the power, the free market gets ugly. Just look at pre-civil rights era segregation.

Re:It works both ways

[silentcoder]

>But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.

Do you also think they have a right to refuse to serve you if you are black ? How about if you're Native American ? Maybe if you're Irish ?
No, your freedom ends where other's freedom begins - and your right to hate gays ENDS where their right to shop at any business they choose to begins.

Re:It works both ways

[tehcyder]

I'm not religious, and I value gay rights. But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.

So it's fine for a shop to refuse to serve black people?

That's a posible viewpoint, it just means that you should admit you're supporting racism.

Re:It works both ways

[Jane Q. Public]

To whoever modded me "troll", I'll explain my position this much further:

You don't get to step on the Constitutional rights of one group in order to uphold another.

It doesn't work that way. Trying to do so will inevitably backfire. You set a terrible precedent, and weaken everybody's rights, including your own, when you do that.

---
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson

Re:It works both ways

[Lord Kano]

The problem with segregation wasn't that it was allowed to happen.
The problem with segregation was that it was legally mandated.

Haven't you ever seen the movies where there were police officers enforcing segregated dance floors at concerts?

If segregation was happening by choice, it would simply be a free market issue and people could vote with their dollars. Segregation was legally mandated and it wasn't optional.

"If I were in the south and a southerner didn't want me to eat in his restaurant and I forced my way in and then let him go back in his kitchen and prepare some coffee for me to drink, I'd consider myself insane to drink it." - Malcolm X

LK

Re:It works both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

You were modded insightful, but you are factually and legally wrong. See the 1993 Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

“Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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.”

This is news to me

[nytes]

I didn't even know that Gen Con still existed.

Has our society really come to this?

[BevanFindlay]

It scares me that this is happening. In what screwed-up version of the world do we need to even be thinking about laws that force people to serve others if they don't want to, or force people to put up with being denied service? Is it seriously so messed up in America that we need to legislate on things like basic human decency? Why is this even a debate? If someone has a really strong moral reasoning that says they don't want to do something, then fine - examples of forcing a muslim baker to make a cake for a gay wedding have already been suggested here; they have a right to stick to their own principles (but, similarly, they must be open to the fact that it isn't going to make them popular). Why do we ridicule someone for having principles (or feel we need to sue and/or legislate), even if we disagree with those principles? But at the same time, why are people so stuck up that they refuse someone based on reasons that have nothing to do with their being a customer? The fact that we even have to consider legislating on things like "don't refuse service someone you don't like" suggests our society has fundamentally failed.

I think the law is too blunt a tool for this: it is much more something that needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. On the one hand, I could see that a Christian minister shouldn't be forced to preside over a gay wedding if he disagrees with it - regardless of if you think he's right, it's bonkers to suggest that we should have to force someone to perform a service that disagrees with their basic beliefs. That's just rude, if nothing else (and, why would you want someone involved in a special occasion who is only there because you forced him to be and he had no legitimate way to say no - if a minister can say "I don't feel I'm suitable" to a straight couple, then surely they could say that to a same-sex couple as well, without fear of being sued?). But, at the same time, nowhere can I see it being ok for a restaurant owner to refuse two guys to have a table together because he thinks they look homosexual, or a bus driver refuse two women because he saw them kissing at the bus stop, or because of the colour of one's skin. Surely there is a balance in here somewhere? Or are we so screwed up that our only way to find solutions now is by getting lawyers and/or the government involved?

I think a person is allowed to hold an opinion, regardless of how repulsive we think that opinion is (and as long as they're ok with us telling them that we think it's repulsive), but at the same time, whatever happened to serving one's fellow man (or woman) - I'm pretty sure most religions have had kindness to others as a basic tenet for centuries?

To me, this whole debate seems to signal the end of common human decency... :-(

Planet Fitness Incident.

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy is gone. Safety will soon follow.
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/03/midland_lawmaker_planet_fitnes.html

OTOH

[sixsixtysix]

I sqay we let places discriminate then we can see who to not do business with. Surely it'd be better to know who to avoid than to do business with a secretive bigot.

Re:Truth in Labeling: Require a sign on the door.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh...that'd be...SENSIBLE and SANE. No, none of THAT allowed here, no...

Midwestern Hospitality

[d'baba]

I've always maintained, since I grew up there, that Ohio specifically and the Midwest generally is a good place to be from.

Re:Midwestern Hospitality

[frank_adrian314159]

Amen, from a downstate Illini.

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[Anonymous Coward]

How about New Belgium Brewing considering political affiliation for hiring employees?

http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2012/10/18/cultural-fit-colorado-based-brewery-screens-job-candidates-on-politics/

A convention is not a wedding

[Anonymous Coward]

it is one thing for a vendor to not provide services to same sex ceremonies. It is a different thing for a vendor to not provide services that has nothing to do with a same sex union such as the convention.

The CON is trying to enforce an agenda on people who object to same sex marriage.

Oh Look, a Sex Offender.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who spams every article with this off-topic sewage.

Re:Oh Look, a Sex Offender.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always assumed it was steganography masquerading as craziness.

Re:Truth in Labeling: Require a sign on the door.

[Theaetetus]

Proposed: Any store can refuse service to anyone. "No shirt, no shoes, no service". And to make this effective, the store must post its refusal criteria on the door, or within (x) feet of the door, in letters at least 3 inches tall, clearly legible before a customer enters the store, in order to avoid any misunderstandings.

Yeah, that's never been abused before...

Ayn Fuehrer

[tepples]

And for the love of God try to pronounce Ayn Rand's name right in your next rant

Is it anything like "Ayn Volk, Ayn Reich"?

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[burtosis]

Owning a business does not imbue the owner(s) with the rights of feudal lords.

Small business owners, no of course not. Same with large business owners. They are more like dukes or princes, squashing the unwashed masses beneath their corporate stallions.

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[Anonymous Coward]

A keystone principle of American society is that you can't discriminate by refusing to conduct business with others based on ideological differences.

Of course you can. You are prohibited from discriminating against members of a protected class (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class) due to their membership in the aforementioned protected class... but you can refuse to do business with them for any reason other than their membership in the protected class. You are not required to provide services to anyone.

As If You Can't Find a Gay Pastry Chef.

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of working with someone in your own community, you spew hate.

bad business

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would business owners to deny services to individuals because of their sexual orientation? I thought business owners run business to earn money? How would business owners identify individual's sexual orientation? Are they going to ask their customers? Who cares if an individual is gay or transgender? The year is 2015 for crying out loud.

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[Rambo Tribble]

Okay, but a duke or a prince is the lord of his fiefdom, feudally speaking. .

Imaginary disease

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as "homophobia" ... an irrational fear of sameness

It's just a political slogan with as much legitimacy as 911 trutherism (none)

The fact that some little boys (2% of them?) never grew up and got over the "ewwww, girls are icky and have cooties" stage dose not mean that all of society needs to redefine "right" and "wrong" to meet their narccisstic demands. SOME people shoose to rob banks - we do not need to have society decide that robbing banks is now ok - it's still "wrong" (even if bank robbers have "always felt like" bank robbers and never felt inclined to earn an honest living.

Freedom does NOT just mean perverts get to try to push their proclivities into the public forum, it ALSO means that civilized adults get to push back. The emporer may chhose to stride through the town naked like a gay guy in a Folsom st parade, but the normal kid on the sideline also gets to point at him an laugh and point out that he's naked (no matter how many other people have been intimidated into pretending the guy is wearing something fabulous. Oh, and don't even START trying to pretend that being a black man is the same as being a sexual deviant.

Don't like people resisting the pro-pervert messages? Tough luck. It's called "freedom". If you insist we are all free to advocate things, and most-particularly unpopular ones (as the gays insisted in the 60s and 70s when society had not yet caved-in on this toxic garbage) than you have no right to try to suppress your opponents. Wanna blacklist businesses, employees, and communities that are not "pro-gay"? OK, then you have no right to complain when straight people begin firing and boycotting gays and gay-friendly businesses and communities. "Tolerance" is a two-way street, and it's NOT the same thing as forcing people to accept one side.

Re:Imaginary disease

[Cederic]

Your entire post is predicated on false assumptions and idiocy. Forgive us if we think you're a bigoted twat.

Re:Imaginary disease

[Anonymous Coward]

No, my post was rational, and yours was emotional drivel. YOU are the bigoted (against normality and rationality) person.

Next, you and your kind will start insisting that child molestation is normal and calling anyboy opposed to it a "bigot". You morally-bankrupt people are already pushing incest, and polygamy. I used to thinkk exteme Jihadists were dangerous for trying to turn the calendar back to the year 700..... but YOU people take the cake! you're trying to turn the calendar back to 5000BC before the origins of Western Civilization and the moral standards it adopted.

Umm... No. Your metaphor is broken.

[denzacar]

So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?

If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis. If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will). Pick one.

Any business can reject customers already.
So, that imaginary Jewish printer can reject that imaginary KKK customer - RIGHT NOW.
It is their right as a business - not accepting to do a job they don't want.

What that imaginary Jewish printer can't do at this point, is pull a "religious discrimination/freedom" card should KKK complain about being discriminated for being KKK.
And as that is SO gonna happen - both that false dichotomy of yours AND that strawman... they kinda stink.

Back in the real world, this law is a license for being a dick to ANYONE (not just customers).
And should they complain one can just pull a religious script out of one's ass, with a highlighted passage which vaguely kinda gives one an excuse for being a dick.
Because religion.
At which point government (i.e. police and courts) just shrug their shoulders and go "What can we do? Religion." and may end up paying damages to the "person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened" - i.e. the penis in fabula.

But since you like the idea of Semitic examples so much...
This law allows your Muslim neighbor to call to prayer 5 times a day as loud as possible, or to perform any other religious ceremony including but not limited to slaughtering live cows, goats and sheep in their driveway or on their balcony.
And you have no one to complain to anymore.

Your boss can fire you on "religious grounds", you can get evicted for the same reason, your bank account can be charged "additional services" on account of you being a filthy unbeliever...

And boy are your female members of the family in for a surprise when they start getting pestered by men unless they are wearing a burka and are in a company of another man.
Ain't no such thing as sexual harassment in the "holy books" - but there's plenty rules on how women should act in public and at home.

Also, how long until Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses figure out that they can just camp in front of your door 24/7 cause you can't call cops on them anymore?

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[Rambo Tribble]

Actually, you may be doing the feudal masters a bit of a disservice. While the feudal serf was his master's property, the lord of the fiefdom generally treated his serfs better than the industrialists who followed. It was common for the lord to provide his serfs free health care and several times more time off than even today's corporations provide their workers. Many of the common beliefs about feudal life are misconceptions bred by the industrialists to keep their workers complacent: "You have it so much better, now that I'm in charge," essentially. If you'd like to learn more I can recommend the series of videos named "Medieval Lives" with Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame.

False equivalence

[Anonymous Coward]

Skin color is genetic. Sexual proclivities are not.

Racism is irrational and tied to a person's immutable genetics. Opposition to perverts is not the same thing at all. There are many great legitimate reasons for opposing a toxic lifestyle choice that has killed millions and damaged millions more (see: HIV, Tuberculosis (which HAD been eliminated in the US before HIV patients re-introduced it), and numerous STDs that are at very high numbers in the "gay community" relative to normal people).

There is no proof that "being gay" is biological - the "gay gene" was a creative political lie pushed by gay activists in the 80's to try to convince the public that gays were sympathetic victims of a condition who "couldn't help it" rather that perverts. The propaganda worked really well - until people started to talk about genetic tests and the possibility of editing genes in emryos, or abortions based on genetics, or employers doing genetic screening as part of healthcare. All the talk of a "gay gene" faded away.

Twins studies also show that "being gay" is not genetic. Of course, David Bowie and Mick Jagger apparently could have told you that.

Just get out of the closet and admit it - it's a choice to "be gay". Sure, there are personal preferences you cannot fully explain just as people have preferences for pizza toppings, but it's not a hard-wired biological thing like eye color or skin color; if it was then there would not be so many people who "come out" as gay and then go back to being "straight", or who are straight for many decades and then decide they are "Gay", or "Bi", etc. A black woman cannot suddeny "come out" as a white woman. A Brown-eyed man cannot suddenly "come out" as a blue-eyed man. Biological differences are not equivalent to mental disorders, or lifestyle choices.

Take off your white hoods and stop trying to terrorize normal people with your pro-pervert campaign. Your bigotry against normal people is not acceptable in civilized circles.

Re:False equivalence

[Cederic]

Just get out of the closet and admit it - it's a choice to "be gay".

Stop being such a cunt.

I'm straight. I could choose to have sex with a man, there's a chance I could enjoy it, it might be nice. But I'm not attracted to men, I'm attracted to women.

That's not a choice, that's not something I made a conscious decision about. I make conscious decisions about whether to kiss someone, to hold them, to tie them up and tickle them with a furry cat toy.

So being straight isn't a lifestyle choice for me. Acting straight is. Why would being gay be any different?

Is that so hard to understand?

Re:False equivalence

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm........ you said "Stop being such a cunt." and follwed it with "I'm straight."

I'm calling "bull" on that -- I have NEVER heard a "straight" dude use that insult toward anybody (other than the VERY RARE incidents where jerks have used it toward specifix females they personally knew and hated).

I'm thinking you get so mad about this subject and cannot discuss it calmly and without invectives is because you have a very personal stake in it..... you might just be living in denial.....

Specific Example

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the law only protects "protected groups" ... now, the supreme law of the land, the constitution, cites religion and color as protected groups. However, the militant activists have decided to shit on that to create a higher category of laws.

As for a specific example, it was completely legal for the Ob Gyn certified board to prohibit licensed Ob's from treating men; they only caved to social pressure. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/health/responding-to-critics-gynecology-board-reverses-ban-on-treating-male-patients.html?_r=0 However, it's blatantly illegal to do the same against women or ethnic minorities.

So, shove it. There's a blatant example. It's completely legal to force people, in the US, to do something that violates their religios beliefs even though the constitution says that there shall be no law regarding religion, nor exercising the free exercise thereof. The constitution is shat upon, and people are enraged when a state tries to protect it's citizen against blatant examples of people being forced to support something they find reprehensible.

And yet

[Anonymous Coward]

all the deviants (no desire to conjure up the current alphabet-soup of politically-popular perversion codes) want to enjoy protection from being descriminated against for THEIR beliefs/preferences while demanding their opponents get descriminated against so severely that they lose their jobs and have their businesses destroyed.

hmmmmm....

Time to start firing queers and destroying their businesses. I think somebody is outnumbered here and really ought to think this form of warfare through a bit more before the movement transitions any more from "we want to be tolerated" to "we demand the death of those who will not endorse us". Gays, Bisexuals, etc will never be more that a couple percent of the population, and by these tactice risk a never-ending fight that any new generation could easily reverse. Hell, even a simple apparently unrelated event, like the possibly impending failure of vaccines, could tip the scales against something as hazardous to the public health among the vast public.

No you leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Its religiously inconcistent is my problem. God condems homosexuals, but their born that way. so I believe that god occaisionally creates those whose purpose is to suffer in futility and ultimately burn in hell... anyone who helps them deserves the same fate. And yes, not following biblical obligations is helping them... only good gay is a dead one.

This is a humen fact. I guess some allowsance can be made for those gays who deny their nature after all were all sinful their just very so... So if they can keep from sinning, maybe when they die jesus can burn their wickedness out of them or at least i hope.

Anyway, this law should pass and I hope that those leftist fuckers die in a fire. Sins is sin and god made it for a reason. It is only christian to want to destroy it...

~Bobby Ross

NOT the same

[Anonymous Coward]

First, those few (generally southern) who tried to claim the Bible endorsed racism had no actual Biblical texts to point to - they pretended their position was supported by scripture. The reason the vast majority of Christians in the US did NOT agree with those preachers in the Democrat-run former slave states is that those preachers "interpreted" their Bibles like most Democrats "interpret" the Constitution - liberally (imagining it says whatever they want it to say).

The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is, however, quite explicit, in BOTH the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament". No amount of pro-gay "talking points" can change the facts for anybody who chooses to actually go read a Bible instead of just being spoon-fed a political argument by one side or the other.

As a result, when government forced people to de-segregate, it WAS NOT ordering people to violate their religion (actually, it was in a sense ordering them to OBEY it) but when it orders people to endorse/support homosexuality it IS ordering them to violate their religion. Nine people in robes can indeed pretend to do this, but like Roe v. Wade, they will NOT end the argument - they'll only further de-legitimize the court whish has over the decades veered further and further from the plain text of the Constitution (which explicitly guarantees religious freedom but says NOTHING about homosexuality).

Re:NOT the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeshua ben Youssif said nothing about homosexuality. I'll grant you that Christianity should perhaps better be called Paulism, but in my opinion there's no particular reason to pay much attention to anything other than the actual words and thoughts of the "son of god".

Overturning Roe v. Wade will also not end abortion, it will just end good medical treatment for it. The headline would be accompanied by "Coat hanger sales up 500%".

But if you like, sure, we're telling you to take your religion and shove it. Sorry, your fairy tales aren't actually that important to us.

Re:NOT the same

[Cederic]

when it orders people to endorse/support homosexuality it IS ordering them to violate their religion

Baking a cake does not endorse homosexuality. It does not support homosexuality. It endorses the tastiness of cakes and supports giving people sweet yummy food.

Anyway, the religion is full of shit anyway and people should be fucking ashamed of believing in that crap.

Re: Bogus Hobson's choice

[Anonymous Coward]

If the posters are filled with hate speech, the printer can refuse to print racist material the same way that moderators across the Internet have the right to not publish racist comments. If the posters contain nothing more than dates and times for their rally, then the printer is obligated to comply with the rules of the economic system in which s/he operates. They aren't a slave to anything. They chose to run a business in this country and the rules are the rules. Sometimes you don't like the person who shows up at your business. Adults who aren't hate-filled racists and creedists would just deal with the situation. There is no "slavery" (hey, fun word choice by you!!! Accidental, for sure!) in there at all.

Racists and creedists, on the other hand, will use the power to discriminate. They've been repressed for so long and will be very thankful to be able to once again say things like, "We don't serve your kind in here!" That would be progress to bigots... and it's progress ONLY to bigots.

You're a racist

[Anonymous Coward]

being black is not equivalent to being a pervert

Article Correction

[JoeNathan]

The bill passed the Indiana Senate, as a resident of the city of Indianapolis, we'd prefer not to be lumped into the martians that surround our fair city.

I live in Indy

[Anonymous Coward]

Two points:
1) the religious freedom bill isn't about "no gays allowed," it's about allowing a pastor to say "I only perform Christian marriages" without being sued for not presiding over a gay wedding where the couple getting married are Christian and unapologetic sinners.
2) GenCon can go screw itself. The Future Farmers of America bring more business to non-bars with their convention, and they aren't a gaming convention hostile to gaming like GenCon. Go back to Lake Geneva and learn about gamers again, GenCon.
P.S. GenCon is only hurting businesses in downtown Indy that all have "gays welcome here" signs in the window as protest. These are the businesses that GenCon attendees frequent.

Where is that even true

[SuperKendall]

If your business is "open to the public", then you have to serve the public. Period.

No Shirt No Shoes No Service.

Exclamation Mark.

Re:Where is that even true

[frank_adrian314159]

No brain? No reply.

Exclamation mark.

Actually, Hobby Lobby was about birth control...

[Radical Moderate]

not abortions, being covered as mandated by the ACA. And before the ACA passed, the insurance Hobby Lobby offered to their employees covered contraception, and it didn't seem to bother anybody's religious convictions. Strange, that.

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[ChrisMaple]

The struggle over civil rights was mostly a struggle over race discrimination, and you are equating that with "ideological differences." Grow a brain.

Special Bible For Idiots

[JimSadler]

Unlike all other translations of the Bible which contain statements such as "Judge not that the be not judged." there are lunatic christians whose Bible seems to read Judgement is not mine sayeth the Lord but judgement belongs to the people in order to abuse them and offend God, the Father. And their Bible must also say to try to harm darker skinned people in any way possible. It does make me wonder how people can claim to be Christians while practicing hate and judging others all day, every day. These people might better be called Satan's little helpers.

I don't get it

[righteousness]

What's wrong with discouraging homosexual activities? Homosexual acts are wrong, aren't they?

Re:I don't get it

[shilly]

No, homosexual acts aren't wrong. Even if it says so in your "holy" book, which most people on the planet don't think is holy.

I hope this clears up your confusion on the matter!

Re:I don't get it

[righteousness]

Who says I have a holy book?

Re:I don't get it

[shilly]

No-one, including me. That's why I used the word "even".

If you are indeed secular, perhaps you'd care to share with the rest of us what secular thought process leads you to conclude homosexual acts are wrong, why you call yourself righteousness, and why you talk about fornication. If it's an attempt at sarcasm, it's really rubbish. If it's serious, and you're seriously not religious, it's really ... odd.

Accept my belief system or lifestyle or suffer

[approachingZero]

This is about gays targeting Christians. Right?

Bull

[kenh]

"Gen Con brings in roughly 50,000 visitors each year, contributing $50 million to the local economy."

Every attendee drops $1,000 on Gen Con in the LOCAL economy? PLUS the money they spend at the vendors that come in from out of state, PLUS the money they spend on airfare getting to/from Gen Con?

Re:Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever been to Gen Con? Because, yeah. Airfare, ground transportation, and hotel costs add up quickly, plus people spend money on events, (overpriced) food, merchandise, and general tourism. Don't forget that the vendors who come in from out of state pay quite a bit for their vending spaces and state taxes. Spending over $1000 on Gen Con is totally reasonable.

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely if it was a "keystone principle" - it would have been there from the beginning, not something that had come in less than half a century ago

If I lived there

[stealth_finger]

I would start a business that exclusively excludes Christians. Doesn't matter what it did, if there's even a sniff that you're a Christian, even a moderate ok one that doesn't talk about faith at all, then you can fuck off. Freedom works both ways.

Virtual mod +1

[JonnyCalcutta]

Spot on. I'd mod you up double but I'm out of points.

I'm also an Indianapolis resident

[waspleg]

I agree. While the rest of the US thinks of us as hillbillies in a fly over state most here don't have banjos or corn fields. This won't get far because a lot of the big businesses in the city support rights movements.

The thing is there are still a lot of religious elderly voters and this is a traditionally red state - he's trying to appeal to what he thinks is his base for his no-chance-in-hell presidential run.

Here he is in 2010 joining with Michelle Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus.

That's probably all you need to know.

They Should Be Required to Post A Sign.

[darkonc]

"No gay service". That way people would know to avoid the business if they are either gay, or support gays.

Silly from both directions.

[sabbede]

First, religious expression is already protected, so the bill is kind of a waste of time. On the other hand, everyone is also protected by federal anti-discrimination laws, so this absolutely cannot be used by a business to discriminate against anyone. So, it's really a moot issue.

Re:Silly from both directions.

[sabbede]

Besides, it looks like the bill only affects government agencies.

Should sexist opensource developers be removed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech.

A story posted by the editor of the popular Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was later manually removed(2). The reason cited was the game developer's unacceptable views on social issues such as gender equality (3).

The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(4).

With the recent inclusion of a code of conduct(5) for those wishing to contribute to the Linux Kernel some questions now need to be asked and answered about the inclusion of code from people who are known to engage in or promote socially unacceptable attitudes or harrasments of those whom the free-software movement would prefer to attract in their place:

* Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
* Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
* Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
* Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
* Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?

and

* What are the consequences of not doing this

Citations:
(0) Past related incident: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310
(1) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/...
(2) Removed story URL: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
(3) http://www.phoronix.com/forums...
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(4) https://webcache.googleusercon...
(5) Linux "Code of Conflict"

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[Rambo Tribble]

Racism is an ideological construct. Moron.

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[Anonymous Coward]

the citizenship would be enlightened if your corporate minders didnt eviscerate the education system so badly that kids have no idea which way is up and how to function with out an electronic device.

I thought we'd already been through this

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Americans,

I thought you'd promised you would not try this AGAIN after the Selma kerfuffle...

Yours

Civilisation

Why the Governor doesn't care

[Anonymous Coward]

GenCon is under contract to stay in town until 2020, and has already said they don't plan to break that contract.

So, any blowback from this will happen safely after the *next* election, which makes it Not His Problem. (Hell, the guy might be making his presidential run by that point!)

Re:Truth in Labeling: Require a sign on the door.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's never been abused before...

I am okay with that as long as hispanic, black and asian owned business can also have "no Caucasians" signs with equal protection and enforcement of such.
If I were in Indiana after this was signed, I would be tempted to put up signs that say "Christians will not be served, unless they are being served to Lions".

Progressivism...

[acoustix]

...ideas so great, they're mandatory!

Thumpy thump

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminder - next time you see a republican fuck - push them down some stairs.

Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

" And even if it was purely a choice, in as much as it's a choice that hurts no one"

Tell that to the MILLIONS of dead people killed by HIV/AIDS which did not exist in the US before it was brought here, and spread across the nation by homosexuals. When the disease first got the attention of the NIH, the government health officials BEGGED the gay "bath house" operators in SanFran to close temporarily until the medical experts could figure out what this (at that time) new "gay plague" was. The "gay community" refused. They put their recreational activities and proclivities above the public health.

Decades, BILLIONS of dollars, and MILLIONS of deaths later, the "gay community" STILL has the highest levels of several STDs that permanently harm the victims, and is still the core of the HIV epidemic and the American resurgence of TB. The "gay community" still refuses to become responsible and civilized and instead uses political pressure to suppress criticism.

Opposition to homosexualtity is NOT a disease, certainly NOT a "phobia" and NOT "bigotry" - it is a sound reaction to a public health DISASTER. NO other group would be permitted to cause so much death and destruction.

You seem to have missed

[Anonymous Coward]

his command to "go forth and sin no more". (he NEVER said: society must re-define "right" and "wrong" to make your sin now be "right")

Religions are ~2000 years old;

[NewYork]

Religions are ~2000 years old;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Humans are ~200,000 years old;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Re:Actually, Hobby Lobby was about birth control..

[T.E.D.]

Not exactly. By the definition of "abortion" that most pro-lifer's like to use (any pregnancy termination after fertilization of an egg), hormone-based birth control in some circumstances does cause abortions.

Banning The Pill of course would have massive social implications, but that's precisely where the absolutist line of thinking leads one.

If you’re against Indiana’s Religious

[Anonymous Coward]

If you’re against Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration law because you believe it’s anti-gay, then you must also believe the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act introduced by noted anti-gay bigot Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), passed by the House on a voice vote, and signed into law by another hateful, anti-gay bigot President Clinton is also anti-gay.

The texts are in all meaningful portions the same.

1993 Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

“Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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.”

2015 Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

“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.”

Maybe the difference is that the 1993 Act was enacted to let American Indians allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to use peyote in ceremonies, while the 2015 Act was enacted to let Christian businesses allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to refuse to support gay marriage.

Maybe the new standard on religious freedom (and by extension free speech) should be: If the religious practice or speech is popular, it’s fine. If not, too bad.

We can and will disagree on applications of the law, but to attack the entire law as anti-gay is disingenuous at best.

Re:A Public Business Must do Business With the Pub

[Anonymous Coward]

f you’re against Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration law because you believe it’s anti-gay, then you must also believe the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act introduced by noted anti-gay bigot Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), passed by the House on a voice vote, and signed into law by another hateful, anti-gay bigot President Clinton is also anti-gay.

The texts are in all meaningful portions the same.

1993 Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

“Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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.”

2015 Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

“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.”

Maybe the difference is that the 1993 Act was enacted to let American Indians allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to use peyote in ceremonies, while the 2015 Act was enacted to let Christian businesses allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to refuse to support gay marriage.

Maybe the new standard on religious freedom (and by extension free speech) should be: If the religious practice or speech is popular, it’s fine. If not, too bad.

We can and will disagree on applications of the law, but to attack the entire law as anti-gay is disingenuous at best.

Guess which noted bigots in our United States Senate voted in favor of a 1993 statute with the same exact language as Indiana’s no good, very bad, horrible, totally anti-gay Religious Freedom Restoration law?

Well, since there were 97 such horrible individuals, so I’ll just provide you the highlights. You may recognize a few of these gay-hating individuals:

Joe Biden (D-DE) (current US Vice President)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) (the “Lion of the Senate”)
John Kerry (D-MA) (current US Secretary of State)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (former mayor of San Francisco)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) (poorly closeted alleged lesbian)
Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Paul Simon (D-IL) (former presidential candidate)
Bill Bradley (D-NJ) (former presidential candidate)

Noted gay basher Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced the legislation in the House, where it passed on a voice vote. And the least gay-friendly human of all time, President William Jefferson Clinton (D), signed the bill into law.

So please, tell me again how Indiana’s 2015 legislation, taken almost verbatim from the federal government’s 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is a masterwork of gay hatred. If you choose to do so, please explain in detail the functional differences between the two pieces of legislation.

I will buy nothing coming from Indiana

[Anonymous Coward]

I will buy nothing coming from Indiana. I will sell nothing to Indiana. I do business with civilizated people. No barbarians.